The committee met at 12:05 p.m.

Election of Chair and Deputy Chair

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees): Good afternoon, Members, and welcome to this first meeting of the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform for the third session of the 41st parliament. As the committee has not yet met this session and has not yet elected a Chair, the first item on the agenda is the election of a Chair. I’d like to open the floor to nominations for that position.

J. Rustad: I’d like to nominate Mable Elmore for Chair.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Thank you. Any further nominations? Any further nominations? Any further nominations?

Seeing none, first I’ll ask Mable: do you accept nomination?

M. Elmore: Yes, thank you.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Thank you, Mable. Then I will put the question now.

Motion approved.

[M. Elmore in the chair.]

M. Elmore (Chair): Thank you very much.

The next item on our agenda is the election of a Deputy Chair. Who would like to open the nominations?

L. Krog: I nominate John Rustad, MLA.

M. Elmore (Chair): Thank you.

Any other nominations? Going once, going twice, three times.

John, do you accept?

J. Rustad: I do.

M. Elmore (Chair): Terrific.

Motion approved.

M. Elmore (Chair): So we have a Deputy Chair.

Joining us on the phone, via telephone conference call, is Kevin Boonstra, solicitor and parliamentary agent. Also, we’re joined by Rev. Sam Chan.

Welcome to both Kevin and Sam. I’d like to ask Kevin if you can give us an overview with respect to the next item on our agenda, the consideration of the private bill Pr401, the Canadian Chinese School of Theology Vancouver Act, just to bring us all up to speed in terms of the need for consideration for the bill.

Consideration of Private Bills

BILL Pr401 — CANADIAN CHINESE
SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY
VANCOUVER ACT

K. Boonstra: Madam Chair, the Canadian Chinese School of Theology Vancouver Act is before the House with the intention of permitting this entity, which is currently incorporated as a society under the provincial Societies Act, to grant degrees in theology. There is legislation for authorizing degrees that are not degrees in theology, which is the Degree Authorization Act. It does not cover degrees in theology. Because of a provision in the University Act, a private piece of legislation such as this one is the recognized way to authorize entities such as the Canadian Chinese School of Theology Vancouver to grant degrees in theology, and it is limited to degrees in theology.

In terms of the format of the legislation, it’s formatted very similarly to the last two similar pieces of legislation that have been passed by the House, which includes the Millar school of theology and the Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary, both of which received similar pieces of legislation. As I say, the format, the content and the substance of the legislation is the same as those last two pieces that the House has adopted. Do you need me to take you through the draft legislation, or is that enough of a background?

[12:10 p.m.]

M. Elmore (Chair): Thank you, Kevin. I think that’s helpful. Everybody has got the documents.

I’ll just open it up. Does anyone have questions, for the bill, that Kevin can tell us?

L. Throness: I have a question. Thank you for appearing by phone today. Laurie Throness, MLA for Chilliwack-Kent. I have a degree in biblical studies myself. I’m wondering if the phrase “a degree in theology” might be limiting. Does that limit the school in any way to grant some other variant wording of a degree in theology?

K. Boonstra: There is a definition in the bill for “degree in theology” which is “academic achievement in theological studies or in respect of the preparation for a religious vocation.” As long as it fits within that general definition, it will fall within a degree in theology.

L. Throness: Thank you.

M. Elmore (Chair): Any other further questions?

A. Weaver: Could I get a summary of the history and rationale for bringing this forward at this time — the history of this organization and the rationale for bringing this private member’s bill forward at this time?

K. Boonstra: I’m going to defer some of the answer to Rev. Chan, who’s on the line as well. But as I mentioned earlier, because of a provision in the University Act, this is the only way for an entity such as this to be authorized to grant degrees in theology.

The Canadian Chinese School of Theology already exists and operates theological education in other provinces, including Toronto and Calgary, through slightly different incorporated entities. This entity was incorporated under the Societies Act in 2017 with the idea that it would then be continued under this legislation. The purpose here is, in part, to be able to educate and provide education in theology in both Chinese languages and English.

Rev. Chan, do you want to add anything in terms of the overall history of the Canadian Chinese School of Theology?

S. Chan: Yes. In Toronto, it was started about 12 years ago. In Calgary, it was started about five years ago. Here in Vancouver, we started in 2015. As we study the statistics of Canada, the number of immigrants from China is increasing and expected to increase by a large number, especially to Vancouver. We feel that there is a need for taking care of the spiritual needs of the Chinese from China who speak Mandarin. We also feel that it is best to provide spiritual caring in their own mother tongues. That’s why we wanted to start one in Vancouver.

