Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, October 19, 2022

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 232

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

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 36 — Health Professions and Occupations Act

Hon. A. Dix

Bill M214 — Members’ Remuneration and Pensions (Salary Freeze) Amendment Act, 2022

T. Stone

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Earthquake preparedness and Great British Columbia

ShakeOut

J. Rice

Tom Masich

S. Bond

Contributions by residents of Vancouver–West End and Coal Harbour

S. Chandra Herbert

Tzu Chi Foundation farm in Richmond

T. Wat

Municipal elections results and diversity and inclusion

M. Elmore

Clive Tanner

A. Olsen

Ministerial Statements

Shaelyn Yang

Hon. M. Farnworth

E. Sturko

S. Furstenau

Oral Questions

Government action on repeat offenders and directive to Crown counsel

K. Falcon

Hon. M. Rankin

R. Merrifield

Government action on climate change and relationship with oil and gas industry lobbyists

S. Furstenau

Hon. M. Farnworth

Hon. G. Heyman

Government action on repeat offenders and directive to Crown counsel

M. de Jong

Hon. M. Rankin

Government action on repeat offenders and proposal for dedicated Crown counsel

M. Morris

Hon. M. Rankin

Attacks by repeat offenders and action on justice system reforms

P. Milobar

Hon. M. Farnworth

E. Sturko

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 35 — Income Tax Amendment Act, 2022

Hon. S. Robinson

N. Letnick

S. Furstenau

Hon. L. Beare

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 33 — Food Delivery Service Fee Act

Hon. R. Kahlon

T. Stone

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 33 — Food Delivery Service Fee Act

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 27 — Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2022

Hon. M. Rankin

M. de Jong

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 27 — Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2022

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 31 — B.C. Pavilion Corporation Act

Hon. N. Cullen

D. Ashton

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2022

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: J. Tegart.

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Ralston: I have the honour of introducing two guests in the gallery today.

First, Lorene Oikawa is a life­long resident of Surrey and a

fourth-generation British Columbian. Her family came from Japan in the 1800s

and has ties to Cumberland, Oikawa Island, Vancouver Asahi baseball and the

Kootenays.

She recently completed her maximum term as president of the National

Association of Japanese Canadians and her work on the negotiations committee

for the legacy initiatives announced by the government of British Columbia

early this year. Her work for the Japanese-Canadian community will continue

as past-president on the NAJC national executive board. She’s also a proud

public servant, who started working for the government of British Columbia

as a summer student and yesterday celebrated her 40th-year long-service

award.

I also want to introduce Heather Doi, who’s a litigation lawyer

working in Vancouver for the law firm Nathanson, Schachter and Thompson.

She’s Lorene’s cousin. She was here as an intern in 2011, the B.C.

legislative internship program. She spent a year as a researcher before

moving to Vancouver to pursue law school and a legal career.

[1:35 p.m.]

She certainly has fond memories of her time here in the Legislature

and in Victoria. She’s thrilled to be back here this week to support Lorene

and the other long-serving public servants who were honoured at Government

House last night.

If I might, Mr. Speaker, before I sit down, I’d like to also recognize

all the 2,600 Long Service Award recipients this year who are celebrating 25

to 50 years of service to the people of British Columbia. Particularly over

the last 2½ years, I applaud and I’m sure all members join with me in

recognizing the dedication and commitment of the public service employees of

British Columbia.

C. Oakes: Continuing this week with the post-secondary student lobby days, today

we had the opportunity to meet with an incredible group of individuals, the

AMS and GSS of UBC, talking about expanding the B.C. loan forgiveness

program, supporting the B.C. student housing loan program and introducing

racial representation with the Here2Talk service, a great document. If you

haven’t seen it already, please take time to review the document. Joining us

in the members’ gallery today are Erin Co, Pris­cilla Ng, Alexandra

Bailey and Violeta Fabiani.

Would the House please help make these student leaders

welcome.

Hon. M. Dean: It’s my pleasure to introduce Andrea Nwosu to chambers today. Andrea

is a field epidemiologist at the Public Health Agency of Canada and Island

Health, and she’s joined today by my constituency assistant, Nubwa

Wathanafa.

Will everybody here please help me make them very

welcome.

R. Merrifield: When I was eight years old, my dad told me that I could be the

president of the United States, the first-ever female United States

president. Now, he didn’t know I needed to be a naturalized citizen instead

of the Canadian that I was, living down in the U.S. But he taught me that I

could be anything as long as I could dream as big as I could see

it.

While my mom would claim a lot of credit for the hard work, my dad

deserves it all for the inspiration, and today is his birthday.

Would the

House please join me in celebrating Bruce Merrifield’s birthday.

M. Dykeman: Thank you, hon. Speaker, for not making me go last. I appreciate it.

Like many stories that are the best stories of my life, they start with a

bet, often one that I’ve lost.

Today we have a very special guest joining us on the floor, the Member

of the Provincial Parliament Dave Smith for Peterborough–Kawartha,

coincidentally connected with this jersey. The member came out to deliver

this jersey because our team, Langley Thunder, was competing against

Peterborough Lakers for the Mann Cup, which they happen to have won now four

times. I was fairly certain that we were going to win this time, and we will

next time. Next time I’ll be delivering the jersey to him in

Ontario.

Unfortunately, we didn’t win the Mann Cup this time. But that was

just…. I mean, we will next time, like I said. So here I am today, hon.

Speaker, because you were so kind to deliver me the permission to wear this

jersey in the House today while introducing my friend and colleague from the

other side of the country.

I was wondering if the House could please join me in making a Member

of the Provincial Parliament for Peterborough–Kawartha feel very welcome, as

well as congratulating both the Peterborough Lakers and the Langley Thunder

— go, Thunder, go — in a well-fought, really, really, really great

series.

A. Olsen: I rise this afternoon to make an introduction of three special guests.

As the son of an author and, as well, celebrating Small Business Week, I’m

happy to introduce Christine Tanner and her children, Rebecca and Peter

Tanner.

[1:40 p.m.]

Since moving from the Yukon nearly four decades ago, there’s one thing

that has stayed consistent with the Tanners: their love of books. Rebecca

and Peter have been involved in the book business since they were children,

beginning in their family bookstore in the Yukon, where their favourite

pastime was filling their pockets with penny candy. Peter helped run

different bookstores over the years, and Rebecca was a sales rep for Penguin

Books and sold to one of her toughest customers, her mother.

Christine is the real book aficionado in the family. Christine and her

late husband, Clive, opened Tanner’s Books — if you’ve been to Sidney, then

you’d be very familiar with Tanner’s Books — in 1982. She can be found a few

days a week at Beacon Books, where she continues to impress with her

expansive knowledge of the book industry. It’s my honour to have had lunch

with the Tanner family today.

Will

the House please make them feel very welcome.

H. Sandhu: Today is my sister-in-law Jasmeet’s birthday. Jasmeet came to our

family 20 years ago, and we’re so lucky to have her. My dad was so thrilled

the day Jasmeet entered into our family. He said: “I got my third

daughter.”

Jasmeet and I share a great bond and a great friendship. She’s

watching here. She’s visiting Canada, but watching from my home.

Would the

House please join me to wish Jasmeet a very happy birthday, and please give

her a warm welcome, virtually. Thank you so much.

Happy birthday, Jasmeet.

Love you.

A. Mercier: I would just like to stand and introduce a friend and supporter of

mine from my constituency, Loni Eliot, who’s here today visiting family, as

well as her daughter Sandra.

I just want to give a shout-out to Sally from the parliamentary

education office for giving us a wonderful tour of the Legislature

today.

G. Lore: I am very pleased to welcome to the House today 17 teachers from

across British Columbia, who are with us here at the House for the remainder

of the week to participate in the 23rd B.C. Teachers Institute on

Parliamentary Democracy, an intensive 4½ days of professional development on

democracy, politics and governance.

They are here to expand their knowledge of our parlia­mentary

system and the work that we do here to take back and teach their students

about democracy and civic responsibilities. Hopefully, they will not also be

bringing back lessons on classroom behaviour after question period, but I’ll

leave that to them.

We have been invited by Mr. Speaker to join them for lunch tomorrow in

the Ned DeBeck Lounge, and I hope others will join.

The teachers are joined

by three of their peers who are returning in the role of facilitators: Ms.

Michele Cumberland, Ms. Suzanne Uher and Mr. Charles McGill. I’d also like

to single out and introduce Mr. Brian Bradley from Vic High in my community.

I had the chance to be in his class last week, and I’m looking forward to

connecting again.

Will the House please make all these teachers

welcome.

A. Singh: It’s my pleasure to introduce to the House my good friend Dr. Farah

Shroff. Dr. Shroff is with the faculty of medicine and School of Public

Health from Harvard, a global health expert, also the faculty of medicine at

UBC. She’ll be leaving next week to go and advise the Ministry of Health in

Nigeria. I’m astounded and amazed at the quality of talent that we have here

in British Columbia. Would the House please welcome Dr. Shroff.

It’s also my wife’s uncle’s 60th birthday today, Laird David

MacDonald, who was the captain of the firefighters in Richmond, in my city.

Happy 60th birthday, Uncle David.

J. Brar: I would like to introduce four special guests today. I’m very pleased

to welcome a good friend of mine, Umendra Singh, who’s up in the gallery.

Umendra is the editor of the Asian Star newspaper. He’s also a

full-time public servant working with the Ministry of Social Development and

Poverty Reduction. He’s in Victoria to receive a Long Service Award after 25

years of service. He is also joined by his wife, Roselyn Singh.

[1:45 p.m.]

We also have with us Morten Bisgaard. Morten is also a civil servant

working with the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction. Last

night, Morten was awarded a Long Service Award after 25 years of service. He

is also joined by his wife, Lea Bisgaard.

I’ll ask House members to please

make them feel welcome.

D. Ashton: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce Father Obi. Father Obi

is the priest at St. Ann’s in Penticton.

On behalf of all of us here in the

Legislature, could we please make the good Father welcome.

B. Anderson: I was delighted when I looked up and I saw students from the Alliance

of B.C. Students. I got to meet with them yesterday, and they’re incredible

advocates. They’re talking about sexualized violence, non-repayable aid,

student housing and investing in post-secondary education. I’m so proud that

our government was the one to remove the interest on student loans.

You’re

incredible advocates. Keep doing the work that you’re doing, and thank you

so much for joining us here today.

K. Paddon: Perseverance pays off. I would like the House to join me in welcoming

Ronda Cushnie. She is my CA from Chilliwack-Kent. She works part-time in our

office, and she provides such amazing energy that balances us out and adds

to my ability to serve the people of Chilliwack-Kent so, so much. She’s here

today to see how we do it here. She’s joined by her husband, Mark.

Could the

House please make her welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 36 — HEALTH PROFESSIONS AND

OCCUPATIONS

ACT

Hon. A. Dix presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Professions and Occupations

Act.

Hon. A. Dix: I move that the Health Professions and Occupations Act, 2022 be

introduced and read a first time now.

Patient safety will be enhanced, oversight of health regulatory

colleges strengthened and governance of health professions improved with

this new legislation. It replaces the Health Professions Act and

modernizes the regulatory framework for health professions and

occupations in B.C.

Amendments propose the creation of a new oversight body, a new

complaints process, better information-sharing, mechanisms that

streamline designating and amalgamating professions, a new way to

regulate lower-risk health occupations, changes to better address sexual

misconduct and sexual abuse, and ways to help better address

discrimination for the delivery of more culturally safe health care. Our

health care system is changing. We are working to improve its efficiency

and effectiveness so that people can continue getting safe access to the

care they need.

