Orders of the Day

Hon. D. Eby: I call second reading of Bill 38, Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 38 — OPIOID DAMAGES AND
HEALTH CARE COSTS RECOVERY ACT

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

The Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act will assist government in pursuing recovery of health care costs incurred as a consequence of the ongoing crisis involving the use of opioids in our province. The costs of this crisis to our health care system are staggering, and costs will continue to increase. The health care costs incurred by the province include those for treatment of problematic use and addiction, the cost of emergency services in response to overdose events, the cost of hospital treatment and various other related costs.

These measures of health care costs, of course, do not and cannot account for the immeasurable personal losses, not to mention direct financial costs to individuals, their families and friends and society as a whole that are related to the crisis.

The hon. Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and I are strongly committed to holding the parties who are responsible for this crisis accountable. To that end, we announced on August 29, 2018, that as part of its response to fight the overdose crisis in British Columbia, the government had commenced a class action lawsuit against the more than 40 different manufacturers and distributors of brand-name and generic opioid products in Canada.

The legal action commenced alleges that the pharmaceutical companies responsible for marketing and distributing opioid products caused a spike in addiction rates, including by marketing their products in a way designed to increase demand while knowing of the addictive and harmful nature of them.

The legal action seeks the recovery of health care costs incurred as a consequence of those companies’ actions to market, promote and sell opioid products as less addictive, less subject to abuse and diversion and less likely to cause tolerance and withdrawal than other pain medications.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

In many respects, the action that has been commenced against opioid manufacturers is similar to the action this government took to seek recovery of health care costs from tobacco companies in 1997. That action, too, sought to make large, corporate entities accountable for the devastating effects of their harmful products.

[1:35 p.m.]

Tobacco-related illnesses and disease costs the health system and taxpayers many millions of dollars every year. Government took steps then to ensure that tobacco companies would be forced to take responsibility for the health care costs of tobacco-related illnesses. The Tobacco Damages Recovery Act, as it was then titled, and is now, was introduced in an effort to give the government and individuals the legal authority to proceed to courts to collect hospital, medical and other prescribed costs resulting from tobacco-related cancer, heart disease and stroke related to tobacco consumption.

Subsequent amendments made to the legislation strengthened government’s ability to seek accountability. That legislation established a statutory tort of a tobacco-related wrong. That act was novel in establishing that statistical or epidemiological evidence could be introduced to establish damages.

As well, that act established provisions whereby liability could be based on risk contribution. It meant that government or individuals involved in court actions against tobacco companies did not have to prove that each individual manufacturer of a particular brand of product caused the harm, but rather, it was necessary only to provide that cigarettes generally cause harm.

The original tobacco legislation was amended and strengthened with provisions to shift the burden of proof in relation to certain aspects of causation by requiring tobacco companies to prove that any breach of duty on their part did not contribute to exposure to tobacco products and resulting tobacco-related disease. That was appropriate when the industry continued to maintain that nicotine is not addictive, that smoking was a matter of free choice and that they did not use deceptive practices to encourage people to smoke.

The legislation was tested repeatedly in the courts. And while it was found to be extraterritorial in its reach, the underlying principles of the act were found to be constitutionally sound. Those principles include: the province’s entitlement to make a claim for recovery of health care costs from companies, the province’s right to pursue claims on an aggregate basis, the onus of proof being on the tobacco industry on issues of causation, the apportionment of liability among companies on the basis of market share, and establishing a mechanism for disclosure of health care information while ensuring privacy of individual insured persons.

As I indicated on August 29, government is introducing this legislation to allow government to proceed in its litigation with opioid manufacturers and wholesalers on a similar basis to that in the tobacco case, which has been governed by rules set out in the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, as it is now known. Like the existing Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, this bill will establish the new statutory tort of an opioid-related wrong and establish that government has a direct cause of action to recover the health care costs, the cost of health care benefits, from those who have committed an opioid-related wrong as defined.

Recovery is permitted in respect of opioid-related disease, injury or illness. The bill will permit government to proceed by way of an aggregate action, which does not require government to meet the burden to establish the extent and magnitude of damages suffered by each insured person individually. It will not be necessary to identify particular individuals or to prove the cause of opioid-related disease, injury or illness for any particular individual. Evidence will not be required to be presented by government on an individual basis.

This bill will allow government to accurately prove its claim, relying on population-based evidence, and enable litigation to proceed as efficiently as possible while preserving fairness. Recovery on an aggregate basis will be facilitated by establishing presumptions with respect to use and causation and shifting the burden to the defendants to prove their activities did not increase use and their products did not cause harm.

The act will allow statistical information derived from epidemiological, sociological and other relevant studies to be admissible to establish causation and quantify damages.

If actions for opioid-related wrongs are not commenced on an aggregate basis, the bill provides that manufacturers who committed wrongs may be held liable in proportion to the degree to which they contributed to the risk. The class action that has been commenced will be continued under this act, and this act will serve to extend the procedural rules included within it to the action in progress.

M. Lee: I rise today to speak to the legislation at hand, Bill 38, the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. This legislation comes on the heels of a lawsuit launched by the provincial government against several dozen opioid manufacturers, as the Attorney General just indicated, and follows several similar lawsuits in the United States.

[1:40 p.m.]

I understand that this legislation and the lawsuit have taken a great deal of inspiration from the previous lawsuit and related legislation against tobacco companies, with the legislation that was put in place in the early 2000 period. And that tobacco litigation, of course, is still ongoing, regrettably, for close to two decades. I do further understand that there has been some success on the legal action approach in the United States with Purdue pharmaceuticals pleading guilty and paying over $600 million in penalties.