A. Weaver: I have more questions. Is the Chinese school in Toronto degree-granting or not?

S. Chan: Yes, it is joined with Tyndale University.

A. Weaver: That would be my follow-up here. I’m not supportive of this legislation. I am a Christian as well. My worry, though, is that this is a society that’s bypassing the normal process for degree granting, which I would have thought would have been in association with another academic institution, whether it be Trinity Western, Thompson Rivers, Kwantlen Polytechnic — to have it as a degree-granting capability of a theology degree taught by the society but granted by another institution.

I worry that this is setting a somewhat dangerous precedent in that we’re saying that we’re making special exemptions for degree-granting institutions that are not subject to the University Act or the individual acts for the other universities that have been created since then.

[12:15 p.m.]

K. Boonstra: If I could respond to that briefly. Theological degrees in British Columbia are not regulated. They’re not regulated under the Degree Authorization Act. My reference to the University Act was because there’s a provision in that act that, when one reads it, appears to limit the ability to grant any degree unless authorized, which is why this practice has grown up of having private legislation.

The Ministry of Advanced Education doesn’t actually regulate. They don’t have authority to regulate degrees in theology, which is, in part, why this entity will be limited to granting just degrees in theology, which are very specific, obviously, to the religious underpinnings of this specific organization.

Notwithstanding that the ministry doesn’t have direct legislative authority over theological schools, the ministry has been kept fully informed. They’ve been given copies of all of these documents. Before the application was made, there was contact with the ministry. And the principal of the Canadian Chinese School of Theology Vancouver, Rev. Leung — who’s out of town and wasn’t able to be on this call today — has had a number of conversations with personnel within the ministry who generally look at these things.

So, with respect, I don’t think that this application sets a precedent unlike all of the other theological schools that have the same sort of legislation that limits them to just granting theological degrees consistent with their own religious beliefs.

M. Elmore (Chair): Did you have more questions, Andrew?

A. Weaver: My follow-up, then: to what extent was consultation done between this particular organization and other such organizations that may or may not exist? I do believe that UBC grants theology degrees. Does Trinity Western? I thought they did as well. Yeah. I know other universities do grant them. I’m confused, so maybe you could help me understand what sort of consultation was done.

I mean, I’m a Christian too. Obviously, I understand the importance of granting theological degrees. My concern is about a process like this, where we have a standing committee with basically no background on this, and we’re being presented with what looks like a fait accompli without the benefit of the detailed background rationale as to why this was done, what consultation was done, why there’s a need, what UBC has to say about it, what Trinity Western has to say about it, what happens in Toronto, etc., etc. I feel very uncomfortable with that.

K. Boonstra: Well, I will let Rev. Chan speak to this as well. Obviously, each religious organization is going to have their own take on theological education consistent with their own denominations and supporting organizations and the religious community that they serve. I’m not sure that there’s any legislative or other basis to suggest that a group that is establishing theological education, and has in fact established theological education in various places across the country, is somehow obligated to enter into an agreement with somebody else that offers theological education where it may not be a good fit for them.

Again, theological education in and of itself isn’t actually regulated in British Columbia. When an organization asks for the ability simply to grant a degree limited to theological education, they’re not asking for authorization on behalf of the ministry in terms of the quality of the degree and other things that go with other types of degrees that are permitted under the Degree Authorization Act.

Rev. Chan, did you have anything that you thought might be useful in response to this question?

S. Chan: Yes. We feel that our school has a unique characteristic in training pastors in the Chinese culture, especially the culture of people coming from mainland China, using their own language. By producing trained pastors, they can minister to the new immigrants who are here. We feel that it is a bit unique and different from all the other universities, especially as we only specialize in theological education.

[12:20 p.m.]

M. Elmore (Chair): Okay. I know we’ve got Laurie here. I’m just going to provide a little bit of context and background to see if that’s helpful. Then I’ll ask Laurie, and then our Law Clerk, maybe, to give some further context.

My understanding, in terms of…. This is not an uncommon process. We’ve had other circumstances where the colleges have come forward to the standing order process to be certified, one. Second, the Canadian Chinese School of Theology does not fall under the University Act, so it’s not required to be certified through the ministry. The ministry has been advised that it was coming through, but they don’t give an endorsement either way. They have been advised.