We are updating how health professions are regulated, something

that hasn’t been done in three decades, and putting patient safety at

the forefront of this initiative — which is of paramount importance and

our number-one priority, together as a government and as a Legislature.

We will be continuing the work of amalgamating the regulatory colleges

from the current 15 — it was 24 when we started — to six.

As always, our government remains committed to

rec­onciliation with Indigenous people. The bill seeks to further

this important commitment in consultation with Indigenous peoples. This

could not have been done with­out the expertise and lived

experience of the Indigenous people who were consulted and who helped us

develop the bill that we are bringing forward today. We thank all those

involved in helping make this legislation the first of its kind to

meaningfully address discrimination and promote anti-discrimination in

health care.

I want to, finally, specifically thank members of the Legislature

— the member for Kelowna–Lake Country, the member for Cowichan — and the

thousands of people who participated in the process of developing this

legislation. This legislation is theirs as much as it is mine. I want to

thank them and their caucus for their involvement in this

process.

I move first reading.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is the first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. A. Dix: I move that Bill 36 be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the house after today.

Bill 36, Health Professions and Occupations Act, introduced, read a

first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading

at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1:50 p.m.]

BILL M214 — MEMBERS’ REMUNERATION

AND PENSIONS (SALARY

FREEZE)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

T. Stone presented a bill intituled Members’ Remuner­ation and

Pensions (Salary Freeze) Amendment Act, 2022.

T. Stone: I move that the bill intituled Members’ Remuneration and Pensions

(Salary Freeze) Amendment Act, 2022, of which notice has been given in

my name on the order paper be introduced and read a first time

now.

British Columbians expect their elected representatives to lead by

example. Each one of us in this House strives to represent our

constituents well by understanding their needs and circumstances and

taking action to help, and by demonstrating that we hear them and that

we care. This is where we find ourselves today, empathizing with the

many constituents who are finding it tough to make ends meet; who are

dealing with high inflation and rapidly rising costs for housing, fuel,

groceries, goods and services; who are struggling to pay their monthly

bills, keep a roof over their head and support their kids’ school

fundraisers and extracurricular activities.

When we think about how carefully our constituents are

scrutinizing grocery store purchases, watching their bank accounts and

often choosing to go without, we know that this is not the time to be

increasing MLA pay. This is why we’re proposing a freeze on MLA salaries

for 2023-24 by suspending the annual consumer price index adjustment on

April 1 of next year.

Accepting a pay increase of 7 to 10 percent would be completely

out of line with the expectations of millions of British Columbians and

many families who are struggling to put food on the table. It’s also

unacceptable when we consider the other urgent challenges that should be

prioritized above a pay raise for provincially elected

officials.

I will note the former B.C. Liberal government froze salaries from

2010 to 2013 for MLAs, against the backdrop of a recession and tough

economic circumstances that impacted many British Columbians. It was the

right thing to do then and should happen again today, considering the

urgent challenges people are facing. I do hope that all members in this

House will support this commonsense move to freeze MLA pay in favour of

other, more pressing priorities.

Mr. Speaker: The question is the first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

T. Stone: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M214, Members’ Remuneration and Pensions (Salary Freeze)

Amendment Act, 2022, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed

on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

EARTHQUAKE PREPAREDNESS AND

GREAT BRITISH COLUMBIA

SHAKEOUT

J. Rice: An average of 3,000 earthquakes are reported each year in this

beautiful province we call home. While the vast majority are too small

to be felt, earthquakes strong enough to cause structural damage may

happen, on average, once per decade.

It’s scary to think about, but we owe it to ourselves and our

loved ones to be prepared and understand what to do both during and

after a major earthquake. Knowledge is key to safety, and that’s why,

every year, we encourage British Columbians to imagine an earthquake

scenario during the Great British Columbia Shakeout.

Tomorrow at 10:20 a.m. people across B.C. in schools, workplaces

and public places, including MLAs at the B.C. Legislature, will once

again practice how to drop, cover and hold on.

When you feel the ground shake, immediately drop, cover and hold

on. These three simple steps have saved lives in earthquake zones around

the world. If you’re able, drop onto your hands and knees. This position

prevents you from falling but also allows you to move if necessary.

Cover your head and neck with your arm and take shelter under a sturdy

piece of furniture. If there is no shelter nearby, crawl to the nearest

interior corner or wall while continuing to protect your head and neck.

Hold onto your shelter, covering your head and neck until the shaking

stops. Count to 60 before getting up, giving unanchored objects time to

settle.

Tomorrow is an opportunity for British Columbians to make sure

they have earthquake preparedness kits on hand that can support them,

with emergency supplies for at least 72 hours. Kits should include

non-perishable food such as cans or granola bars, drinking water, a

first-aid kit, flashlights, extra batteries, a radio — as well as a

backup of all critical documents.

We all have a role to play in earthquake preparedness. I encourage

everyone to participate in the Great British Columbia

Shakeout.

TOM MASICH

S. Bond: Tom Masich was a role model and an icon in our community and

beyond. He was someone who cared deeply about Prince George and

investing in the lives of young people, from founding the track and

field club in 1973 to organizing the Prince George to Boston marathon,

now called the Labour Day Classic, to his role in founding the Prince

George Minor Basketball Association and bringing the 1998 Royal Canadian

Legion National Youth Track and Field Championships to Prince

George.

[1:55 p.m.]

Tom never tired of finding new ways to bring more athletic events

to our community and investing his time, passion and expertise in

working with talented young athletes. Massey Place Stadium, built in

1990 and home to track and field in Prince George, was renamed Masich

Place Stadium in honour of Tom in 2005 to reflect the impact he had on

the sport.

But Tom wasn’t just about track and field. He was one of the

founders of the Prince George Minor Basketball Association, and he was

the driving force behind it. There were other people who shared his

vision, and they all worked together to make it happen, and that

association is now almost 50 years old.

He will be remembered not just for his many contributions to

sport, earning him a spot as an early inductee into the Prince George

Sports Hall of Fame, but also for his dedication to service and his care

for those around him. Those who knew Tom well will tell you that he was

most proud of his family. He loved to laugh, and in fact, he was known

to be a prankster.

My thoughts and sincere condolences are with his wife of more than

60 years, his children, grandchildren and his great-grandchild during

this difficult time.

Tom Masich ran the race well and he crossed the finish line as he

passed away on September 18, 2022. But I know that Tom and the legacy of

a life well lived will not be forgotten.

CONTRIBUTIONS BY RESIDENTS OF

VANCOUVER–WEST END AND

COAL HARBOUR

S. Chandra Herbert: “Ring the bell that still can ring. Forget your perfect offering.

There is a crack in everything. That’s how the light gets in.” As the

late Leonard Cohen said so well, we must have hope in dark times, we

must have joy.

I want to acknowledge and celebrate some people in my community of

Vancouver–West End, Coal Harbour who crack through the barriers, who

bring the light, who make a difference.

I think of Gary Averbach. Gary, at the age of 79 this summer,

walked from Calgary all the way to Vancouver. He raised over $500,000 in

the memory of the late Bob Golden to fight cancer. An incredible man and

an incredible passion.

Bob Golden, of course, was well loved in our community as well.

Bob helped bring us an incredible playground at Lord Roberts Annex. I

think of parents at Lord Roberts Elementary, an elementary that they

want to have renamed West End Elementary, a change that I fully

support.

Ian Rowe has been the chair of the parent advisory council for

three years, leading the way to bring us together.

Lucy Maloney has been leading the school streets program, which

has made our schools safe. We used to have people rat-running around the

school to try and get to work. They closed that street during school

time, so when parents are dropping off, they can walk, ride their bike,

ride their scooter. And boy, has the number of people using active

transportation shot through the roof. It’s safer, and it’s brought our

community together, and it’s reduced climate change

emissions.

I think of Holly Paddon, who’s managed to make the lunch lab

program have a wonderful way to keep the dishes clean, which of course

wouldn’t have been possible without the great food provided by volunteer

chef TJ Conwi and the students who cook it.

There are so many good reasons to be inspired. Thank you for

ringing that bell, cracking through and providing the light.

TZU CHI FOUNDATION FARM IN RICHMOND

T. Wat: With rapid urbanization happening around us, especially in Metro

Vancouver, where I live, it can be quite easy to lose awareness of our

natural agricultural environment and the benefits it brings to all of

us. To address this and many other good initiatives, Tzu Chi Canada, a

Buddhist foundation, operates a nine-acre farm in Richmond, which I had

the pleasure of visiting last Friday.

In addition to having this gorgeous farm that’s open to all

British Columbians for free to promote awareness of the environment the

foundation teaches compassion, shares knowledge and gives back to the

community. At the farm, which I highly encourage each and every one of

our members to visit, you can find everything from corn to berries,

kiwis, cherries, tomatoes, pumpkins, strawberries, lettuce, peppers and

lots more that you can name.

[2:00 p.m.]

They are on a mission to also promote vegetarian meals and the

benefits of having a natural, plant-based diet. After the visit to the

farm, I don’t need a lot more convincing.

Additionally, the farm allows families from the local community to

plant their choice of produce in plots of farmland. What an innovative

way to give back to the community while enhancing community involvement.

Farmed produce never goes to waste, since those in need are supported by

proceeds from the farm, including the local food bank.

I’d like to thank the Tzu Chi Canada Foundation, their selfless

volunteers and all community members for their hard work and dedication

to help make this farm a reality.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS RESULTS AND

DIVERSITY AND

INCLUSION

M. Elmore: The recent 2022 municipal elections saw many firsts.

Mikelle Sasakamoose made history on Saturday, October 15 when she

won a seat on the school board, becoming the first Indigenous person

ever elected to political office in Burnaby. She ran with the Burnaby

Citizens Association and said her family’s history with schools,

including close relatives who spent time at residential schools in

Saskatch­ewan and Kamloops, was an important part of her

deci­sion to run for political office.

Maita Santiago also ran with the Burnaby Citizens Association and

made history, being elected as the first councillor of Filipino

heritage. Maita is a respected community leader, advocate for migrants

and workers’ rights and a small business owner.

Lailani Tumaneng was elected to the North Vancouver school board.

She’s a registered nurse and the first elected official of Filipino

heritage on the North Shore.

In the city of Vancouver, the newly elected mayor, Ken Sim, made

history as the first mayor of Chinese heritage.

Gregg Apolonjo was elected to Dawson Creek city council, the first

councillor of Filipino heritage.

Chilliwack elected the first transgender man to school

board.

Congratulations, Teri Westerby.

A shout-out to my friend Lina Vargas, who ran an amazing campaign

and topped the polls for independent council candidates in

Vancouver.

Edwin Empinado was re-elected to Kitimat council.

Rod Belleza will serve another term on the Richmond school

board.

Lisa Park was re-elected to her third term on the Coquitlam school

board.

A nod to Ramon Bandong, who ran for council with the member for

Surrey-Panorama in Surrey; Narima Dela Cruz, independent council

candidate in Surrey; and Aida Canonigo and Ernie Caranto, who both ran

as independent candidates for the Surrey school board.

Across B.C., these candidates and others took on the fight against

racism, discrimination, bigotry and people promoting hate.

Congratulations to them and all candi­dates who stand up and work

to make British Columbia a province respectful and inclusive for

everyone.

CLIVE TANNER

A. Olsen: Today I stand to celebrate the life of a community leader and

former Member of this Legislative Assembly.