Although, as the Attorney General has said, it may be even years, if not decades, before any semblance of a settlement would be achieved from a lawsuit against opioid manufacturers. I think we are all in agreement with the members opposite when I say we support any initiative that saves lives and holds those who might be responsible for creating this devastating epidemic to account for their actions. The opioid crisis continues to rage in our province and across North America. The focal point of this crisis is centred in my own community and that of the Attorney General’s, being Vancouver.

According to the B.C. Coroners Service, the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority has the highest rate of illicit drug overdose deaths in the province, with 36 deaths per 100,000 individuals, which is 20 percent higher than the provincial rate of 30 deaths per 100,000 individuals.

The opioid crisis continues to claim lives at roughly four people per day, and the rate of death in 2018 is equal to that of 2017. In fact, July 2018 was one of the worst months on record with a staggering 130 overdoses on July 27 alone, but was surpassed by March 2018, which was the worst in British Columbia’s history.

With that said, the peak of our overdose crisis was just a mere six months ago. That is why we need a comprehensive treatment and recovery strategy from this government to relieve the crisis. The nationwide strategy essentially pioneered here in B.C. involves the four pillars — harm reduction, treatment, enforcement and prevention. We also need to take heed of what action other jurisdictions have taken and what other models exist. We need to address this crisis now, and we need to ensure that proper treatment and recovery options are available.

The government’s current strategy is focused on harm reduction, which is a key component, but we need to continue to address the other three pillars if we are to actually alleviate and effectively mitigate and eliminate this crisis.

Hon. J. Darcy: I rise in support of this very important piece of legislation. We are living through the worst public health emergency in this province in decades. Before this day is done, tragically, three to four more people will likely die.

I have in the course of the last 14 months as the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions met with countless families who have lost loved ones in this crisis and met with people working on the front lines of this overdose crisis. And when I have met with them — all of them — in all corners of this province, I have committed to do everything in my power to save lives in this overdose crisis, to turn the tide on this terrible crisis, to connect people with treatment and recovery as soon as possible and, also, to do everything in my power to prevent crises like this from ever happening again.

This legislation is part of that commitment, especially to ensuring that crises like this never happen again by holding those pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors responsible for the part that they have played and the role that they have played in this crisis.

The fact is that opioid manufacturers, distributors and wholesalers put profits ahead of people, and the results have been devastating. They misled physicians and the public regarding the risks and dangers of their drugs, and they earned billions as a result.

[1:45 p.m.]

Here’s just one example. An advertisement that ran just a few years ago that featured a very fit-looking jogger with a tag line — and this is an ad about OxyContin — that said: “One to start and stay with.” Another ad, again about OxyContin: “When you know acetaminophen will not be enough, take the next step in pain relief.”

These pharmaceutical manufacturers knew the dangers, and they took direct action to refute what they knew to be true, saying: “No, no, these are less addictive than other drugs. There is no risk of using them. In fact, use more of them.”

If there was any question that they knew the dangers and the risks, we have only to look at settlements in the United States, statements of claim, statements that were agreed to as part of settling lawsuits in the United States. On May 10, 2007, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Virginia announced that Purdue, one of the principal companies involved here, was pleading guilty to misleading marketing in the United States.

In that one state alone, Purdue paid $600 million in criminal and civil settlements. Three executives pleaded guilty as individuals to the criminal misbranding and were fined $34.5 million. As part of the plea agreement, an agreed statement of facts was issued and signed by Purdue executives. The agreed statement of fact states that: “Purdue supervisors and employees, with the intent to defraud or mislead, marketed and promoted OxyContin as less addictive, less subject to abuse and diversion and less likely to cause tolerance and withdrawal than other pain medications.” So they knowingly continued to market OxyContin and other opioid variations when they knew full well about its addictive qualities.

Since I was appointed Minister of Mental Health and Addictions 14 months ago, my top priority has been to do everything we possibly can as a government to turn the tide on this terrible crisis and to connect people to treatment and recovery as soon as possible. The scope of this crisis is enormous. We are facing the poisoning of the unpredictable toxic drug supply. The drug supply on the streets is becoming more lethal every week, and this crisis is quickly going global. That is why we continue to take bold and innovative action as a government. We are escalating our response every month, every week, every single day, to save lives and to connect people to treatment and recovery as soon as possible.

Over the past year, we have moved forward aggressively on many different fronts. We’ve dramatically increased the availability of naloxone, which is now available at over 1,400 locations. Almost 28,000 kits have been used to reverse overdoses. We’ve nearly doubled the number of overdose prevention sites and safe consumption sites. There have been 856,000 visits, over 2,000 overdoses reversed and not a single death. We’ve more than doubled the number of new people who are receiving opioid substitution therapy and increased the number of prescribers.

We’ve signed an agreement with the federal government with emergency funding in order to find new and innovative ways to connect people to treatment and recovery services when they need them, where they need them. We’ve launched an overdose emergency response centre to provincially coordinate the response as well as community action teams in 20 communities across the province. We’ve expanded drug checking to make sure that fentanyl test strips are available at all overdose prevention sites across the province.

We’re working in very close partnership with Indigenous communities and have invested over $20 million over the next three years in partnership with the First Nations Health Authority, and we’ve expanded post-overdose care in First Nations communities as well. And we’re working very closely with first responders and also with police so that they can, after a person’s life has been saved, act quickly to connect people to social supports as well as treatment and recovery options.

[1:50 p.m.]

We’ve also invested in preventive care through support for Foundry centres, one-stop shops right across the province with wraparound services. That is very much about one of the key pillars of our strategy, and that is prevention. We’ve opened five new locations, four more to come. Those are very much about ensuring that young people who come in the door who are at risk because of addiction issues, because of mental health issues, are able to connect with treatment services, support services and counselling as soon as they walk in the door.