There’s a process, in terms of the standing orders. This is one of the opportunities to also ensure that it’s known to the public. There are a number of requirements that they have to abide by for the process, and that has been fulfilled. I hope that’s a little bit helpful in terms of the process and why we’re seeing this come before us now.

I’m going to ask Loredana to fill us in on a little bit of the context and background as well. I’ll ask you to do that.

L. Catalli-Sonier (Sessional Law Clerk): Yes, Madam Chair. This application was filed on February 7. Before it is filed with the Clerk’s office, there’s a requirement that it be advertised to the public in the Royal Gazette for two successive weeks and in a newspaper where resides the majority of the parties interested or affected by the bill.

There is notice to the public so that when an organization or a group applies for these special powers — to be able to grant degrees, in this case, to international students and Canadian students — there is the requirement that there be extensive advertising so that the public, anyone who’s interested, can request to appear before this committee. If there’s opposition, they can certainly appear and make their concerns known to the committee.

It’s late in the process, where this bill has come in, but it’s been in the works for a few months. When we receive an application, we are required under the standing orders to immediately send it to legislative counsel, which we did. Because it affects education, the draft bill was also sent to the Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training, and they also reviewed the legislation. It’s very much in line with other similar bills that we’ve looked at.

There were a few corrections made to the draft of the bill as it was originally presented. The ministry…. The only matters that were discussed were quality assurance, the type of degree. I guess Mr. Boonstra alluded to that. There were safeguards built into the legislation to deal with that.

It’s a piece of legislation. It’s not unlike other legislation. Private bills have been passed by the House. The public has been notified that this was coming forward. Any of the universities, if there was concern, could have come forward. That’s the reason for the advertising.

This is the only legislation where you really need to give notice to the public. It’s for that reason. Before the committee decides to grant those special powers, the public is made aware of this coming forward — and also the ministry. No changes were requested by the ministry so the bill came forward for introduction in the House.

All the requirements of the standing orders had been met, and this legislation, like other similar bills that were passed, would give these students an additional choice.

I think that would be the context that I could provide.

M. Elmore (Chair): Terrific. Thank you very much, Loredana.

I’ve got Michael and Andrew on the speaker’s list.

Interjection.

[12:25 p.m.]

M. Elmore (Chair): Oh, okay, Laurie. You’re bumped up.

L. Throness: I just wanted to add a comment on the historical perspective on this. There has been a long history of conflict between church and state, over 1,400 years. It’s not a small thing. Over time, the historical perspective is that religious communities of any stripe are not governed by the state, nor is the state governed by a religious community of any stripe. They are independent of it. Therefore, a private act reflects that historic division, and a private act is, therefore, necessary. It ought not to be a public bill. It’s appropriate for a theological institution that it be a private act.

M. Elmore (Chair): Thanks for that clarification.

M. Lee: I just wanted to clarify. It was stated earlier that there had been two other theological institutions that have had this same bill. Can I just hear about those two again?

K. Boonstra: Yeah. There are actually quite a few pieces of private legislation that have been passed. I referenced the last two that I’m aware of. One is Millar College of the Bible. The one prior to that that I’m aware of is the Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary. But there are many others. I can think of a few off the top of my head. Columbia Bible College is one. Summit Pacific College is another. Pacific Life Bible College is another. There are quite a few, all of which have there own private act.

M. Lee: After this bill may be passed, these colleges, like this one, will be meeting its reporting obligations under the Societies Act. That’s the governing legislation. Is there any other regulatory legislation that this college will need to meet or follow?

K. Boonstra: Well, not in and of itself. I imagine that if they want approval, for example, to be able to have their students obtain government student loans, there would be a process that they would have to undergo there. But they’re not going to be regulated, as a theological school, under the authority of the Ministry of Advanced Education, for example.

M. Elmore (Chair): Mike, did you have a question?

M. Morris: No, they were answered by Laurie and Michael.

A. Weaver: Michael also asked the question I was going to ask, which I think is important. I agree with Laurie about the importance of separating church and state.

My concern, going with the past ones as well as this, is the regulatory oversight and the use of the word “degree,” because “degree” has a very specific connotation in the academic settings. I have no problem with certificates. It’s the term “degree” that I think is what I’m hung up on. I don’t know, but I suspect these other institutions do have degree….