It’s with sadness that I announce, in this chamber, the passing of

Clive Tanner in his home on September 9, 2022. If you’ve been to Sidney,

then you have likely seen the bookstore that still carries his name

today. Tanner’s is synonymous with Sidney, and its reputation as a book

town is a result of Clive and Christine’s effort to make their community

more than just a little industrial town next to an airport.

Born in London, England in 1934, Clive came to Can­ada as a

boy with his mother and siblings during the Second World War. He

returned to his birth country, serv­ing in the Royal Marines in

Malta and Egypt. But Canada soon became home — first Toronto and

Montreal, then Ottawa, where he met Christine, his wife of 61 years.

Christine and Clive had four children: Marc, Peter, Rebecca and

Gisele.

Clive worked on the railroad and sold magazine subscriptions. As

Christine described him, he was a natural businessman and adventurous.

The Tanner family moved to the Yukon, where they owned Mac’s Fireweed

Books newsstand and art gallery and where Clive took his community

leadership to the world of politics.

[2:05 p.m.]

In the 1970s, Clive was elected to the Yukon Ter­ritorial

Council, serving as the Minister of Health. After settling in Sidney in

the 1980s, Clive, a lifelong Liberal, served as the MLA for Saanich

North and the Islands from 1991 to 1996.

Thank you, Clive. You’ll be missed in our community. It is with

deep gratitude that I acknowledge the contribution you and Christine

have made to life and business on the Saanich Peninsula.

HÍSW̱ḴE

SIÁM .

Ministerial Statements

SHAELYN YANG

Hon. M. Farnworth: I rise today, deeply saddened, to honour Burnaby RCMP constable

Shaelyn Yang. She died yesterday in the line of duty.

Our thoughts are with Constable Yang’s Burnaby RCMP colleagues and

with her family and friends. On behalf of the government of British

Columbia and on behalf of all British Columbians, I send them my deepest

condolences for this heartbreaking loss.

Constable Yang worked with Burnaby RCMP’s police mental health and

homeless outreach team. She joined the RCMP to help people, the very

best of reasons. She had a loving family, and she was known for her

compassion for the vulnerable in the community that she

served.

The death of an officer in the line of duty is a stark reminder of

the dangers that police face to keep us safe. Our officers, such as

Constable Yang, go to incredible lengths to fulfil their oath to protect

our communities. They put their lives on the line every day, and we are

profoundly grateful for their bravery and dedication. They are willing

to risk their own lives so the rest of us can live ours in safety. We

thank these officers for their dedication to duty and their

professionalism even as they mourn the loss we all feel so

deeply.

I want to take a moment to acknowledge all first responders,

hospital staff, Burnaby bylaw officers and neighbouring police agencies

who also responded in this terrible situation, and those who will be

continuing to support the Burnaby RCMP detachment in their operations in

the coming days, as the duty to police never ends.

This is a horrific tragedy. Constable Yang’s colleagues and loved

ones have received the most traumatic news possible. As they mourn, no

words can ease their pain.

However, I hope they take some comfort in knowing that she will be

remembered forever as a hero for her service and sacrifice, which our

province will never, ever forget.

E. Sturko: It’s with a profound sadness that I rise to acknowledge the life

and tragic death of Const. Shaelyn Yang.

On behalf of the official opposition, I express my deepest

condolences to her family, her friends, her fellow police officers and

all of those who held her dear.

We learned yesterday that Constable Yang lost her life while

serving her community as part of the Burnaby RCMP police mental health

outreach team, making connections with some of the most vulnerable

people in the community. Her duties not only included responding to

calls for service, but she also built relationships with people on the

street. She provided outreach, and she helped connect people with health

care, addictions services and housing.

Right now in our province, in the face of the drug toxicity crisis

and with many people unhoused and living on the street with mental

health issues, this is some of the most important work being done. This

is the work that Constable Yang performed every day in her community.

This speaks to the type of woman she was, her character and her sincere

compassion for others.

[2:10 p.m.]

Police officers courageously serve across our province each day.

Their duty is fraught with risk and danger, and they’ve earned the title

of being called heroic, but while we recognize that Constable Yang was a

hero in life, we must never forget that she was a person. She had a

husband, friends, dreams, hopes and love, beyond her service for the

community. At only 31 years old, she had a lot more to give.

When we acknowledge that she was a regular woman who made an

extraordinary sacrifice, we truly appreciate the depth of her commitment

to making our province a better place. I know that when a police officer

decides to don their uniform and take on the responsibility of

protecting the public, they do not bear this responsibility alone. Their

families also carry the weight of that decision. The weight of that

decision is often measured in fear — fear that their loved one will not

come home.

Today every police officer in British Columbia, serving and

retired, stands shoulder to shoulder with the family of Constable Yang

in bearing the weight of their grief. I hope that we can ease some of

the burdens that they surely feel with the loss of their wife, daughter

and friend. Const. Shaelyn Yang paid the ultimate sacrifice in service

to our province, and her loss has brought tremendous grief and pain to

her family, to her police family, to us in this House and to her fellow

British Columbians.

It is our sincere hope that the continued outpouring of love and

support brings solace to those who are grieving. We thank Constable Yang

for her service. We will continue to remember her, not only today but as

we move forward with our duty, in this House, to address public

safety.

S. Furstenau: I thank the Minister of Public Safety and the member for Surrey

South for their powerful and profound words. On behalf of the Green

caucus, I stand today to honour the life of Shaelyn Yang, a member of

the B.C. RCMP who died yesterday in the line of duty, and we extend our

condolences to her family, her loved ones and the people she worked

alongside.

She was a young woman, a wife, a daughter, a sister and a

constable, and she has been taken from her loved ones forever. We speak

to honour Shaelyn’s life and her service.

It is reported that she was loving, kind and compassionate. She

worked with the most vulnerable, as part of the mental health and

homelessness outreach team, with the Burnaby RCMP division. Although all

of the words spoken today won’t bring her back, I hope that these

statements we have heard, in this House and from so many others, reflect

the kindness and compassion that she is remembered for.

In her memory, her work must be remembered and continued. Shaelyn

Yang’s death is an immeasurable tragedy. I call on all of us to reflect

her kindness, her compassion and her love, and I call on us to respond

with respect to the loss of this young woman, who died helping

others.

Mr. Speaker: Members, I ask that we observe a moment of silence.

[2:15 p.m.]

[The House observed a moment of silence.]

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

REPEAT OFFENDERS AND

DIRECTIVE TO CROWN COUNSEL

K. Falcon: Unfortunately, the crisis on our streets is going from bad to

worse.

Mohammed Majidpour is a violent prolific offender, with over 30

convictions ranging from assault, assault with a weapon and uttering

threats. He is accused of viciously attacking a 19-year-old Asian woman,

yelling racial slurs and hitting her over the head with a steel pipe.

Despite the best efforts of police, this prolific violent offender was

released back onto the streets on Sunday, and now we’ve learned that it

took only two hours and 18 minutes for him to again victimize the

community and commit yet another crime.

Yesterday, when canvassing these issues around street crime, the

Attorney General threw his hands in the air and said that being a victim

of crime is a fact of life. I would argue that it’s that exact attitude

that the NDP have that is both wrong and unacceptable.

My question to the Attorney General. For over six months, we have

been suggesting specific actions this NDP government can take, and

British Columbians can’t wait any longer. Will he issue a directive to

the Crown prosecutors that puts the rights of the public to feel safe in

their communities ahead of a criminal’s right to reoffend?

Hon. M. Rankin: These acts of violence the hon. Leader of the Opposition has

referred to are totally unacceptable. People who commit them must face

consequences.

As I’ve said previously this week, we have been examining the

issue of directives and have also examined the proposal specifically

given to us by the hon. member for Abbotsford West. I have received,

however, legal advice that the member’s proposal would be inconsistent

with the Criminal Code of Canada. That said, we continue to examine

every tool in the toolkit.

We cannot change the criminal law of Canada in this place with a

provincial directive, and that is why we have secured a national

commitment to engage on concrete proposals around bail reform with our

colleagues across the country. We will continue to strengthen

enforcement and address the root causes of crime to end this cycle of

reoffending.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

K. Falcon: The problem is that we hear from Crown prosecutors too, and we

also hear from defence lawyers, and to a person, they all agree that,

actually, this government could do lots to address the current

challenges.

Just last year Mr. Majidpour was recorded on video stalking a

young woman through Chinatown for over half an hour, but harassment

charges were stayed, in a joint submission between Crown and his lawyer.

Instead, he pleaded guilty to unrelated incidents of assault with a

weapon, uttering threats and break and enters. Yet just one day later,

he was back on the street and on probation, which he promptly violated

multiple times. This week, after viciously attacking that young woman

with a steel pipe, he walked free once again, and only two hours and 18

minutes later, he’s committing yet more crimes in the

community.

My question — almost a plea — to the NDP government. This is not

the time for more reviewing, not the time for more meetings, to have

more meetings. It is inaction. Those are not acceptable answers to a

public that is pleading for this government to do something. We have

laid out — the opposition has laid out — concrete

suggestions.

We’re simply asking: will the Attorney General at long last act on

them, and if not, why not?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I’m not able to comment on the specifics of the case to which the

member responds. I can say…. We are seized with this issue, as are our

colleagues across the country.

As I’ve said in this place…. This issue is, of course, a national

issue in scope. It is rooted in the bail reform legislation. We are

working with our federal colleagues, at an urgent level, to address

that.

Our goal is to show action on the streets, to use, as I said

earlier, every tool in our toolkit to make constructive change. We

recognize that frustration. The member oppo­site has certainly

articulated the same frustration that we feel. We need to take action.

We’re going to do that. We are doing that.

R. Merrifield: It’s hard to believe that this minister would rather talk than

take action and is still trying to blame others instead of taking

responsibility. This NDP government is failing to keep violent prolific

offenders in custody.

Here’s another example. Justin Collins has over 421 police files,

with 64 charges against him in six years. This is a man that the Kelowna

RCMP felt compelled to warn the public about after he was released back

into our community. A review of the court transcripts confirms that, in

the weeks leading up to that rare public warning, the Crown prosecutor,

not the judge, chose to stay charges and waive conditions to avoid

“setting Mr. Collins up for a breach.”

This is where we are — so afraid that someone will breach their

bail conditions that they won’t actually be charged.

Will the Attorney General do his job and immediately direct

prosecutors to seek custody for violent prolific offenders who are a

risk to our communities?

Hon. M. Rankin: I share the frustration of the hon. member. I’m, of course, aware

of the situation specifically that she refers to and have spoken with

members of the municipal government in Kelowna about that particular

case.

Many of the issues, as the member is well aware, in­volve

mental health and drug issues that we need to address. We have taken,

and will continue to take, action to address those.

We are strengthening, for example, enforcement through the

prolific offender management program. We think that has merit. Police

with whom I’ve spoken think it would have merit and would address the

problem. It would provide individualized care for those small number of

people that are plaguing many of our communities across our

province.

We also believe the new Peer Assisted Care Teams, with a mental

health civil-led response, will help make a difference, people who know

about the issues I just referred to. They can provide care. We’re doing

that in Victoria, we’re doing that in New West, and we’re rolling out a

similar program on the North Shore.

Complex care housing is another matter that I know will make a

difference. We are committed to at least 500 people being housed in

those facilities.

Finally, I think another practical measure that we’re taking is to

deal with those people who, once leaving correctional facilities, often

fall back on to the streets. We’re trying to make sure that, for at

least a 90-day period, in every single one of those correctional

facilities in our province, there will be that wraparound care to make

sure that people don’t reoffend.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Kelowna-Mission, supplemental.