Also, innovative resources like St. Paul’s HUB in Vancouver, the first of its kind in Canada. It is about not just providing overdose prevention services but also emergency care, short-term stay and immediate referral to counselling and support services and social supports in the community.

As far as another pillar of our approach, which the member opposite referred to…. When he said that we’re really only pursuing harm reduction, a harm reduction approach, that is simply not the case. We have allocated money, as well, out of our commitment last September of $322 million. There were significant new resources that were allocated to the Minister of Public Safety so that they could work closely with the RCMP and the federal government on strategies to reduce the import of fentanyl into our communities.

We have also, as a government, done something the previous government refused to do. That was to enact pill press legislation to ensure that the only people in the province of British Columbia who can legally use pill presses are those who are authorized legally to produce pharmaceuticals.

In addition to what we’re working on as far as prevention — and you’ll hear more about that in the months to come, about child and youth mental health and investing in our schools in order to improve supports for children and youth at an early age before mild and moderate mental health issues turn into more severe issues and into addiction issues — we are also taking the first steps now, after 16 years of neglect of our system for mental health and addictions in this province. We are taking bold steps forward to improve our system for treatment and recovery as we speak.

That means expanding a wide range of treatment and recovery options so that people can find the supports they need where and when they need them. We have already announced that we will be opening a therapeutic recovery community in the south Island in order to ensure that people who are suffering from long-term addictions are able to live and work and thrive in a community where they’re able to get the kind of support they need to be able to become fully productive members of our society when they leave that therapeutic recovery community.

We have purchased Woodwynn Farms in order to support the therapeutic recovery needs of people throughout the south Island. We’ve increased the number of recovery beds, intensive beds, in the Comox Valley. There is a new youth treatment facility on the way in Chilliwack. We’ve more than doubled the number of people living with opioid addiction who are now receiving opioid substitution therapy, and we’ve significantly increased the number of prescribers who are able to prescribe that form of treatment.

Certainly the folks that gathered in my community of New Westminster to celebrate Recovery Day just a few weeks ago — close to 20,000 people celebrating recovery in the streets — were very, very excited that for the first time in British Columbia, the government of British Columbia was supporting Recovery Day activities, not just in New Westminster but also across the province.

When the members of the opposition say that we have a single-minded focus on harm reduction, we do not apologize for one second that we are focused on saving lives. There is no pathway to hope unless people are alive. But we are absolutely investing also in treatment and recovery and also in prevention as well as in doing everything in our power to interdict the drugs, the fentanyl that is coming into our province.

I am pleased to see…. I wasn’t 100 percent clear when the member opposite spoke. He said in very general terms: happy to support any legislation, anything that makes a difference in this. I hope that means that the members of the opposition will be supporting this legislation. Those are certainly not the indications that we’ve received over the last few weeks.

[1:55 p.m.]

When the Attorney General and I announced this legislation — the lawsuit and the plan to introduce this legislation — just a few weeks ago, what we heard from the opposition, frankly, was fearmongering. They engaged in fearmongering.

They claimed to be concerned that this legislation and the legal action that the Attorney General is taking would limit our response to the overdose crisis, creating fears that resources would be misdirected. So let me be very, very clear, and let there be no misunderstanding on this score. There will be no resources and no funding taken away from our efforts to combat the overdose crisis in order to pay for this lawsuit — not a single penny. Our commitment remains as strong as it has ever been, and we will continue to commit the resources necessary until we have turned the corner on this terrible crisis.

We do have to wonder, though, why it is that the Leader of the Official Opposition and the spokesperson on mental health and addictions for the official opposition were so strong in their critique of our government taking this legal action and introducing this legislation. Frankly, British Columbians have certainly asked me — I have no doubt that they’ve asked members of the opposition — why it is we have the opposition party as well as the leader of the opposition siding with opioid producers, pharmaceutical companies, instead of siding with the people and families across British Columbia who are suffering, who have suffered and continue to suffer from this crisis.

Again, I’ll be very, very pleased if the opposition has changed its position on this, but the early indications were that the opposition did not believe that we should be doing this and holding pharmaceutical companies accountable.

Perhaps it’s the opposition leader’s past with big tobacco that explains why he isn’t standing with us, or has not up until now, when it comes to these opioid manufacturers and distributors and opposing the devastating impact that their marketing practices have had on British Columbia.

Last month, as I said, when we held a press conference and announced this action, the B.C. Liberals attacked the government, claiming this lawsuit was overly simplistic and will not save lives and that this action put too much attention on opioid companies. Well, frankly, that’s the point — to put attention on opioid manufacturers and distributors whose actions did play a role in creating this crisis.

Perhaps it’s not a surprise when we dig a little deeper and we find out that the opposition leader was part of the legal team representing Philip Morris against the B.C. government in 2011. Big tobacco continues to pursue B.C. for health care costs related to false advertising.

In the past, the B.C. Liberals have accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from opioid companies. So we do have to wonder — again, very, very pleased if the official opposition has changed its tune — whether those earlier statements and statements repeated as recently as yesterday have anything to do with the opposition leader’s record when it comes to defending big tobacco.

While the opposition has certainly equivocated at best, certainly, British Columbians are of very, very singular mind when it comes to supporting this legislation. We have heard from drug policy experts — Alan Cassels, for instance, a pharmaceutical policy researcher, an adjunct professor at UVic and also the communications director of UBC’s therapeutics initiative, a world-renowned organization that provides independent advice on pharmaceuticals. He has said: “We’re glad to see British Columbia taking the lead on seeking justice for the opioid crisis. There have been huge costs to our health care system just by the sheer medical activity around saving people from overdoses. The impact has been staggering, and the cost to the health care system as well.”

[2:00 p.m.]