I think we have a problem here in British Columbia, because we could be doing this every day if organizations, societies, come forward and start to seek programs like this to be set up. It is troubling, this process, to me. But I do thank Michael for asking the question about regulatory oversight.

M. Elmore (Chair): Any further questions?

J. Rustad (Deputy Chair): First of all, I want to thank you for bringing forward this application. I think it’s an important issue to look at.

From my perspective, I think it’s also important that it is independent in terms of how it’s done. I would be concerned if it were to have to be affiliated with another facility, simply because there may be differences of perspective or methodologies that are associated with it that may not be aligned with the faith that is being taught through this. I think it’s more than appropriate that this comes forward as being independent through the process, so I want to thank you for bringing this forward.

M. Elmore (Chair): Thanks, John.

Unless there are any further questions, I’m going to have Kate explain the process to us.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): If the committee does choose to proceed with recommending that the bill continue to the next stage of the private bills process, the committee would, at this point, should there be no further questions, consider a motion that the preamble of the bill has, in essence, been approved or recommended by the committee and that the committee recommends that the bill itself proceed to second reading stage.

[12:30 p.m.]

At that point in time, it comes before the House, and then the bill would undergo both second reading and committee stage consideration. If it is the wish of the committee to either receive further information or to not deal with the motion that is typically undertaken at this meeting, we’re certainly in your hands and happy to facilitate whatever stage of the process might come next.

If the committee did opt to have the bill proceed to second reading stage…. Just for the information of members, we would also have a very brief report prepared for introduction to the House by your committee Chair either tomorrow or further this week — if there is an appetite to proceed along those lines. So there would be a second motion to adopt a very brief report outlining your recommendation.

A. Weaver: I would like to support moving it to second reading. We might have some further discussion at second reading, but I think at this time, I’m happy to support it.

M. Elmore (Chair): Okay, terrific.

Before we proceed to our motion, we have a question from Loredana for Mr. Boonstra.

L. Catalli-Sonier (Sessional Law Clerk): This is a bit unusual, but I wanted to ask Mr. Boonstra just to outline section 7 of the bill, the authority for the school to grant degrees “in its own right or jointly with any university, college or other institution of higher learning.”

K. Boonstra: Yes. That’s the wording of the bill. I’m sorry. What’s the question?

L. Catalli-Sonier (Sessional Law Clerk): I just wanted to highlight that it does not prevent…. The school actually can work with a university within the province, but it can also act independently and grant its own degrees. But there is provision in the legislation to work cooperatively with another university.

K. Boonstra: That’s absolutely true — or a college or institution of higher learning. There are examples in the province of theological schools that do choose to work together and, in some circumstances, grant a conjoint degree, where somebody may receive a degree from a seminary or from two seminaries together. That sort of thing. That’s certainly possible, but the purpose of this legislation is to allow this entity to grant theological degrees only.

A. Weaver: I was aware of that. But again, it’s the term “degree” that I still have some concerns with. I would argue that that would be appropriate with other institutions, but I’m concerned about the use of that degree solely by an organization in this context.

M. Lee: If the committee does approve this to go to second reading, will we be getting some further information that addresses the previous theological colleges that have been treated in the same manner? Just so that we can get a better understanding of what the history has been and what the track record has been for these other degree-granting institutions.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): If I might. We’re always happy to provide members with any background information that we can.

My recollection is that in recent years, this committee, in fact, as has been mentioned before, has dealt with a number of similar institutions. Each of them has unique circumstances. In some cases, it’s a continuance of the power to grant theological degrees. In some instances, it’s a new entity. In others, there were property considerations, where the institution held property and was trying to consolidate its operations. It also required the assistance of the private bills process.

We’re certainly in your hands. We can provide you with a list of similar institutions that have been dealt with in one form or another through the private bill process. But in terms of providing you with a detailed outline of the context of each unique private bill, that would be a considerable effort. I’m happy to go down that road, but I welcome your clarification, perhaps, on the level of information that you might be seeking.

M. Lee: I suppose, in terms of addressing this sort of consideration, there would be a record of previous standing committees that have considered this issue. Presumably, there has been some previous discussion around the concern from the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, around degree-granting institutions and that nature.

[12:35 p.m.]

Perhaps I could ask, or suggest, that the Clerk’s office assist this committee by asking someone in the office to do a basic word search review to see if that has been, in the minutes of these previous standing committees, dealt with. That perhaps could be shared, in advance of second reading, with the Chair or the proponent who’s proposing this bill.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Yes, we’d be happy to do that, and we’ll make it our priority.