R. Merrifield: This minister wants to explain away the increase in violent crime

as a societal failure. But it is this NDP government that’s done nothing

to address those failures over the last five years. They’ve allowed

crime to get worse. In fact, the crime on our streets is directly

related to the policy decisions of this NDP government five and six

years ago and now the inaction of this NDP government and the failed

policies of these Attorneys General.

What is confirmed in court transcripts for Mr. Collins is what is

happening again and again under the former Attorney General’s

catch-and-release justice system.

[2:25 p.m.]

This is what the Kelowna police had to say: “Justin Collins has

demonstrated no respect for the courts or justice system, and he

blatantly disregards the conditions imposed.” Actually, they go on to

say that Collins “has no regard for the safety and well-being of

others.”

This should never be accepted as just a fact of life in this

province. Will the Attorney General take action and direct Crown counsel

prosecutors to keep dangerous offenders in custody, yes or

no?

Hon. M. Rankin: I thank the hon. member for her question. I’ve said in this place,

and I will say it again, that that is a matter that has been actively

under review for some time, and it’s part of the tools in the toolkit to

which I referred. But 25 of the recommendations that were made by the

LePard-Butler report are still under consideration. Some of them are in

the very same place or address some of the same issues that the member

was referring to.

We accept that reforms are needed in some areas. I’ve indicated

some of the very aggressive programs that we are implementing and will

continue to do so.

On the release part of this issue, though, there are federal laws

and charter rights to bail that must be acknowledged, and the Crown

Counsel are subject to those laws, as Crown counsel are in every part of

this province. If those laws are to be changed, they will be changed by

the federal government, and they will be changed with the active

instigation of our province. Our Minister of Public Safety and this

Attorney General will continue to push for those reforms.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

AND RELATIONSHIP

WITH

OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY LOBBYISTS

S. Furstenau: This is the hottest October on record. It’s been almost three

months since it rained. The rainforest is on fire. Cedar trees are

dying. In Heiltsuk territory, tens of thousands of salmon died before

they could spawn.

This government has said they care about climate change, but their

actions show otherwise. They continue to approve old-growth logging.

They have failed to meet the requirements of their own climate

accountability act, and they have subsidized LNG Canada’s new fossil

fuel infrastructure. But it’s not just what the public sees that should

concern all of us. It’s what’s happening behind closed doors that’s also

alarming.

In a climate emergency, this government meets with oil and gas

lobbyists sometimes more than 80 times per month. This government has

chosen to expand fossil fuel infrastructure and use public funds to

massively subsidize LNG Canada, more subsidies than even the B.C.

Liberals were willing to offer. Their actions do not match their

words.

To the Premier, he may not be able to make it rain, but he can

fulfil his promises to the public and his duty to protect public

interests over private interests. We are in a climate emergency. Will

the Premier and his government commit to limiting the number of meetings

they have with oil and gas lobbyists?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for her question. As the member knows, in this

House, because she sat in the previous parliament, we worked very hard

on a climate action plan. That climate action plan is in place. Our

government takes its commitments under that extremely seriously, in

terms of our oil and gas and how they fit into that and the work that’s

being done on those areas.

It’s cross-ministry work to ensure that we are working to ensure

that our climate action plan that we have in this province is one that

works for the people of this province and meets our goals. We will

continue to do that.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Third Party, supplemental.

S. Furstenau: I did a quick review before coming in here. The lobbyists

registry, which exists because of the agreement between our caucus and

the government in the previous parliament, now exists, and we can see

the lobbying activities. Over 1,100 times oil and gas lobbyists met with

this government in one year.

It’s not just that this NDP government meets with oil and gas

lobbyists. Oil and gas lobbyists are embedded right into their party

infrastructure. They aren’t just acquaintances. They aren’t just

friends. They’re family.

This government’s regular political pundit, Moe Sihota, is a

lobbyist for Woodfibre LNG. The Minister of Health’s former chief of

staff and the Minister of Jobs’ former campaign manager, Stephen Howard,

is a fossil fuel lobbyist. Their former provincial director, Michael

Gardiner, lobbies for Tourmaline Oil Corp. and Pembina Pipeline Corp. on

behalf of Strategies 360. The list goes on.

[2:30 p.m.]

The governing party’s chief election officer, the very individual

recommending the disqualification of a climate activist from their

leadership race, is herself a former fossil fuel lobbyist. Tell me again

that this government is not beholden to the corporate interests of

fossil fuels, because this seems like a heck of a lot of

connections.

My question is to the Premier. How can the public trust that this

government is acting in the public interest when oil and gas lobbyists

are so deeply embedded in their own party infrastructure?

Hon. G. Heyman: I simply reject the member’s premise, although I thank her for the

question. I think it’s important to point out that we meet with people

from many perspectives who are classified as lobbyists.

Let me talk about it from the number of people I meet with. I meet

with representatives of environmental organizations who want to protect

particular areas of land or conserve particular areas of land, some of

which we entertain and some of which we don’t. I meet with people who

want to talk about our climate plan and how effective it is. I also meet

with representatives either from or on behalf of the oil and gas

industry.

Let me tell the member what we talk about, and then let me ask the

member and the public whether they would rather I not have these

conversations. Among the conversations I have with them are meetings to

seek to clarify how they can meet the climate objectives we’ve laid out

in policy, what the sectoral targets for oil and gas mean, how we can

work with them to reduce methane emissions, to help meet the targets. I

also talk to them about their plans to transition to different forms of

clean, non-carbon energy, like hydrogen.

I would ask the member: would the member, on be­half of

British Columbians, rather that we not talk to an existing industry in

British Columbia — employing many people and supplying, for now, energy

that people use — about how they decarbonize as quickly as possible and

transition to clean energy? This is where the world is going.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

REPEAT OFFENDERS AND

DIRECTIVE TO CROWN COUNSEL

M. de Jong: To the Attorney General, I listened very carefully a few moments

ago when he responded to a question from my colleague about the

rationale for not proceeding with the draft directive the government

received six months ago. It did have the benefit of reviewing that draft

document almost six months ago, when it was first tabled in this

assembly.

He will know that the draft directive makes specific reference to

incorporating the applicable provisions of the Criminal Code. I’m

curious to know two things. Why did it take six months for the Attorney

General and the government to disclose the answer he has just provided

today — six months of “we’re studying; we’re considering, we’re

reviewing”?

The obligations in the Criminal Code and the requirements of the

Criminal Code set out the considerations that the court must consider in

determining whether or not someone is to be released. What we are

asking, what the public is asking — and what the directive sets out — is

a basis upon which prosecutors will ask the court for, and recommend to

the court, the detention of chronic, prolific, dangerous

offenders.

Why has it taken six months for that answer, and how does the

Attorney reconcile that answer with a draft directive that specifically

incorporates the provisions of the Criminal Code that he says are an

impediment to moving ahead?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I thank the member for the question. The Criminal Code provisions,

as the member points out, involve the court’s considerations of certain

criteria that are set out in the Criminal Code.

To direct a Crown counsel to do something that is inconsistent

with those criteria — even in the context of repeat

offenders…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members. Members.

Hon. M. Rankin: …I am advised, by competent criminal law counsel — is simply not

acceptable and would be in contradiction to the specific sections of the

Criminal Code.

That does not mean that a directive isn’t possible. I’ve said, and

I’ll say it again, it’s something that we have been examining and will

continue to examine. But I cannot and will not direct Crown counsel to

do something that is contrary to the Charter and contrary to the

Criminal Code. That is the advice that I have received.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

REPEAT OFFENDERS AND PROPOSAL

FOR DEDICATED CROWN COUNSEL

M. Morris: Under the former Attorney General’s catch-and-release system,

prolific offenders regularly breach probation and fail to comply with

conditions, like not possessing weapons, yet they’re not charged. They

are arrested and released multiple times.

Each time they can fail to show up in court, without any

consequences whatsoever. This is one of the reasons that, six months

ago, I called for a dedicated Crown counsel to focus on violent prolific

offenders.

The Attorney General failed to answer my question yesterday. Why

hasn’t the NDP taken immediate action and assigned a dedicated Crown

counsel to focus on vio­lent offenders and put public safety ahead

of a criminal’s right to reoffend?

Hon. M. Rankin: I thank the member for Prince George–​Mackenzie for that

question. In fact, his suggestion was incorporated into the

LePard-Butler recommendations — in other words, for a dedicated Crown

counsel. I can tell you that that is under active

consideration.

ATTACKS BY REPEAT OFFENDERS AND

ACTION ON JUSTICE

SYSTEM REFORMS

P. Milobar: Well, for six months now, we’ve been calling on this government to

take action to try to stop the harm that the former Attorney General’s

catch-and-release system has been creating in our communities. For six

months, this government has refused to take any actions that are

directly under the purview of the provincial government. Instead, they

keep blaming others.

They could be reviewing and changing charge-assessment and

full-disclosure policies. They could implement more community courts

across the province. Those began under the B.C. Liberals, but they could

be expanding them. They could give the forensics division the resources

they need to properly and quickly process evidence to address the delays

that can take up to 18 months for something to advance. Instead of

taking action, this Attorney General shrugs his shoulders and calls

violent random attacks on our streets a fact of life.

Six months, Mr. Speaker. There have been almost 1,000 people

attacked in Vancouver alone, in that six-month time, by violent prolific

offenders. When is this going to stop?

When is this delay going to stop, the blame game going to stop and

this Attorney General take the proper steps to protect our communities

instead of the criminals?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I want to lay out for

the member that this side of the House, this government, has been taking

action on a number of fronts when it comes to community safety, on the

enforcement side, on the prevention side and on the upstream side — as

the new mayor-elect of Vancouver talked about, the upstream things that

need to be dealt with.

The member mentioned forensics. As I mentioned yesterday, we put

in place the first forensic firearms lab in this province to ensure that

police have the ability to deal with weapons, to be able to make more

timely investigations as opposed to having to send weapons back east to

Ottawa.

At the same time, we’ve also worked very closely with local

governments who said they were having a problem. They asked us to look

into their concerns, to come back with the statistics. As a province, we

did that and agreed to do that work in a collaborative basis. That

resulted, I know, in the LePard-Butler report, with the 28

recommendations in there.

[2:40 p.m.]

Three of those recommendations are being actively

im­plemented. The other 25 — many align with work that’s already

underway in Mental Health and Addictions, in Health and in the Attorney

General’s ministry. All of those are concrete actions. This is this is

not just flick a switch and you’ll solve the problem. There’s a whole

range of issues that have to be dealt with.

As the Attorney General has laid out, the Criminal Code is a

critical part of that. When changes were made that have unintended

consequences, they have an impact on our communities. We recognize that,

as do other provinces that have been working to get those changes. I

understand the opposition when they say: “Oh, it’s just a meeting.” No,

it’s not just a meeting. It’s about the provinces and the federal

government getting together, going that there needs to be urgent action

taken.

We are going to continue to push for that at the federal level, at

the work at the provincial level and at the local level, because I know

every single member in this House takes public safety and the safety of

the people of this province seriously. All of us want to ensure that

takes place. This government is committed to doing.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Kamloops–North Thompson, supplemental.

P. Milobar: Well, the problem with the Solicitor General’s answer there was

that there’s also the machete attacks. There are also the hammer attacks

that people are experiencing on a regular basis. There are all the other

types of forensics that are needed to advance. The electronics forensics

that are backlogged for 18 months to try to get evidence out of a phone.

It’s not just about the guns.