We have also heard parents who have lost their children to overdose speaking out in support of the actions our government is taking. “It’s a long time coming. Certainly these drug companies need to be held accountable. They’ve deluded the public for so long.” That’s a quote from Rachel Staples, the mother of Elliot Eurchuk, who died tragically last year.

Leslie McBain, the mother of Jordan Miller — who, again, died tragically of overdose — was quoted a few weeks ago as saying: “The awareness factor is invaluable. All Canadians will understand there is fault. Big pharma was criminal, really, in the way they marketed their products.” Brock Eurchuk, Elliot Eurchuk’s father, says: “Today’s action is a step in the right direction. It’s long overdue, but better late than never.”

I am very proud to stand in support of the legislation introduced today by the Attorney General. As I’ve said at the outset, our government is escalating action every single day to save lives. We’re also acting to connect people to treatment and recovery, and we are moving as quickly as possible to repair the damage of 16 years of neglect and build a better system for mental health and addictions care.

We have given our word as a government that we will do everything in our power to address the damage that opioids have done to people’s lives in British Columbia. That’s why one of the many important actions that we’re taking — but a very important action that we’re taking — is legal action against more than 40 opioid distributors and manufacturers. These companies made, distributed and sold opioid pharmaceuticals with marketing that misled doctors and patients about their benefits and risks, and they continued to do so long, long after the risks were known. They profited from practices that helped to create this crisis, and it is high time that they were held accountable. It’s time that they were told that they should put people before profits.

We know that this legal action, this legislation, will not bring people back. No amount of money will do that, but enacting this legislation is the right thing to do, and I’m very honoured to stand in support of this legislation.

S. Furstenau: I’m grateful for the opportunity to rise and speak to Bill 38, Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. This is an important piece of legislation. I’m glad it is before the House for debate. As provincial leaders, we need to work together to reduce harm and stigma, address the root causes of the crisis, and support people struggling with mental health and addiction.

The ability to recovery costs would be an important advancement. It is vital as we move forward, however, that we carry the weight of every life lost and the struggle of every British Columbian still fighting the opioid crisis. We need to do this for them, and if the province is successful in its legal challenge — and I hope we are — the financial remuneration should go directly to helping the most vulnerable and helping those impacted by the opioid crisis.

Following on the important points raised by the member for Vancouver-Langara and the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, I’d like to speak to the report released last week from the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General’s office, called Illicit Drug Overdose Deaths in B.C. — findings of the coroner’s investigation. This report provides more heartbreaking context to this crisis that we are in. It states: “In recent years, a significant increase in drug-related deaths has affected families and communities across Canada. In British Columbia, unintentional illicit drug overdose deaths increased from 211 in 2010 to an estimated 1,450 in 2017.”

More than 3,400 people have died of illicit drug overdoses in B.C. since January 1, 2016. The coroner’s report summarized the data from illicit drug overdose deaths occurring in British Columbia between 2016 and 2017. It identifies differences and commonalities among people who have died of illicit drug overdoses, as well as the circumstances surrounding those deaths.

I’d like to dedicate my time today to those findings and the people behind them: 81 percent of those who died were male, 65 percent had never been married, and an additional 18 percent were separated or divorced. Most of them were in their 30s or 40s. The majority of people lived and overdosed in private residences.

[2:05 p.m.]

And 13 percent of people in the study cohort were living in social or supportive or single-room-occupancy housing; 9 percent were homeless; 44 percent were employed at the time of their death. Of those, 55 percent were employed in the trades and the transport industry. And 79 percent of people who died of illicit drug overdoses had contact with health services in the year preceding their deaths, and over half of those people, 56 percent, had contacts for pain-related issues.

More than half of the cohort were reported to have had a clinical diagnosis or anecdotal evidence of a mental health disorder. More than three-quarters of people were reported to have been regular or chronic users of illicit drugs. The most frequently detected substances included: fentanyl, 76 percent of deaths; cocaine, 51 percent; alcohol, 37 percent; and methamphetamine and amphetamines at 33 percent.

Illicit fentanyl was detected in a higher percentage of deaths among 15- to 29-year-olds compared with 30- to 49-year-olds and 50-plus-year-olds. The majority of the people had used their drugs alone. This was true across all health authorities, health service delivery areas and age groups. Even if they lived with others, they were alone at the time of their consumption and death.

As Andrea Woo summarized in the Globe and Mail: “They are mostly single men in their 30s and 40s, what otherwise could have been the prime of their lives. About half lived with mental health issues; about the same with physical pain. Half of them were employed, many working in the trades, and when they overdosed and died, they were at home, alone. Fentanyl was in their systems.”

While we can’t draw causational conclusions from this information, it is clear that our province is unwell. It is clear that young men in B.C., especially those who work in trades, are facing challenges. Can we support them better? Is there something about trades in particular that puts them at risk? Is our economy building healthy communities? Or is it separating people? Is it causing pain, loneliness, making it harder for people to make connections, maintain relationships and grow families?

This spring the Guardian in England published an article titled “Many of My Childhood Friends Are Dead,” by Patrick Blennerhassett. The U.K. publication was writing about Kamloops, B.C. I’d like to read some of that article to the House and into the record.

“Our fathers were lunchpail baby boomers,” Blennerhassett writes, “rigid backbones of the postwar world. Nobody asked them about their feelings because they were too busy working. But by the time my generation sprouted up, there was a new cultural and societal landscape: less stable employment, more job competition and none of the positive coping mechanisms to face the world.”

We learned “the traditional masculine characteristics of our fathers and other men in cities across rural Canada: ill-equipped to handle, let alone display, emotion; unable to properly cope with psychological stress; and prone to view any form of vulnerability as weakness. Stoicism and anger were the primary emotions — great when facing death or danger but crippling in everyday life; excellent on the hockey rink but useless for navigating the rest of the 21st century.”