K. Boonstra: If I can interject, I found, while you were talking, a list on the Ministry of Advanced Education’s website of 14 theological institutions that have private legislation.

M. Elmore (Chair): Thanks, Kevin, and thank you to the Clerk, Kate. We’ll also have the list coming from your office to us?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Yes, we’ll do our best.

M. Elmore (Chair): We appreciate that.

All right. We’ll have a good historical record in terms of the previous related bills that have come forward under this process.

Committee Report to the House

BILL Pr401 — CANADIAN CHINESE
SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY
VANCOUVER ACT

M. Elmore (Chair): Without any further questions, I have a motion….

John.

J. Rustad (Deputy Chair): Thank you, Chair. I was actually going to move the motion.

I move:

[That the Committee report that the preamble of Bill Pr401, intituled Canadian Chinese School of Theology Vancouver Act, 2018 has been proved and the Committee recommend that the Bill proceed to Second Reading.]

M. Elmore (Chair): Any discussion?

Motion approved.

M. Elmore (Chair): We have a second motion. It should be on your tables there.

J. Rustad (Deputy Chair): I move:

[That the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills present the Report to the Legislative Assembly at the earliest available opportunity.]

M. Elmore (Chair): Any discussion? All right, we’ll vote.

Motion approved.

M. Elmore (Chair): Okay. That will go forward.

Thank you very much, Kevin, and also Reverend Sam, for joining us. We appreciate it.

K. Boonstra: Thank you very much. Goodbye.

Examination and Recommendation
of Revised Statutes

OVERVIEW OF REVISION PROCESS

M. Elmore (Chair): Now we are onto item 4. This is the examination and recommendation of four revised statutes, pursuant to the Statute Revision Act.

Our meeting is scheduled till 1 p.m. We’re going to get started on this. We’ll start with an overview from Janet Erasmus, our senior legislative counsel. But, Members, I just want to assure you that if you’ve got more questions or want to get into discussion, certainly we’ll accommodate that. Don’t feel pressured in terms of our time. We’ll just get started.

Over to you, Janet.

J. Erasmus: Good afternoon. We’re very pleased to be here presenting statute revisions for your consideration.

British Columbia has a very long history of statute revision. It’s not just B.C. Revisions have been used in every other province and in the federal government from the very beginning. Why is this? Well, statute revision is about maintaining and, indeed, recovering the coherence of our statute book. When we present a new act, it’s coherent in its language, in its organization. It has a structure so that readers can find what they need, and with British Columbia’s commitment to plain language, we believe that people can understand what they find.

But that’s a new act, and you have to count that acts get amended over time. They get changed. We might not have got it all right in the first draft, or we missed some things that should be covered. That happens. We update cross-references to other acts. We repeal provisions that are no longer needed. We add, from time to time, whole new policy things. So an act that started as coherent gradually becomes much less coherent.

Statute revision has been the fix on that from the very beginning. So it’s not a new act, but it’s revised in the form of a new act. It does that without changing the legal effect of the act that’s being revised. We’re bringing things to you that look new, but they’re actually old.

Historically, this has been done by general revisions. What you’re seeing on this…. It’s on the back page of the review material that I sent. You can see the revisions in there. We’ve done it all the way along.

[12:40 p.m.]

The first one was in 1897. It was two volumes in length. By the seventh revision, 1979, it had grown up to six volumes. The last revision, 1996, I was there. I was part of the planning team. I presented to this committee back then. We did the whole 15 volumes in just over one hour. but it took seven years to prepare.

When we were preparing for that 1996 revision, we proposed a new form of Statute Revision Act, which gave us a new authority — the authority for limited revisions of targeted acts, single acts, and we’ve now seen, at this committee, some of our first presentations on it.

What you’re seeing today are limited revisions of individual acts. As with a general revision, they can make changes in organization, titles, terminology, maybe revised for clarity, but it does not provide authority for changing the law. In the legislative counsel world, we call these cleaning up the statute book. It really is a good description of it because we can rearrange the room, we can refinish the tables, we can wash the windows, we can polish the floors, but there’s no new furniture. That’s what we do.

That was the intro I was planning to do, and then the four revisions we have to present to you are the Health Act and the Veterinary Drugs Act. Our lead reviser on that is Sherie Verhulst. The Trespass Act, and our lead reviser is Sandra Borthwick. For the Workers Compensation Act, I’m the lead reviser, and Kevin Kohan is the second reviser.