The Solicitor General referenced gangs. We have had shootings upon

shootings upon shootings and burned vehicles on a regular basis, on the

same day as violent, prolific offenders. The reality is this government

has had months and months and months to take action. They haven’t. We’re

simply asking when they will prioritize victim’s rights over those of

the criminals and actually enact some of these actions we’ve asked for

over the last six months.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, I will, in response to the member’s questions, point out

additional measures that have been taken by this government. He talks

about the gang shootings that have taken place. That’s right. There have

been, just as they were when the Leader of the Opposition sat on this

side of the House.

But since our time in government, we put in place the witness

security program first, a made-in-B.C. program that has aided in the

prosecution of those individuals who engage in those kinds of crimes.

They have had considerable success in getting those people off the

streets. There have been a number of high-profile cases this year that

have resulted in some significant arrests.

The member raises the issue around weapons. Again, we want to see

changes there, so that those kinds of individuals who engage in those

heinous crimes do go behind bars. Part of the solution to that, again,

is making some changes that we’ve worked with our provincial

counterparts on in the Halifax meeting and brought to the attention of

the federal government.

I’ll give two examples, because one they mentioned yesterday: the

issue of a bear spray attack that took place. We want to get that to be

a restricted weapon. Manitoba wants to get that to be restricted weapon.

The feds now understand that. I’d like to see, and we’d like to see,

reverse onus when it comes to bail, for example, on those individuals

who use weapons. There is, right now, for firearms, but there should be

for knives There should be for those who engage with a weapon to cause

bodily harm to people.

We have put in place a number of initiatives. We are working on

additional initiatives, but it’s going to take all of us — the federal

government, the provincial government and local government — to be able

to do all of the things that need to be done.

E. Sturko: Unfortunately, the hon. member still seems focused on things which

are in federal jurisdiction. In the meantime, there are many, many

options that we’ve laid out that could be immediately taken on to

address the issues that we’re facing here in British Columbia. This

crisis is going from bad to worse, and there are more victims every

single day.

[2:45 p.m.]

The young man in Yaletown stabbed to death by a random stranger.

The woman followed into her apartment by a stranger and assaulted. The

nearly fatal stabbing of a food delivery worker. Violent stranger

attacks like this should never be accepted as a fact of life.

There are many tools that the provincial government has, but

they’re choosing not to use them: more resources for Crown prosecutors

and for forensics, dedicated Crown counsel for prolific offenders, a

directive to prosecutors to seek custody for violent prolific offenders.

We can’t afford any more talk and inaction that allows violent prolific

offenders to be released to victimize someone else at any time, let

alone two hours and 18 minutes later.

How many more people have to be assaulted, injured or even die

before this government takes action?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question, but I want to correct

something that the member said.

Nobody — nobody on this side of the House or on that side of the

House thinks for one moment that violent crime, random attacks on

anybody, is a fact of life. It is something that is completely

unacceptable. What we recognize on this side of the House is that there

are a lot of complex issues. I am not pointing and saying that this is

at the federal government’s doorstep. What I am saying is that all three

levels of government have a role to play and have a responsibility of

areas under their jurisdiction.

In the province, we are doing what we can in terms of areas we

have control over, and we’ll continue to do that. We’ll continue to look

at and work on implementing good ideas. At the local level, communities

have programs in place.

But I will repeat once again that the Criminal Code of Canada is

the jurisdiction of the federal government. We know that, and we are

committed and want to get things changed. That’s what we’re working to

do. As I’ve said earlier, at the provincial level, whether it’s concrete

investments in forensics, in intelligence, in terms of combating crime —

which police themselves specifically asked for — we have put those

investments and those programs in place.

We have also worked with local governments and local communities

to deal with what’s happening in their specific communities on

prevention programs that reflect the makeup of those communities. That’s

the approach that we are going to take. We know the importance of mental

health. That was recognized by the all-party committee in their

unanimous report.

All of that work is underway and will continue to be underway to

ensure that we keep our communities and the citizens of our province as

safe as we possibly can.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 35, Income Tax Amendment Act,

[2:50 p.m.]

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 35 — INCOME TAX

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that Bill 35 be read a second time now.

These amendments to the Income Tax Act will pro­vide a

temporary increase to the renamed B.C. family benefit. B.C. family

benefit payments will be increased for the first three months of 2023 to

help low- and moderate-income families make ends meet. Currently a

family with one child would receive up to $1,600 throughout the year

through the B.C. family benefit. A family with two children can receive

up to $2,600 annually through this benefit. These benefits are paid

automatically every month, and eligible families will receive the

benefit without any need to apply.

With this enhanced benefit, the maximum amount of the benefit is

increased by $58 per child, per month from January through March of

2023. Families with one child will be able to receive up to an

additional $175. A family with two children can receive up to an extra

$350, and 75 percent of B.C. families will receive full or partial

benefits. For moderate-income families — those earning less than around

$82,000 per year — the minimum annual benefit they can receive is

increased by $50 per child, per month or an additional $150 per child

over the three months.

The bill also renames the credit from the child opportunity

benefit to the B.C. family benefit. This new name better reflects who

benefits from the tax credit and will ensure people are able to

recognize it when they receive it.

In our development of this legislation, we remain committed, under

the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, to consult and

cooperate with Indigenous peoples. Our assessment of this proposed

legislation is that it does not uniquely affect the Indigenous rights

described in the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous

peoples.

We know global inflation is making life more expensive around the

world. B.C. families have seen costs go up, from the grocery store to

the gas pump. Household budgets are indeed being stretched. People in

B.C. need a break, and we are focused on helping families make ends

meet. This enhanced credit is one of a series of new supports to help

people with the current cost-of-living challenges.

These cost-of-living measures that we’re taking — the ones to help

B.C. families — also include funding to help parents and students make

ends meet as they head back to school, capping the maximum allowable

rent increase amount for 2023 at 2 percent, and a one-time enhancement

to the climate action tax credit that low- and moderate-income people

already received this month. Together, these measures are significant,

and they’re targeted. It is through measures like this that we are able

to provide immediate support to those who need it most.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for introducing the legislation — Bill

35. The B.C. family benefit provides a tax-free monthly payment to

families with children under the age of 18. Formerly known as the child

opportunity benefit, the tax credit was launched in 2020, to the best of

my records, to help combat child poverty and help low- and

moderate-income parents provide opportunities for their

children.

We believe that about 75 percent of the families will receive the

B.C. family tax credit, will receive the enhanced payments, through to

March of 2023 and also that a single parent, as the minister has said,

with one child can receive up to an additional $58 per month from

January to March, or a total of $175 — not $175 per month but a total of

$175. Also, the increase will provide a family of four, as an example,

up to an additional $116 a month from January until March or a total of

$350 for a family of four. The estimated cost of delivering this

temporary increase is $100 million.

[2:55 p.m.]

Now, as we’ve heard today in the news, the federal Finance

Minister has reindicated that the inflation numbers for the country and,

in particular, locally, here in B.C…. Our September inflation numbers

have jumped to about 7.7 percent, which is higher than what the federal

Finance Minister had indicated for the country.

While this is a start to address the challenges with inflation, it

is our position, as the official opposition, that we could do more, that

the government could temporarily suspend gas taxes, which was shown to

reduce the price at the pump in Alberta. The government can do more to

help families in need by lifting the PST on used cars under $20,000

instead of increasing used-car taxes like they did in the budget of

2022. They could also do more by stopping limiting and taxing the import

of lower-cost gas from Alberta, amongst other initiatives.

In

summary, the bill will support some people, and we will likely

support the bill through second reading. Of course, we will have many

questions for the minister during committee stage, and we will be

looking for the practical aspects of this bill and how the government

will ensure that this funding gets to the people who need it the

most.

S. Furstenau: I rise to speak to the Income Tax Amendment Act today. I

appreciate the comments from both the minister and the member for

Kelowna–Lake Country.

This legislation provides a temporary increase to the renamed B.C.

family benefit. The increase will be available from January to March

2023 and will provide enhanced payments to about 75 percent of families

with children in B.C. We will be supporting this legislation.

British Columbians are facing desperate times, and the public is

struggling. Housing is increasingly and consis­tently

unattainable. Groceries are expen­sive. Gas is expensive. Child

care is expensive. Everything is more and more expensive, and people are

not making enough money to make ends meet. This is, of course, having

disproportionate impacts for vulnerable and marginalized communities —

those who are disabled, people of colour, single parents, poor

people.

Last month this government announced an afford­ability

package that includes this temporary increase to the B.C. family

benefit. The problem is that it’s a band-aid on a bullet hole. It’s

short term, half-measure. Studies, including the B.C. Basic Income Panel

commissioned under the confidence and supply agreement, emphasized that

consis­tent, ongoing, reliable social services and supports are

more impactful than temporary measures. That’s because consistency

allows households to plan. It’s a lot easier to make and maintain a

household budget when you can rely on the money coming in.

I’m doubtful that affordability issues will magically disappear at

the end of March 2023. With the windfall profits being reaped by oil and

gas companies, the new billionaires minted through the pandemic, the

profits of grocery store chains, the housing crisis, the system is not

changing. If anything, it’s gotten worse.

I want this government to take a hard look and re-evaluate their

decisions. I want them to look at the systemic changes that need to

occur, not just a small, temporary handout that will leave British

Columbians stranded come April.

B.C. has legislated targets to reduce poverty. By 2024, two short

years away, this government, according to its own law, is supposed to

have reduced the overall poverty rate by at least 25 percent and the

child poverty rate by at least 50 percent. I’d really like to see us

meet those targets, and I know the public would too. But I can’t say

that I am confident, because when it comes to other accountability

legislation, the climate accountability act, the government is actively

breaking their own law and not on track to meet their

targets.

If this government were serious about meeting its legislative

poverty reduction targets, it would have brought in consistent, ongoing,

permanent changes. It would have acted on the recommendations of the

Basic Income Panel, invested in non-market housing options, increased

the disability rates, removed clawbacks, raised shelter rates. There is

no shortage of things that can be done, and I hope to see long-term,

permanent options put in place for the people and families of British

Columbia who are struggling enormously right now.

Hon. L. Beare: Seeing no other speakers, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. L. Beare: I move that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole

House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Bill 35, Income Tax Amendment Act, 2022, read a second time and

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

sitting of the House after today.

Hon. L. Beare: I call Committee the Whole, Bill 33, Food Delivery Service Fee

Act.

Deputy Speaker: We’ll just take a minute, a short recess, while we get the

appropriate parties into the chamber.

The House recessed at 3 p.m.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 33 — FOOD DELIVERY SERVICE FEE ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 33;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 3:08 p.m.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I welcome the guests who are in the House watching this debate

today. I want to recognize my deputy minister. Bobbi Plecas is here. The

executive director of the small business division, Debbie Smollett, is

with me as well.

Of course, I appreciated the debate that happened in the second

reading of this and look forward to the questions the member may have on

this bill.

On clause 1.

T. Stone: Thanks to the ministry staff, as well, who are here. I know they

will do a great job in supporting the minister as we go through this. I

don’t anticipate a tremendous amount of time, but there are some more

technical questions that we just wanted to make sure were put forward to

clarify a few things.

In this

section 1, which, really, just establishes the

def­initions for this Bill 33…. I’m just wondering if the minister

can outline what efforts the government has taken to balance its

approach to regulating business-to-business contracts, with a particular

emphasis on ensuring that there isn’t government overreach. What

consultation and efforts did government do to have that in mind as they

pressed forward with the decision to make these caps a permanent

fixture?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: We consulted with the big three — SkipTheDishes, Uber Eats,

DoorDash — on the delivery side and some of the associations — the B.C.

Restaurant Association, Restaurants Canada, ABLE-BC, the chamber

network. We also consulted with a lot of individual restaurants, so it

wasn’t just the associations.