Blennerhassett continues in his article:

“A recent study published in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry titled ‘Critical Issues in Men’s Mental Health’ outlines the ‘male depressive syndrome.’ Diagnosis is tough. Men won’t report depression nearly as much as women, but they will lash out in anger, abuse drugs and alcohol and take life-threatening risks.

“Most Canadian men, the study says, use ‘negative coping mechanisms’ to deal with their problems, which invariably makes them worse and can lead to substance abuse, depression and ultimately suicide.

“Jeff Conners, a Kamloops-based counsellor who focuses on men’s mental health, said men come into his office regularly with no road map for how to talk about their struggles. Job losses are huge triggers for depression and drug and alcohol abuse, and Jeff’s clients are weighed down with countless mental health issues and abusive dependencies.

“He said the important thing is to make sure the push to get guys to address their feelings isn’t cast as a war against the other sex. He noted 80 percent of men in Canada want to become fathers and are at risk of passing on negative archetypes of masculinity down to their sons.

[2:10 p.m.]

“‘I’ve seen this as an allied approach. We need to do this with women,’ he said. ‘This isn’t men against women. One of the first things I did when I started focusing on men’s mental health issues is I went to the women’s resource centre, and I said: “Look, I’m not against you. This isn’t ‘men’s rights.’ I just want healthy men, I want healthy kids, and I want healthy communities.”’

“Conners’s suggested solution is simple: start more conversations. Force men’s mental health issues out from under the rocks and into the sunlight. Get guys talking to each other, their spouses, friends and family, anyone.

“One night I had beers with friends,” writes Blennerhassett in his article. “Each of us around the table knew at least a dozen guys we’d lost over the years — to suicide, drug overdoses, workplace disasters and car accidents…. Compiling the names of the deceased felt like a never-ending search, and we felt like surviving soldiers of some grim, randomized war.”

Circling back to Bill 38, the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, I agree with Minister Eby that the lawsuit is an important step to address “corporate corruption and negligence” associated with the opioid crisis. I also agree with the logistical necessity of trying this case as a class action, and I feel hopeful it will build on the success of the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act.

That said, as we debate the bill through the House, I hope we will also keep the larger picture in mind. That picture includes thousands of wonderful British Columbians already lost and countless others at risk.

R. Kahlon: It’s my pleasure to stand up and speak in favour of the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act today. This is one of those topics where, whenever it comes up, I think everyone has a story — whether it’s a constituent, a neighbour or someone they know that’s been affected by this crisis that we’re facing in this province.

I just want to share briefly. A few weeks into me deciding that I was going to get into politics and knocking on doors, I knocked on a door of a house two blocks away from my house. Every time I drive by, I still think of this person. I knocked on the door, and I said to them: “Hi, my name is Ravi Kahlon.” I told them what I was doing. The guy said: “I’ve been waiting for you. Please come in.”

It was probably the scariest response I’ve ever had from anyone. At first, I was thinking maybe I shouldn’t go in and should talk at the door. But this man was being, I felt, genuine. He invited me in, sat me down at his table and began to tell me about how his son had got into a bad car accident — a motorbike accident, actually — and was struggling with pain and was prescribed medication. From that, he got addicted and started using street drugs.

He started to tell me how painful it was, as a parent, to not know where your child is for three, four weeks at a time, having to drive random streets to try to find the child and having them come home and not knowing if they’re going to stay or not. It was, as a new candidate, not something I was expecting and, quite frankly, was very emotionally difficult to hear.

When I heard the Attorney General and the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions come forward and say that we’re going to pursue litigation against companies that knowingly marketed themselves…. Knowing that they were putting out a product that had addictive traits, knowing that the people that were taking the drugs were getting addicted to it and still marketing it as if it wasn’t, not disclosing it, speaking and marketing to doctors and getting them to push this drug out to people knowing that it had long-term implications is just wrong. I’m so pleased that we’re taking this action.

It’s not the only action. There are, obviously, lots of things happening. We have a new ministry dedicated to mental health and addiction, which, I think, is a fantastic start — $322 million, additional, being spent to take action. There are lots of things happening.

What really triggered me was when I heard the Leader of the Opposition say things like overly simplistic, will not save lives and too much attention being paid on opioid companies. It really upset me.

[2:15 p.m.]

I think the Minister of Mental Health said…. In 2011, the Leader of the Opposition was on legal counsel for a big tobacco company, Philip Morris, against the province. I understand that at that time, he was working for that company. He was being paid by them. But guess what. We’re being paid by the people of British Columbia, so we should be unanimous in this moving forward. I hope that the member for Vancouver-Langara was the voice of reason and shared with the Leader of the Opposition that this is important, that we all should be part of this moving forward. That one story I heard can be multiplied by thousands.

The Minister of Mental Health and Addictions has been hearing that as she travels throughout this province. Some have said: “You know what? This case will be in court forever. It’ll be in court for weeks, months, years. Who knows how long it will go?” Well, one of the companies that the lawsuit is against has already admitted that they’re wrong. They’ve admitted in other jurisdictions that they’ve made this calculated move and are paying the price for it. So I think that it’s important for us to ensure that we hold them accountable in this jurisdiction.

If it was an individual that was selling drugs or doing things, we would all be a unanimous voice to go after them, and here is a company doing that. I think it’s prudent for us to take action, so I’m grateful to the Attorney General for making this move. It will bring attention to these companies. It will bring attention to what they’re doing. I’m also hoping that beyond the court case, when people take these drugs in future, when people have loved ones who are prescribed these, they have that sense of caution, knowing that there are challenges with this and that there are long-term effects to it.