I should take this opportunity to tell you that we have Amanda Goertz, our revision coordinator, who allows all this to be done efficiently and effectively. Thank you, Amanda.

Hon. Chair, that was the general introduction. Are there any questions? Should we start proceeding to looking at the revisions?

M. Elmore (Chair): Thank you very much, Janet, and welcome to the team.

Would it be helpful to have Janet walk us through the first one, Health Act, and then to have questions? Do you have questions right now?

J. Rustad (Deputy Chair): Just one general question.

First of all, thank you for the brief overview of what is certainly a tremendous amount of work in terms of updating our statutes.

The question I guess I’ve got is — and I just wanted to confirm this as we go into this — that the general nature of what you’re doing should not change the intent of the bill. I guess the question around this is: where is there some grey area? Obviously, language changes throughout the years. The understanding or intent of language changes throughout the years. That could potentially change the context of a particular section of an act.

How much latitude do you have in terms of your ability to bring forward those changes in a way that may even have a potential impact on the intent?

J. Erasmus: I think you’d see that if you’re looking at revisions of newer acts — let’s say any acts that are since 1979 to now — we have pretty consistent language already there. There’s very little language change there. But, for example, for the Workers Compensation Act, there are provisions there that go back to the origins in the 1916 act, so the language goes back over 100 years. Some of the language…. They used to use the word “deemed” for “considered.” In modern drafting we would use the word “if the board considers” as opposed to “if the board deems.” We only use that term now when it really is a legal fiction: “This is deemed to be that.”

Dealing with the statute revision of the Workers Compensation Act, what you have now is consistency in terminology because the more recent legislation has been drafted in current drafting style, but some of the older ones are different.

There are, generally speaking, very limited changes in terminology. If there is, it’s for consistency with our usual style.

Did that answer the question? I hope.

[12:45 p.m.]

J. Rustad (Deputy Chair): Yes.

L. Throness: Just a brief question. Thank you for describing what revised statutes meant. After five years of being an MLA, this is the first time I’ve understood what that means. So that’s great.

My question is: if you’re doing a piecemeal revision, does that not stand to cause confusion in the future? Because now you have five separate volumes. It’s all revised statutes. They’re all done. Now it’s going to be some revised, some not. Does that stand to be confusing in the future?

J. Erasmus: I don’t think so. In the same way that when you’re dealing with a new act, you get SBC 2018, chapter 4, right?

All you will get now…. The change will be the revision — language, renumbering — so that it’s consistent. But you’ll know it’s a revision, because it will be RSBC 2018, chapter 1.

It’s not difficult, in terms of identifying where to look for that act within the…. Going on line, in B.C. Laws, it will be there and available. You’ll know that it’s a revised act and the year it was revised.

In the same way, you can see a new act — completely new — where you can tell what year it was enacted and what its chapter number is. I think there won’t be confusion.

M. Lee: Thank you for the last two responses. I think it helps me understand the question I was about to ask, which is: the mandate of this committee, presumably, is to deal with revisions, not amendments. Okay, thank you.

M. Elmore (Chair): Any further questions?

Let’s have Janet, or whoever is in charge…. Can you lead us through the first one, the Health Act?

S. Verhulst: That would be me.

M. Elmore (Chair): Okay, Sherie, great. Thank you.

HEALTH ACT

S. Verhulst: Thank you, Madam Chair, and members of the committee. I’d like to acknowledge that I didn’t exactly do this revision by myself. The Ministry of Health kindly lent an analyst to this project, Ms. Kelly Dunsdon. Unfortunately, she can’t be with us today. And of course, legal services branch lent us the assistance of a solicitor, Miss Fiona Gow, who also can’t be here today. But I will forge ahead without them.

I’ll just briefly say what the main objective of this particular revision is, and then, perhaps, I’ll leave it to the committee to ask questions.

The primary driver of this revision of the Health Act is accessibility. Basically, if people want to find out what the law is surrounding the collection and disclosure of information by the B.C. Cancer Agency or the health status registry, simply looking for the Health Act is not a natural place to look. It’s not a very descriptive title. If they do manage to find what they’re looking for in the Health Act, they are then confronted with all legal concepts being crushed into two general provisions.