We actually, as I travelled, visited restaurants, talked to

individual restaurants about their concerns, what they were looking for,

in communities throughout the prov­ince, actually. I didn’t get a

chance to get up into Prince George and into Kamloops with my travels on

this particular piece, but I did, obviously, in the last round, when we

brought in the temporary measure.

T. Stone: Just following on my previous question, I’m just wondering if

there were any formal submissions that were received or provided by the

big three, as the minister refers to them, and the restaurant

association and the like. And if there are written submissions, if he

would be willing to provide that information to me, even if it’s after

we complete the committee stage on this bill.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can share with the member right now. I can pass it across to

him. This is from the B.C. Restaurant and Foodservices Association, as

well as ABLE-BC — a joint letter that they sent to us. I can share that

with him.

As far as the delivery app companies, they did presentations for

the team, but there was some commercially sensitive information in

there, so they didn’t want that to be shared beyond the presentation

they did to us. But I can share this letter with the member if he wants

it now.

T. Stone: Sure. I appreciate that.

The one definition in this

section that I really wanted to better

understand is perhaps one of the most important ones, and that’s the

definition of “restaurant.” As it stands, the definition says a

restaurant means “an establishment in British Columbia, other than a

grocery store or convenience store, where food is prepared and served to

cus­tomers.”

I’ve got a few questions on this definition. One is: can the

minister confirm that all restaurants in British Columbia, regardless of

the size of the restaurant, will be subject to the fee caps as provided

for in this legislation?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Yes, I can.

T. Stone: Can the minister indicate whether or not any consideration was

given to excluding the large chain restaurants, like the McDonald’s of

the world, from the fee caps that are provided in this

legislation?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: As I highlighted to the member’s earlier question, this doesn’t

discriminate if you’re a small restaurant or a big restaurant. They’re

all covered under the bill.

T. Stone: The impetus for my question is just understanding if any

consideration was put into — again, with the very first question I asked

in mind — striking that balance in terms of the regulatory approach of

government in a business-to-business relationship. I mean, we have the

food delivery companies on the one side, and we have the restaurants on

the other side.

Certainly, an argument that I heard from some in this discussion,

the food delivery companies, was that there perhaps could have been, or

should have been, some consideration given, to the fact that larger

franchise restaurants, like the McDonald’s of the world, may have more

financial capacity or fiscal capacity. They could potentially operate in

an environment without fee caps on delivery companies more effectively

than the typical mom-and-pop restaurants, which I think, was really — in

the public’s mind, anyway — the genesis of such massive public

support.

The government and the opposition — we all supported the fee caps

that were put in place during the pandemic. As I said in second reading,

we support this legislation to make it a permanent thing.

Really, the emphasis on doing this was to support those smaller

restaurants, those truly local mom-and-pop restaurants. That’s not to

suggest, for a second, that franchise restaurants like McDonald’s aren’t

also owned by locals. They typically are. But when you’re part of a

larger franchise network, you may have more capacity for these kinds of

costs.

I’m not advocating one way or the other, to be clear. I really

want to understand if any consideration was given to differentiating

between a typical, traditional, single-location, family-type restaurant

and…. Maybe we can refer to it as a chain or franchisee-type restaurant.

Was there any consideration given to the caps applying on one side and

not on the other?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate the member’s comments.

[3:20 p.m.]

Sometimes a franchise owner is a local person. So it’s really

difficult to kind of break that apart. I did hear a similar piece to the

member from one of the food delivery companies, making the argument that

perhaps the larger chains get a greater benefit than the smaller

restaurants.

I think it’s important to note that the biggest call for this that

I heard was from the smaller restaurants that wanted that certainty.

What I also heard was that the bigger chains actually get an

opportunity, in some cases, to negotiate lower rates for themselves

because of the scale that they do with certain delivery apps.

It’s not entirely clear if it is a fact that maybe some larger

chains get a greater benefit than others. But I can tell the member that

overwhelmingly, the response that we got from smaller restaurants was

that there was a need for this, and they wanted this protection. Of

course, we responded to that.

T. Stone: I do appreciate that.

This definition of restaurant specifically references, as I said,

establishments in British Columbia other than grocery stores or

convenience stores. That’s a clear definition, and all-encompassing from

a restaurant perspective, but it excludes convenience stores and grocery

stores.

I’m wondering, and the minister can refresh my mem­ory just

to make sure I’m accurate in this. During COVID, when the caps were

first brought in, I don’t believe they applied to convenience stores at

that time.

In which case, my question then is: is what we’re seeing here in

this definition a continuation, from an eligibility or a scope

perspective, of where the fees are actually applicable — continues to be

consistent under this legislation with where the fees were applicable

previously — meaning there were no caps on fees relating to delivery of

items from convenience stores and grocery stores?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I can confirm they weren’t included in the last round. They

weren’t covered under the emergency order. I’ve just been informed that

the team actually also reached out to the Convenience Industry Council

of Canada just to get their take, and they didn’t feel, at that point,

that there was a big issue for their members.

T. Stone: Okay. Good. That was going to be my next question, so I appreciate

that the minister read my mind on that one. I wanted just to canvass

that, so we have.

That’s good for

section 1.

Clauses 1 and 2 approved.

On clause 3.

[3:25 p.m.]

T. Stone: This

section 3 establishes

definitions for base tier fees, base

tier offers, enhanced tier offers and a threshold number regarding

service contracts, all of which are specified in regulation. I’m going

to try to understand what the minister might be contemplating in terms

of what we may see subsequently in the regulations that pertain to

these.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

I understand what’s being proposed here in terms of this tiered

approach to fees and offers. But my first question would be: can the

minister explain how this ap­proach to these base tier fees and

offers in any way may differ from the approach that’s currently in place

with the current legislation? Are there any differences between the two,

or is it, again, really just a carry-forward of what’s already

there?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Nice to see you in the chair, hon. Speaker.

There are a couple of things. I know the member is aware — I’ll

just mention it again — that under the OIC, there was just a blanket 20

percent, and they couldn’t go higher. Of course, now we’ve actually

built in the ability for them to innovate and create new products and

allow the restaurants, if they choose, to take the additional pieces

on.

Now, I think the member’s question is what may be considered in

the regulation space. I can share this with him, but it’s also under

section 27. There’s one entire page dedicated to the things that we may

consider. But if it makes it easier for the member to read, I can give

this to him now.

For example, the threshold number. Right now 500 restaurants that

are being served by the app is the threshold to be considered — what’s

qualified or not. Who knows? That may change in the future, depending on

what type of technology rolls out. And what is considered core

services…. Who knows? That might change in the future. The space is

changing so fast with different types of kitchens.

So that’s what could be considered in regulation. But we have laid

out what the initial plan is, and I can pass this to the member just so

he’s got it for his own record.

T. Stone: I appreciate the reference to

section 27. I’m aware of what’s in

there, and I appreciate that the minister is sharing some additional

information with me at the front end of this discussion. That’s

appreciated.

I was wondering if there’s been any contemplation of fee caps for

the enhanced tier services.

Hon. R. Kahlon: No, not at this time.

T. Stone: I just wanted to make sure I heard the minister correctly earlier.

In terms of thresholds, did the minister say 500?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: That is the intention; 500 is going to be the threshold,

yes.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

T. Stone: I’m wondering. What will be the reference period for determining

if an app meets the threshold level for this act?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think it’s important to note that the threshold amount, which is

currently at 500, is there, and the member’s question is around the

reference period.

Right now we’re leaning towards six months. Essentially, in that

six-month period, if an app gets beyond 500 at the end of that six-month

period, they would be captured after the six months. So they wouldn’t be

captured within that six-month period.

Clause 4 approved.

On clause 5.

T. Stone:

Section 5 establishes prohibitions on exceeding the fee threshold

and prohibits deducting enhanced tier costs from employee’s

wages.

The first question would be this. What would the process look like

for rejecting a base tier offer and accepting an enhanced

tier?

Hon. R. Kahlon: So “core services” is obviously defined with this bill, but

anything additional, any enhanced services, don’t need to go through any

process. That’s something they can negotiate directly with whichever

delivery company they choose to use those services from.

[3:35 p.m.]

T. Stone: To be clear, the act does not in any way require restaurateurs to

actually opt into enhanced services.

Hon. R. Kahlon: No, it does not.

Clauses 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

On clause 8.

T. Stone: Clause 8 deals with some requirements around recordkeeping. I’m

wondering. Could the requirements that are outlined in

section 8 require

an app to turn over a customer’s order history in any investigation that

may take place?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Under

section 8, it lays out the specific pieces that we’re

considering in this bill. So no personal information about a particular

client. We’re asking for just the business-to-business relationship

piece only.

T. Stone: Okay. Well, that’s a very important clarification, because I do

not want the world to know I order a lot of fried chicken. There you go.

Now everyone knows.

One other question on

section 8. What types of investigations

could be potentially carried out under this, or pursuant to this,

particular section?

Hon. R. Kahlon: This is obviously directed by the director. Either it’s a

complaint that comes in to the director, or the director decides to take

further action. In the case of restaurants being charged more, I will

note that in the two years that we had the emergency order in place, we

didn’t get a single complaint. The food delivery app companies I think

followed the rules fairly well.

Clause 8 approved.

On clause 9.

T. Stone: The minister just referenced the director, which is contemplated

or provided for in

section 2 and defined in, obviously, the

definitions

section. I’m just wondering if the minister could provide some detail on

what capacity the director will have to delegate the consideration of

complaints.

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: The director would get the delegation from me, and the director

would lead the investigation.

T. Stone: Will additional FTEs be required as part of the provisions

provided for in this section?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Certainly, if the director needed additional supports, we would

reallocate to support. Again, I’ll go back to the earlier point, which

is that in the last two years there hasn’t been a single complaint. If a

case comes, we would, obviously, provide that support, but there are no

additional FTEs, if that’s the question.

T. Stone: Following on that, how would complaints then be followed up on,

let’s say for unlicensed apps or underground apps?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, the process would be that if a restaurant believes they

have been charged for the core services beyond the threshold we’ve set,

they would file a complaint with the director. Even if it’s, say, an

underground app, the director would have the power, obviously, to

investigate.

Clauses 9 to 12 inclusive approved.

On clause 13.

[3:45 p.m.]

T. Stone: This is the

section that relates to compliance orders. I just have

a couple of questions here. How does the minister expect to ensure that

compliance orders are actually followed? What is that going to look

like? I think the actual details that pertain to what the compliance

order must look like are clearly detailed here. But how are the

compliance orders actually going to be followed?

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s going to be important for them to show that they’re not

charging more than 20 percent. If a restaurant files a complaint, we

would investigate. Obviously, the director has the power to do spot

audits. Of course, fines are included in this. During the emergency

order period, we had fines up to $2,300 for businesses that were not

complying. Again, there was not a single complaint made during those two

years. So no fines were issued during those two years,

either.

Clauses 13 to 16 inclusive approved.

On clause 17.

T. Stone: This is the

section that establishes penalty amounts. I just

wanted to ask the minister what penalties he may be considering or the

government may be considering. I appreciate that in his previous

response, he mentioned $2,300 as a maximum fine level. If he could give

us a sense of what is being contemplated as part of this legislation,

that would be appreciated.

Hon. R. Kahlon: It’s likely to continue at the same rate that we had in the period

during the emergency order.

Clauses 17 to 29 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without any amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:49 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 33 — FOOD DELIVERY SERVICE FEE ACT

Bill 33, Food Delivery Service Fee Act, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 27, Attorney General

Statutes Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 27 — ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT

(N o . 2), 2022

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 27;

J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 3:51 p.m.