I don’t want to speak too much longer on this, but I did want to have a chance to get up and say a few things. I really want to commend the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions on the work she’s doing. I know there was work done before by previous Health Ministers. This is not a partisan issue in that sense. Everybody in this House believes that we need to be doing more, always need to be doing more. But I want to commend her on her work.

We had a round table in my community where we brought people in. Some were people that worked in the social sector, some people had lived experiences themselves with addiction, and some came just because they wrote to me and said: “Hey, this is the challenge I have with my child or loved one.” So we invited them all in. It was scheduled for one hour, and the minister spent two hours plus in that room listening to people, listening to their concerns. This came up over and over again. People said: “When are we going to take action against these companies? Enough is enough.”

I’m grateful that she took that advice. I’m grateful to the Attorney General for taking this step. I’m actually grateful to hear from the member for Vancouver-Langara that all members of this House will be supporting this going forward. I think it sends a good message to people of our province that we work for you. We don’t work for donors. We don’t work for anyone else.

With that, I’ll leave that there and look forward to hearing more support from the opposition.

N. Simons: I appreciate the comments of all the speakers who’ve spoken on this topic. I’ll be adding my comments on Bill 38, Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act.

When I first knew that we were going to be debating this today, I had no inclination that it wouldn’t receive unanimous support, that there was any doubt about it. It didn’t even cross my mind. I can’t think of any reason why anyone wouldn’t support a bill that holds a company to account for the damages it has caused to our society. Any suggestion that this wouldn’t be unanimously supported in this House caused me a little bit of consternation. During the words of the member for Vancouver-Langara, I was somewhat reassured that, in fact, they will be supporting this legislation, and I’m presuming that to be the case.

[2:20 p.m.]

With that in mind, I’m pleased to be able to say that we as a legislative body agree that one of our primary responsibilities is to ensure that we protect the public not just against future harm but against the concept that people can get away with a practice that misleads the public. Here we’re talking about the manufacturers of drugs that have incredibly negative effects on people when their addictive characteristics are present.

In British Columbia, thousands of people have died. In every single province across this country, people have died. We talk about the numbers of deaths. We talk about the number of overdoses.

Sometimes we don’t talk about the families of those individuals who are suffering, the families of the individuals who suffered, perhaps, from an injury and pain and a drug treatment program that may have gone bad. We don’t talk about the brothers and the sisters of the men and women who’ve suffered or have died of overdose. In my community of Powell River, on the Sunshine Coast, we had the highest per-capita rate of overdose deaths. That, in my community of 12,000, is significant.

We, as a legislative body, have a responsibility to deter future prospects of pharmaceutical companies trying to get away with this again. That’s why we have to do this. We have to not only make sure that we raise awareness about the costs to our society and calculate the damages that have cost us personally, communally, financially, through the health care system, the emergency health care system, the criminal justice system — unequipped or ill-equipped to deal with people with addiction problems and mental health issues….

We have to think about the bigger picture — that if we don’t hold these companies to account, who will? It’s our responsibility, because it’s within our authority, not just legally but morally. I’m really pleased that our government is proposing legislation that will make our prospect of succeeding against these pharmaceutical companies more successful and more efficient, faster.

Ultimately, what this legislation will do is allow the province to present a case based on the aggregate data, the aggregate health care information. We don’t have to go to every single person’s medical file to determine what the cost was in their particular case, their cost was to the justice system or to our social support network or the health care system. We can look at the data in a broad way at the macro level.

It also allows us to do so without unduly interfering with the privacy of those individuals. The aggregate data will protect the privacy of those whose information is held by medical services.

It will allow us to estimate the culpability of each manufacturer based on their market share, based on what they have put into the system. We’re talking about companies, corporations, that knowingly misled or encouraged the public to use a drug that they knew would be addictive. That would be considered a heinous crime.

The fact that our government is taking steps to remedy this is necessary, and I would only expect that we would have unanimous support for this. I understand that, in opposition, when an announcement is made by government, it’s not always easy to find something to be critical of. When this announcement was made in late August, the criticism was that this wouldn’t solve the problem.

[2:25 p.m.]

But nobody said it would. Nobody said we were going to solve the problem with this legal action. Nobody said we were going to solve the problem at all. What we did commit to, and we committed to as legislators here, was to contribute the necessary funds to try to get a grip on the problem. There’s no easy answer. A clean drug supply, obviously, but we’re not there yet. We haven’t figured it out. People are still dying. Fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, are dying.

We need to raise more awareness. We need to reduce the stigma. We need to ensure that people who need prescriptions in order to get the supply, get it. We need to increase our treatment programs. We need to make sure our kids are resilient in school as they grow up, that they have proper nutrition, that they have proper education and proper care.

Our government is taking extremely bold steps in those directions. We’re trying to make sure that those who need child care get child care and that they don’t have to spend more on their child care than on their mortgage, already exorbitantly high.

We’re investing in communities in ways that will ultimately, I hope, result in stronger, more resilient young people as they grow up — happier and good, contributing citizens. That’s what we all hope for in our community.

Harm reduction is part of that. Harm reduction is a necessary part of that. It is not condoning of behaviour, as it’s often criticized for being. It is not.

We all say that we support people who are in addiction and that it’s their addiction that’s the problem, not them. We need to continue with that philosophy. We need to realize that these people who are suffering all come from different places, with all of their own experiences that lead them to where they are. It’s not for us to judge.

It’s healthy for our society to be looking after this issue. It’s important for us to recognize that as a society, we care about the people who we may not even know. We care about the people because it’s helpful for our community to remain cohesive. So we put the necessary resources towards addressing a problem that we may not be intimately familiar with, but we do it because we know our society benefits from that.