What we’ve done here is…. The two main things that we’ve done is, first, we’ve renamed the act to give it a title that actually describes its contents. Secondly, we’ve separated the provisions according to the general rule that one provision should have one legal concept expressed in it. Therefore, anybody who is looking for a particular piece of information can simply read down the table of contents and find what they’re looking for.

Along the way, of course, we’ve made some minor changes to the language to make sure that legal concepts that are the same are described using the exact same language. For instance, we had a provision that talked about communicating information, another disclosing information — they both refer now to disclosing information. It’s the same concept, same words.

With that, perhaps I’ll leave it to the committee.

M. Elmore (Chair): Thank you, Sherie.

Does anybody have any questions?

L. Throness: Just one question about section 5, where it has a list of things for the health status registry. There’s congenital anomalies, genetic conditions, chronic disabling conditions. These genetic conditions — that kind of a phrase didn’t exist a few years ago. Is it possible that something else might come up that does not exist now? Should we add a fourth category there — a condition prescribed by regulation? Or would that go beyond the meaning…? Would that change the intention of the act?

S. Verhulst: You’re absolutely correct. If we were to add in another condition, that would actually change the substance, the legal effect of the act. We don’t have the authority to do that under a Statute Revision Act.

In future, if the Ministry of Health felt that another type of condition should be added, they would have to go through the regular process of amending the act.

M. Elmore (Chair): Any further questions? Are we ready to go to the motion?

[12:50 p.m.]

L. Krog: Chair, I move:

[That pursuant to section 4 of the Statute Revision Act [R.S.B.C. 1996] Chapter 440, the Committee approve the revision of the Health Act and recommend that it be brought into force and further, that the Committee authorize the Chair to endorse the Committee’s approval on the title page of the Health Act Revision.]

M. Elmore (Chair): Thank you, Leonard.

Any discussion? Okay, we’ll go to a vote.

Motion approved.

M. Elmore (Chair): Thank you, Sherie.

Next we have the Veterinary Drugs Act, Chapter 363.

S. Verhulst: You’re still stuck with me.

M. Elmore (Chair): That’s also Sherie. Okay, carry on.

VETERINARY DRUGS ACT

S. Verhulst: In this case, I do have the analyst from Ministry of Agriculture. Ms. Layli Antinuk, at the back, has kindly joined us today. The solicitor from the Ministry of Agriculture, Mr. Tim Sheaff, was unable to be with us.

Similar to the Health Act, with the Veterinary Drugs Act what we had was a general statute that was repealed and replaced, and some orphan provisions were left behind. In this case they did retitle the act to reflect those orphan provisions, but they left the structure and language that applied to the old general act, and it doesn’t really make a lot of sense in the current context. So our primary objective with revision here is actually readability — how well the law is communicated to readers.

The two most important things that we did here are…. First, we changed the arrangements of provisions. For instance, in the current act, there are two definition sections which have the exact same definitions in them, and they apply to the entire act, so we’ve moved them all to section 1.

We’ve taken general prohibitions that are scattered throughout, and we’ve moved them all together to the front so readers can find them quickly and easily. We’ve moved all the administrative provisions back to the end.

The second major thing we’ve done is that we made minor changes to the language for clear and consistent terminology and structure. For instance, the current act uses the phrase “licensee” to include pharmacists and veterinarians, neither of whom have to be licensed under the act, so that’s very confusing. So we’ve taken out that term “licensee,” and we’ve replaced it with “persons who are authorized under the act”.

Similarly, the current act uses both “drug schedules” and “regulations” as if they’re two distinct terms. They’re not, so we’ve removed the reference to the drug schedules. We just use the term “regulations.”

With that, I’ll open it up.

M. Lee: Thank you for that. On subsection 11(3), I’m just looking at the strike-out black-lining provided to us. There’s been a deletion of the reference to “chair of the proceeding.” In terms of getting leave, is that only possible in that manner?

S. Verhulst: This is what I was referring to about how when they did the repeal and replacement, they failed to alter the structure and language to reflect the new context.

Under the act before it was repealed and replaced, that act also dealt with pharmacists and the operation of pharmacies. In that case, pharmacists who didn’t follow the law could be disciplined by the inquiry committee, disciplinary committees of the College of Pharmacists. In that case, there was a chair of the proceeding.

Under the new act, those provisions don’t exist, so there are no proceedings under this act in that way. There is no chair under this act in that way. So the phrase has absolutely no meaning. It has no legal effect now, so we’ve taken it out of the revision.