The Chair: We will have a short recess while we wait for the minister and

staff.

The committee recessed from 3:51 p.m. to 4 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

On clause 1.

The Chair: I’m going to ask the Attorney if he would like to introduce

his staff who are with him today.

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you very much. I would be pleased to do so.

I have with me Anita Nadziejko. I also have Tarynn McKenzie, who

is the senior policy analyst for the policy and legislation division,

justice services branch. Also with me, to the right, is Candace Woywada,

who’s a senior policy and legislation analyst with the policy and

legislation division of the justice services branch.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

M. de Jong: Let me say, first of all, I appreciate the assistance I have had

from the minister’s office and the staff within the ministry, which I

think will help to expedite proceedings somewhat today.

With respect to clause 2, I received the memo that I think helps

clarify the confusion that I had and was, undoubtedly, my own fault, not

the fault of those who were trying to explain it to me. As I understand

it, what took place in 2018 was the repeal of

section 4(2) — actually,

4(2) through to 4(6), according to the revised statutes that I have in

front of me.

So 4(2), as it existed prior to being repealed, included three

subsections, (a), (

b) and (c). It was then repealed and, my

understanding is, was inadvertently repealed in its entirety. What

clause 2 in this bill seeks to do is recreate and re-establish what was,

prior to 2018 or the 2018 amendments, 4(2)(c). Is that

correct?

Hon. M. Rankin: Before I reply specifically to the member’s question, I would just

like to thank him for giving us the opportunity of telling us where he

had the most concerns for this

section so we could prepare and meet his

concerns as effectively as we can.

With that, I would say the answer is yes.

M. de Jong: Then the provisions that previously existed, prior to the 2018

amendments, in 4(2)(

a) and (b)…. Do they exist now elsewhere in the act,

or were they deemed unnecessary to re-establish and recreate and embed

in the legislation?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: The answer to the member’s question is that monthly reporting

requirements are now found in

section 4.2. As the member noted, the

section previously was 4(2)(

a) and (b). Those clauses are now — not

exactly the same, but the same principle, the same content exists in the

monthly reporting requirements found in

section 4.2 of the

act.

M. de Jong: The Attorney’s advice to the committee is that the obligation on

the part of an individual who files a return and must supply the

registrar with the following information within the applicable period,

in the previous sub (

a) was any change to the information within 30 days

after that occurs, and, in sub (b), any information required to be

supplied under subsection (1), the knowledge of which the individual

acquired only after the return was filed, again within 30 days. Let’s

call them the update provisions. Those update obligations exist now in

not precisely the same language, but in 4.2.

Hon. M. Rankin: Yes, that is correct.

Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive approved.

On clause 6.

M. de Jong: Let’s start, maybe, with a general question for the Attorney. I

might invite him, also….

In the course of the second reading debate discussion we had, I

tried to make a point of emphasizing the importance of what a power of

attorney document is. It might be more meaningful for the record to

show, rather than just my opinion, confirmation from the chief legal

officer in the province the significance of that document, where someone

is granting to another the legal standing to stand in their place and

for all — well, depending on the nature of the power of attorney, but

potentially assigned as if they were that person.

We don’t have to go on at length about that, but having

established the importance of what we’re talking about, it would, I

think, set the stage for the conversation we might have about the

importance of having a firm set of rules around which that granting of

that status can take place.

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: Perhaps, Madam Chair, you and others will notice that I’ve been

joined by another talented member of our team, Andrea Buzbuzian, who is

the legal counsel to the policy and legislation division of the justice

services branch. I appreciate her advice.

I appreciate the member asking us to acknowledge the very, very

important nature of what a power of attorney is. The member is

absolutely right. An enduring power of attorney is a document by which

an adult may appoint another person — a so-called attorney for that

person — to make decisions for them in relation to some or all of their

financial affairs.

An enduring power of attorney will remain in effect even if the

person who makes it becomes incapable of acting or making decisions

about their financial affairs. Thus it’s one type of incapability

planning or personal planning instrument that allows for the appointment

of, essentially, a substitute decision-maker for a time when the adult

may be mentally incapable of doing so on their own.

This act before us is a power of attorney act that governs these

enduring powers of attorney. I believe that the member is right in

asking for recognition of just how solemn this is. It’s used many, many

times in people’s lives, especially if they are getting to a point where

their mental incapacity would cause them to wonder whether they could,

in fact, look after their own affairs. The member’s point about having

the rules crystal clear is equally valid. That is, of course, what we’re

trying to do with the thrust of this legislation — to provide that

clarity so people know the rules.

M. de Jong: Thank you to the Attorney for that description.

The

section we’re dealing with has, in the heading, “alternative

process.” My questions over the course of the next few minutes — I hope

the Attorney won’t be offended — probably will gravitate between clause

6 and clause 8. I won’t be repetitive. If we deal with them in clause 6,

I won’t repeat the questions in clause 8.

The amendments to the Power of Attorney Act seek to create an

alternative process by which a person can sign their enduring power of

attorney. Can the Attorney General, again, just to highlight the nature

of the changes being proposed in a very formal way…. The existing

process is a very specific one.

I understand that this change derives from experiences that took

place and some temporary orders that were put in place during the COVID

period. But if this is the alternative process that the amendments seek

to create, what’s the standard process by which someone creates or can

bestow an enduring power of attorney today?

Hon. M. Rankin: The current requirement in the act is that the adult and the

other’s presence, and that has been interpreted as requiring in-person

attendance, not unreasonably.

But the amendments that we propose would add the authority for

regulations to permit electronic witnessing or remote witnessing of

these enduring powers of attorney and set out the parameters or the

processes for doing so.

Currently, as the member has alluded to, there is a temporary

COVID measure in place under the COVID-19 Related Measures Act adopted

by this House. It permits the remote or electronic witnessing of these

enduring powers of attorney, but it’s set to expire at the end of this

year. So the addition of this authority for alternate or remote

witnessing in the legislation would allow for this temporary measure, in

effect, to be adopted on a permanent basis. That’s the objective of this

initiative.

[4:15 p.m.]

Now, remote witnessing would provide greater flexibility,

including for adults in more remote areas of the province, where there

may not be ready access to lawyers or notaries, and in situations where

access to the adult may be limited — for example, given COVID-19

concerns or other health care issues that may prevent or thwart the

ability of people to come together as required under the general

law.

We say that setting out the manner in which these enduring powers

of attorney may be witnessed in regulations will provide British

Columbians with greater flexibility. Because it’s through regulation,

they can be revised in the future as needed — for example, to respond to

any problems that arise with remote execution or to expand the

procedural options. That, of course, just addresses why regulations,

instead of putting all the details in

an act…. We’ll learn as we go

along. If there are problems, we’ll have the opportunity to address

them.

M. de Jong: The Attorney has anticipated one of the questions, or maybe my

next question, and that is…. The temporary measures were put in place to

address a specific set of circumstances and some specific challenges

that those circumstances created. I understand from the Attorney’s

remarks, though, that the regulatory power that is going to be created

with the passage of this legislation, and the regulations that will flow

from it, is intended to apply, going forward, on a permanent basis and

won’t be tied to some unique set of circumstances.

There won’t be, for example, a prerequisite requirement that a

person must satisfy before they will be able to avail themselves of this

alternative process. Is that a correct assumption on my part?

Hon. M. Rankin: Thanks to the member for putting that on the table. The manner in

which these enduring powers of attorney may be witnessed in the

regulations, as I said earlier, will provide the flexibility to be

revised in the future — for example, to expand procedure options. I want

to give an example.

Under the current COVID rules, only a lawyer or a notary is

allowed to be that attorney. Under the act itself, one can have the

signing of an enduring power of attorney, and dated by the adult, in the

presence of two witnesses.

So we can, in regulation, decide whether we wish to continue with

the current approach, if I can call it that — the COVID related measures

approach of simply and solely allowing lawyers or notaries to do this —

or not. That kind of flexibility, of course, is provided by

regulation-making authority, and we’ll see as the circumstances

evolve.

That’s merely one of the examples of the parameters that would be

contemplated by regulation.

M. de Jong: Thanks. That’s helpful. I fear I didn’t express my question very

clearly, but the information that the Attorney provided is also relevant

and helpful.

[4:20 p.m.]

I think my question was…. The COVID orders and ex­ceptional

processes were created in response to an exceptional set of

circumstances. My understanding is that the regulations that we’ll

continue to explore for a few mom­ents, though, are intended to

apply on a permanent basis and are intended to be available to citizens

without the need to demonstrate some pre-existing condition or some

societal, exceptional circumstance threshold. It will just be an

alternative means by which you can execute the power of attorney. Is

that a fair statement?

Hon. M. Rankin: That’s entirely correct.

M. de Jong: In an earlier answer, the Attorney alluded to the rationale — or,

I think, part of the rationale — and I’m going to invite him to expand

upon that. It will become clear in a moment why I’m asking him to do

that.

He and the government have clearly concluded that, as a result of

recent experiences and analysis, this is an appropriate measure to take.

I think he will enjoy support from the House and the committee in taking

that step. But he alluded to some problems or some challenges that are

in his mind in bringing the measure forward, and in the government’s

mind. He alluded to people located in remote parts of the province. In

those same remarks, he spoke of the difficulty in accessing either a

lawyer or a notary.

Maybe, one, he could make clear, under the present set of rules,

the execution of a power of attorney document or an enduring power of

attorney. Secondly, if there are any other factors, complications, or

challenges around the execution of enduring powers of attorney that have

given rise to this amendment, I’d be interested to hear it.

What I’m going to say next is not meant to be, necessarily, a

criticism, but it may be that it’s just deemed more convenient. If

that’s so, then I’m anxious to hear that also.

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: As I said, under the current act, one could have two witnesses and

not a lawyer or a notary. Under the regulations that are contemplated,

one could have two witnesses or a lawyer or notary.

Having said that, I do want to say, in just going back to the

member’s opening comments, this is a very solemn document. Its legal

importance is crucial to the life of the individual who enters into it,

who assigns to another human being his or her entire worldly goods, for

example, so one would want to recommend strongly that a notary or a

lawyer be consulted before entering into such a document.

people who have, for example, mobility challenges, can’t get to the

lawyer’s or the notary’s office, or people who live in a remote part of

the community where there are none, no lawyers or the like, they may be

content with two individuals. Once again, I would strongly recommend

that they not do so. But we’re trying to look at those circumstances and

take them into account once we get to drafting a regulation.

M. de Jong: Again, helpful from the Attorney. What he and I have been

discussing and what I understand the essence of the amendment and what

it is intended to facilitate is what the Attorney has been describing —

an opportunity by which an individual can grant an enduring power of

attorney in circumstances where they’re not in the same room as the

person receiving the power of attorney, or possibly the witnesses, which

suggests to me….

Maybe the Attorney can begin to clarify a little bit of what’s in

his mind in terms of the regulations that follow, what this might look

like under the regulations. Could, for example, an individual in a room

alone, connected electronically with the person receiving the enduring

power of attorney and others to witness…? Must there be witnesses

located with the individual, or can the witnesses witness

electronically? Well, I’m sure the Attorney will deal with that in a

moment.

But beyond this question of an electronic connection, which is

what all of our examples back and forth have been about, does the term

“alternative process” contemplate anything different than that? I can’t

imagine what it would be. I mean, I can’t think of anything. But I

suppose even in that remote and electronic connection that this is

designed to facilitate, must it be visual? Could it be by telephone or

electronic mail? Is there going to be a visual component to this in the

regulations?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I think the member’s question is an excellent one. The flexibility

you achieve with regulations allows us to address these questions as we

go along, but it might be helpful — because the member asked what we

envisage to do with the regulation — to look at what we did with the

COVID orders, the Emergency Program Act ministerial order that dealt

with this very issue.