Here we are as a government — in addition to the prevention, in addition to the treatment, in addition to the harm reduction and to the new ways of trying to reduce the harshest impact of this crisis — also saying: “Don’t let this happen again.” We’re also saying to the companies that think they can come in here and get away with causing irreparable harm to our citizens: “We’ll hold you to account, and we’ll pass laws that will make it easier for us to hold you to account. You may have more money than us, but we represent the people.”

I think that our government is taking an important step to make sure that our legal foundation is strong, and we can achieve the result we need to achieve with this legislation.

M. Dean: Thank you for the opportunity to talk to this legislation, the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act.

This bill supports litigation launched in August 2018 against opioid manufacturers and distributors aimed at recovering health care costs related to their alleged wrongdoing. We believe that opioid manufacturers and distributors deceptively marketed their products, and as a result, the province has incurred significant costs.

As you’ve heard from my colleagues earlier on, there are a whole range of costs associated with that. It’s not just the costs of hospitalization, for example. It’s also the cost of chronic health conditions that people have had arising from their addiction to opioids and overdependency on opioids.

[2:30 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

So the province is starting legal action against pharmaceutical companies to recover those health care costs. It’s alleged that the pharmaceutical companies responsible for manufacturing and distributing opioid products actually caused a spike in addiction rates, including by marketing their products in a way designed to increase demand while knowing of the addictive and harmful nature of them. The province of British Columbia has incurred — and we continue to incur as well — significant health care costs as a result.

On August 29, 2018, the government commenced an action under the Class Proceedings Act against more than 40 manufacturers, framed as a means to recover health care costs incurred as a result of their alleged wrongdoing. To support the litigation, government also announced its intention to introduce tobacco-style legislation for this fall session — this bill — and that’s what we’re going to be discussing now.

This bill will allow the province to prove its claim against opioid manufacturers and distributors in a more efficient way. The bill is modelled closely on the existing Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. The bill establishes the statutory tort of an opioid-related wrong, allowing recovery for opioid-related disease, injury or illness.

Instead of bringing forward each individual expense record for British Columbians to quantify overall expenses, the legislation will allow government expenditures to be proven by reference to population, based on evidence, statistical data and budget information, to get a big-picture view of the health care costs.

This action is another step in our continued effort to take action in response to the profound impact that the overdose crisis has had on communities across B.C. We have a duty, we have a responsibility, to hold these companies to account in view of the devastating impact which has resulted from their deceptive marketing and distribution practices.

I can tell you about a couple who live in my community. They lost their adult daughter to an overdose. She’d struggled intermittently with drugs, with addiction, with homelessness, probably for about 20 years. Her family had supported her. They’d been there for her unconditionally, but even they couldn’t provide all the supports that professional services might be able to offer, yet she reached a position of stability. She was engaged in some theatre activities. She was planning forward. She was making plans for her own future.

However, she died from a fatal overdose, and as her parents say, she should not have had to die alone. As we know, in fact, many overdose victims die alone. The majority are men. In just July this year, we lost 134 lives to illegal overdoses, and I know everybody here sympathizes with — and our hearts are broken for — families throughout B.C. who are grieving the loss of loved ones.

What these numbers show us is that B.C. is still dealing with an unpredictable and toxic illegal drug supply. The overdose crisis continues to be a top priority for our government, and we are working every day to increase our response and to continue saving lives.

Even in 2017, over 186 women in B.C. lost their lives due to unintentional overdose. They represented one in five who died but one in three of patients seen in emergency departments for overdose. So we still need to continue to improve our understanding, and our response to the patterns and trends that we observe needs to continue to improve.

[2:35 p.m.]

Every day we are working to build a better, more coordinated system of mental health and addictions care to support the needs of all British Columbians. We created the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions, and government invested $322 million over three years to support the ministry-led coordinated response to this overdose crisis.

These actions are spearheaded by the new overdose emergency response centre and are focused on saving lives, ending stigma, building treatment and recovery networks, creating a supportive environment, advancing prevention and improving public safety.

In my constituency of Esquimalt-Metchosin, we will actually have a dedicated place for therapeutic recovery for between 50 and 100 men opening very soon. We recognize that those at the greatest risk of overdose are people who are using drugs indoors, in private residences — men aged 30 to 59 in particular. We are working to knock down the walls of silence and stigma so that people aren’t afraid to talk about drug use and addiction and to encourage those who are silently struggling to feel safe to ask for help.

While it might seem that there are clear linkages between this litigation and the current overdose public health emergency, today’s action is about those deceptive marketing practices. We’re saying that the practices used by opioid companies to market their products were deceptive to doctors and patients, and this had consequences for people’s health, including the negative impact of increased demand and which could have included overdose. So we’re not saying this is the sole cause of the crisis, but we’re saying it’s implicated within it.

We’re actually tackling this crisis in lots of different ways. We’re starting legal action against pharmaceutical companies to recover health care costs resulting from this deceptive marketing. The claim is that opioid manufacturers marketed their products to increase demand without regard for the consequences of taking those drugs.

Think about how many vulnerable British Columbians have suffered, have been taken advantage of and had their lives affected for a very long time. For example, 40 percent of perinatal women in B.C. saw a doctor for their mental health, and of those, 12 percent received depression services. What a time of vulnerability. Can you imagine for those British Columbian women to actually have been deceived in that situation?

This statement of claim asserts that opioid manufacturers and distributors knowingly and directly undertook deceptive production, marketing and distribution practices that caused the government of British Columbia to incur significant health care costs.

We’re in the process of quantifying the financial impact, including unnecessary health care costs to B.C. health care plans. The total amount has yet to be determined, but the costs will include things like the treatment of problematic use and addiction, the cost of emergency services in response to overdose events, the cost of hospital treatment, and it goes on and on.