L. Throness: Just a very picky question. Subsection 7(d) is the fourth of five categories. Does that not require an “and” at the end of the subsection — “stated expiry date has passed, and” then the final one?

S. Verhulst: Ah yes. The section is structured in list format, and the office of legislative counsel drafting style is that when we use a list format — so we say something like “as follows” or “the following,” and there are colons — then the subsequent paragraphs all end in a semicolon, and we do not use a conjunction.

In this case, because subsection (2) says “an inspector may do the following:” all of the paragraphs are separated by a semicolon. No conjunction is required.

L. Throness: She knows her stuff.

M. Elmore (Chair): Yeah, I think so.

Okay, any other further questions?

[12:55 p.m.]

L. Krog: I’m ready to make the motion. I move:

[That pursuant to section 4 of the Statute Revision Act [R.S.B.C. 1996] Chapter 440, the Committee approve the revision of the Veterinary Drugs Act and recommend that it be brought into force and further, that the Committee authorize the Chair to endorse the Committee’s approval on the title page of the Veterinary Drugs Act Revision.]

M. Elmore (Chair): Any discussion? All right.

Motion approved.

M. Elmore (Chair): Now, we have the Trespass Act, chapter 462. We’ve got two folks coming up.

If you could introduce yourselves, please, and then go ahead with your presentation.

TRESPASS ACT

S. Borthwick: I’m Sandra Borthwick. I was the lead drafter on the revision.

T. Nyvall: I’m Tyler Nyvall. I was legal counsel that was assigned to assist.

M. Elmore (Chair): Okay. One more. That’s your point to go.

S. Borthwick: Okay. This is a very old act. It was originally enacted in 1889. It’s a trespass act. It was amended in 1911, and the Fence Act was consolidated into it. At that point, it kind of lost its structure. Obviously, you would expect to open the Trespass Act and find the first provision to be that trespass is prohibited.

But because of the revision in 1911, that got kind of buried. It was several sections down. The first new section after the definitions section in 1911 was a regulation-making power. There was also a regulation-making power at the end of the statute.

The main point of this — it’s a very small statute. There are also sections that had been repealed. We got rid of those, put like subjects together, organized better, put “trespass” up as the first main section in the act and then just made minor changes throughout just for better clarity.

M. Elmore (Chair): Terrific.

Does anybody have any questions?

L. Throness: I go where angels fear to tread.

Just one question under the definitions of premises. You have: “anything on land, including (ii) a ship or vessel, train, railway car” and so on. Airplanes were not in existence at the time this act was created. What about an airplane, say, on a tarmac? Should that not be included as a different kind of conveyance?

S. Borthwick: Well, I think that if there was to be something like that, I don’t know the answer to that. I don’t know if that’s something we could have addressed in a revision. I don’t know if there are jurisdictional issues with that kind of…. There would be probably substantive division-of-powers issues maybe.

M. Elmore (Chair): That might be under the amendment category, versus revision?

S. Borthwick: Yeah, it would have to be amended.

J. Rustad (Deputy Chair): Just some clarity on that, then. Is this something, then, that we need to ask advice about before coming in, in terms of whether that should or shouldn’t be included? I’m just trying to understand. I mean, it’s not a big deal. But if it’s something that can be cleaned up, should we be asking? Who would we even ask, in terms of this? You guys are the experts, obviously, in terms of it.

T. Nyvall: Actually, that would be the responsibility of my office. So it’s now been flagged for my attention that we may wish to consider an amendment. We can propose that to the minister at the appropriate time.

J. Rustad (Deputy Chair): If I may follow up, that would have to, then, be done up by amendment, even though the intent is, obviously, not changed.

T. Nyvall: It would be considered a substantive change to it, to add a new type of vehicle to the definition.

M. Elmore (Chair): All right. There you go. We’re getting some serious work done here.

L. Krog: I move:

[That pursuant to section 4 of the Statute Revision Act [R.S.B.C. 1996] Chapter 440, the Committee approve the revision of the Trespass Act and recommend that it be brought into force and further, that the Committee authorize the Chair to endorse the Committee’s approval on the title page of the Trespass Act Revision.]

M. Elmore (Chair): Any discussion?

Motion approved.

M. Elmore (Chair): Okay, friends, we are now at one o’clock. We do have one more item, the Workers Compensation Act. It is a substantive piece, so I am going to suggest that we reconvene to get into that act.

We’ve got a motion to adjourn.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 12:59 p.m.