In that, there was a description of what was called “communicate.”

How do you communicate? That word was defined as meaning, and I’m

paraphrasing, communication using audiovisual technology, including

other different things for the visually impaired, etc. Then “electronic

presence” was defined in that order as “circumstances in which 2 or more

individuals in different locations communicate” — again, audiovisual —

“simultaneously to an extent that is similar to communication that would

occur if all the individuals were physically present in the same

location.”

I think we don’t want to tie the hands of cabinet — which, of

course, ultimately will make regulations under this act — but I think

that’s a pretty good indication of the kind of communication, if you

will, that we envisage in this alternate process.

M. de Jong: That’s helpful, from the Attorney. Here’s, candidly, why I wanted

to spend just a couple of minutes on this point. We’re dealing with a

document that both the Attorney and I — and, I think, most people in

this committee — would agree is a significant, important, weighty

document.

There are always two concerns around the emergence of these

documents. One, was it created through the deployment of any kind of

fraudulent activity? That can exist under any system. It’s something

that needs to be, obviously, guarded against and for which there are

remedies.

The second one — the Attorney alluded to this in one of his

earlier examples: in a case where we are frequently dealing with seniors

who may be coming to a point in their life where mental capacity is an

issue, and they are trying to address that in a pre-emptive

way.

I have seen enough of these situations professionally — and, I

suppose, even personally — to know that sometimes, at that stage, the

concern is whether undue influence or undue pressure is being brought to

bear by a family member, by multiple family members or by an

acquaintance.

[4:35 p.m.]

The general question is: to what extent does the Attorney…? How

does the Attorney believe, and how would he convey to the committee,

that safeguards will be built into these regulations to ensure that the

alternative process which, as we’ve already discussed, will become a

permanent feature on the landscape, is not misused — that, to be blunt,

a vulnerable senior isn’t, in the comfort of their own home, put in

front of a computer screen and told: “Here’s what you’re going to do,

mom or dad, or grandma and grandpa”?

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

To what extent, in pursuit of establishing a more convenient

process, are we potentially upping the risk of that kind of abuse taking

place, once the procedure becomes widely understood and more widely

used?

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you to the member for the question. He’s 100 percent

correct. This is something very much in our minds as we contemplate a

new regulation under this section.

I think it really is a function of balancing the access, the

ability to take advantage of this remote service so people who have

disabilities or who live in a remote area can still have the benefit of

this access — but to balance it against the very real concerns to which

the member alluded.

Fraud, undue influence — these are things that will always have to

be dealt with, and he’s right in pointing out that that has been

something in the past that happens, whether you’re under an alternate

system or under the usual system, if I can call it that, under the act.

Those fac­tors will be taken into account.

Perhaps I can give an example of how that might be done. It may be

that one could contemplate a regulation that would require, for this

remote service, to have a lawyer or notary — the reason for which is

that they are subject to professional discipline if they were to abuse

that trust. They would also have an obligation to make their own

assessment, with professional judgment, as to the mental capacity of the

person in this circumstance — which, I would suggest, is exactly what

has to be done, whether it’s remote or otherwise.

M. de Jong: Well, I think the Attorney, happily, has put his finger on one

aspect of what I hope the regulations will seek to capture: the creation

of some mechanism that provides for the involvement, in these cases, of

someone with both an obligation and some ability to make an

assess­ment, independent of the parties involved, around the

voluntary nature of the granting.

I get it. I share the assessment offered by the Attorney that it

is a balancing act. We’re trying to enhance the convenience of doing

this, but as we’ve also established, this is not just a mechanism that

will be available for someone in Atlin. This will be available to

someone in downtown Victoria or Vancouver, and the obligation to go

somewhere — a lawyer’s office, a notary’s office — and to be present

with others will disappear.

Offering up that suggestion — that as a requirement of accessing

the alternative process, the regulations may require, as a prerequisite

to that happening, the involvement of a third-party professional — may

well be wise and may alleviate some of the concerns that might otherwise

exist, around the possibility of, for example, a senior being

steamrolled into doing something they’re not entirely comfortable

doing.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: I think the member makes an excellent point. One of the things I

can report is….

Under the COVID measures, we’re not aware of any abuses

that occurred during that period. Not to say that they may not have been

brought to our attention — I accept that immediately — but that is

something that gives us comfort, to some degree, as we offer up a

regulation that would allow this to be permanent in nature.

I appreciate the member’s suggestion of the involvement of a

third-party professional — i.e., a notary or a lawyer — as has been done

and is required under the COVID measure. That will be something that

will certainly be taken into account during the regulation-making

process.

Clauses 6 and 7 approved.

On clause 8.

M. de Jong: I will try to make sure I’m not duplicating some of the areas that

we already covered.

I made the point to the very able staff, when we had the

conversation last week, that I thought, in what will be 41.1(1)…. The

first three subsections, (

a) through (b), were sort of procedural in

nature, and (

d) seems to be a more substantive provision governing what

needs to be in an enduring power of attorney. They made the point to me,

I think correctly, that because of the wording in (1)(d)…. The

provisions of (

d) apply only to the alternative process

procedures.

I want to confirm that. We haven’t created an entire new

regulatory power that applies across the board. Is that

correct?

Hon. M. Rankin: Yes. I can confirm that is the case. The opening language of 41.1

says that the “Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations

establishing an alternative process for” various things, including the

(

d) clause.

[4:45 p.m.]

As a consequence, it’s limited to that process. That’s the only

thing that’s intended to change. I think that’s consistent with the

formulation of the opening clause.

M. de Jong: Sticking with (1)(d), again, very helpfully, the staff suggested,

without committing, of course, the minister or the government to

anything…. An example of what might constitute additional information

that must be included in an enduring power of attorney executed under

the alternative process would be some indication on the document itself

that the signing was witnessed remotely or electronically.

The Attorney, perhaps, could confirm that that was an accurate

example, from his point of view, and whether or not anyone has thought

of any additional, additional information that might be called for in

the regulations pertaining to this alternative process.

Hon. M. Rankin: The member will be pleased to know I have been consulting with my

able staff. That’s exactly the example that they have

considered.

Any document…. The additional information under clause (d)…. The

best example, and the only one which we’ve contemplated, is the

statement that this particular document was witnessed remotely. I think

that would be the kind of additional information. That, of course, would

not be the case in an ordinary situation, but it seems like a very good

suggestion for contemplation in the regulation-making

process.

M. de Jong: Well, let’s, then, just briefly go back up to sub (

a) and, if I

can prevail upon the Attorney, have him place on the record something

that we touched on earlier but not in the specific context of the

enabling regulatory power.

Sub (1)(

a) of 41.1 will allow for the creation of regulations

prescribing what being in the presence of another person actually means.

The Attorney, to be fair, referred a few moments ago to the existing

provisions for what we are calling the COVID exceptional regulations.

Again, those relate to electronic and audiovisual presence.

I’ll just ask him to confirm whether that is what we should

anticipate with respect to regulations that will be forthcoming under

41.1(1)(a).

Hon. M. Rankin: Well, of course, the member would know…. We can’t tie the hands of

the Lieutenant-Gover­nor-in-Council as they go forward. It’s very

likely that that is exactly what would be contemplated.

M. de Jong: The terms we have used in this conversation, “remotely” and

“electronically” — are they interchangeable? Sometimes those that we

rely upon for legislative and regulatory drafting will tell us that

there are differences that the rest of us haven’t considered.

Is the term that we will see in the regulations likely to be the

term “remotely” or “electronically” or both? If both, is there a

difference?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: The phrase in

section 41.1 that would be added by this bill

includes prescribing what “being in the presence of another person”

means. Prescribing means, of course, that, by regulation, you would

provide meaning. You would provide a definition of what that would mean.

The word “remote” does not appear. The word “electronic” does not appear

in the alternate process that’s here.

I don’t want to tie the hands of the legislative counsel who would

be called upon to draft, but I can tell the hon. member that the word

“remote” is simply used in our jargon as a shorthand for what, when we

say, “being in the presence of another person” would mean. We’re

expanding that clearly with this alternative process.

One can look to the language that was used in what we call the

COVID order as a likely example of what the legislative counsel would do

to put meaning into this phrase that has to be prescribed by regulation

— namely, what “being in the presence of another person”

means.

I don’t mean to be circular, but the word “remote” is not likely a

word that would be found here. I’m not able to exactly draft on the fly.

I think a better indication is what has been used in the past to

communicate the meaning of what “being in the presence of another

person” would mean in a context like we’re contemplating.

M. de Jong: I think my last question with respect to the clause relates to, on

the subsequent page of the bill, the creation of 41.2. Again, staff were

helpful in drawing to my attention that the provisions — I believe the

exact provisions — of what would become 41.2 are contained in what is

now 41(4). The Attorney can, perhaps, confirm that. Then my mischievous,

curious question is: what prompted the need to pull out (4) and create a

separate section?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Rankin: The member is absolutely right. There has been no content change

whatsoever. The current

section 41(4) is exactly the same as

41.2.

The member’s mischievous question is: why? The answer is that

legislative counsel thought it appropriate, for clarity, to include

regulation-making power, 41.1, for the general regs in relation to

signing enduring power and 41.2 to deal with the extrajurisdictional

part. It was not intended to change. In fact, the words are exactly the

same. It was a drafting convention that was used for greater

clarity.

Clauses 8 to 14 inclusive approved.

On clause 15.

M. de Jong: We don’t need to spend a lot of time on this. I thought it might

be…. Since it does represent the creation of a new power of intervention

on the part of a member of the executive council in a matter that legal

counsel traditionally holds very dear and special, I might at least pose

one or two questions about how this is intended to function in the

future, hopefully on a very rare basis.

I should have, and did not, warned the Attorney, through his

staff, for this next question. So I’ll understand…. I’m sure there’s a

myriad of people with electronic devices standing by who might be able

to get him this information.

How many KCs are there now? How many are there now? Do we

know?

Hon. M. Rankin: As the member thought we could do, we managed to do. We’ve managed

to get that information at our fingertips. There are 491 Queen’s

Counsel, now King’s Counsel, in British Columbia. Under the statute, to

be renamed the King’s Counsel Act, a maximum of 7 percent of the bar can

be designated as King’s Counsel.

[5:00 p.m.]

While I’m on my feet, to provide context to the member’s question,

I’m told that some time ago, many years ago, the words “at pleasure”

were in this section. So an appointee to a Queen’s Counsel or King’s

Counsel was an appointment explicitly at pleasure. That was removed over

the years. We don’t know — quite some time ago.

It seemed to be relevant to have the ability for the cabinet, who,

after all, on the advice of the Attorney General with an advisory

committee consisting of the justices of the courts, the Law Society, the

Canadian Bar Association that helps create the designated King’s Counsel

every year…. It seemed appropriate that if the cabinet has the ability

to bestow this honour, it should likewise be the cabinet, on the advice

of the Attorney General, who could remove it.

That power exists, I’m told, in every other province where they

have King’s Counsel designation. As the member may know, some provinces

have elected to repeal the King’s Counsel designation. Ontario comes to

mind.

M. de Jong: Thanks to the Attorney and the staff.

When a situation like this comes up, it is generally under the

glare and spotlight of public attention because someone has done

something bad. So we won’t go on at length about this, because I think

what is intended in here is to build in some safeguards around the

revocation process through the involvement of the chief justices and the

judges and the Law So