I know how expensive and pervasive these costs are. I ran a community-based social service agency. We offered the only local substance use treatment services for the whole of the community, and we were overstretched. By the time of 2016-2017, we had long wait-lists. We had extremely high pressure on our services. There were no other services for adults who needed mental health and addiction supports and services, and the level of service in our community had not increased in all the time that I’d been running those services, which was over ten years.

Relatively, those services are really good value, but because of the strain in the community, we were seeing more people in hospital, more people readmitted to hospital, more people actually being put on more medications, and all of this has been costing the B.C. government, increasing over time.

[2:40 p.m.]

We need to make sure that we move to a trauma-informed method of prevention and understanding, supporting people with mental health and addictions issues and needs. We need to move towards more harm reduction and actually helping people get themselves away from substance abuse and substance reliance.

The benefits of the way that we’re approaching this are to allow us to prove our claim in a more efficient manner, similar to litigation against big tobacco. So rather than bringing forward each individual expense record for British Columbians to tally overall expenses, this legislation will allow government expenditures to be proven by reference to population based on evidence and statistical data and get that big-picture view that I mentioned. This, in turn, will help to reduce pressure on the courts and promote expediency and efficiency.

That’s what we need. In all areas of action that we’re taking to try and tackle the opioid crisis, we actually need all of those methods to be done as quickly and efficiently, successfully and effectively as possible.

To finish, Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate that we offer all the support that we can to the families. We are working hard to tackle the opioid crisis in any way that we can. We’ve given our word as government that we will do all we can, and this is just one aspect of that.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the Attorney General to close the debate, second reading.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to all my colleagues in the House for sharing their comments in relation to this bill. It’s a very important piece of litigation for the province to ensure accountability for the companies that we allege made these harms so much worse through their misconduct.

I appreciate the comments of the member from the opposition in terms of his support, as I understand it, for the bill from the opposition party, and of the member of the Third Party for her comments in relation to the support of the Third Party.

I will note that in terms of the comments of the member of the opposition, I’d encourage him to get a briefing from the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions on the many, many initiatives of government in relation to the opioid overdose crisis to understand a little better what we’re doing. His comments were not, with respect, complete in terms of government’s many initiatives in this regard.

With that, hon. Speaker, I move second reading of the bill.

[2:45 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Second reading of Bill 38 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

[2:50 p.m.]

Bill 38, Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, 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. M. Farnworth: It’s amazing, for a dead language, how enthusiastic people get when it’s used.

With that, I call second reading debate on Bill 36, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

BILL 36 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 2018

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Bill 36 amends a number of statutes. Amendments to the College and Institute Act, the Royal Roads University Act and the University Act will remove the board membership eligibility restriction respecting employees who have responsibility to negotiate with the board the terms and conditions of service of members of the association or adjudicate disputes regarding members of the institution.

The repeal of these provisions will allow staff and faculty with negotiating and dispute adjudication roles or their respective staff or faculty associations to be eligible to serve on the boards of institutions. These provisions intentionally and unnecessarily limit representation on public post-secondary boards. The repeal of these provisions will support broader representation on public post-secondary institutional boards and enable greater efficiency in the board appointment process, especially at institutions with smaller populations from which to select board members.

The amendments to the Milk Industry Act modernize the definition of “dairy plant” by eliminating the outdated and archaic parts of this definition and creating a new authority to exempt, by regulation, places or activities from the definition of “dairy plant.” This will eliminate unnecessary regulatory burden, as requested by the restaurant industry, without compromising food safety.

The exemption authority will be used to develop a future regulation that will identify places or activities where dairy products can be manufactured without a dairy plant licence. Any exempted places will continue to be regulated as food premises and will have to adhere to strict safety requirements. The new exemption powers will be used to update and broaden the exemption related to frozen premixes — for example, ice cream, frozen yogurt and sorbet — and allow restauranteurs to provide unique menu offerings or ethnic foods made in a traditional style without a dairy plant licence.

The amendments to the Mental Health Act will authorize the appointment of retired physicians to sit on the review panel of the Mental Health Review Board. These amendments will also retroactively validate review panels constituted under the old law and the resulting decisions. These amendments will bring the legislation in line with current and appropriate practice. They address the shortage of practising physicians on the review board due to limited availability, loss in clinical wages and potential conflict-of-interest situations. Above all, these amendments will provide an effective means for the Mental Health Review Board to recruit consistent and capable members to resolve cases for citizens in a timely manner.

The amendment to the Public Guardian and Trustee Act will clarify that the Public Guardian and Trustee may, as a corporation sole, become and act as a director of a client’s company. As the Business Corporations Act requires a director of a company to be an individual, it is currently unclear whether the Public Guardian and Trustee, as a corporation sole, can be a director. The amendment will ensure that the Public Guardian and Trustee can act as a director of clients’ companies in order to meet its obligations to clients by protecting their financial interests.

[2:55 p.m.]

The amendment to the Offence Act has a specific provision to expressly authorize tele-informations. When it isn’t practical for a peace officer to appear in person before a justice, they may swear an information using a written telecommunication, thereby making better and more efficient use of police and judicial resources.

The Criminal Code specifically allows for the swearing of tele-information for criminal offences, and section 133 of the Offence Act specifically incorporates provisions of the Criminal Code if no express provision has been made in the Offence Act. Instead of relying on that authority, this amendment will provide express authority for tele-information within the Offence Act.

The amendments to the Supreme Court Act were suggested by the chief justice and primarily deal with masters and registrars. Masters handle pretrial applications, case management conferences, settlement discussions and similar matters. The proposed legislation confirms the chief justice’s administrative authority over masters, including such things as where they preside.

The legislation codifies long-established practices on a master’s salary, benefits, retirement and security of tenure. Masters receive the same pay and benefits as provincial court judges. The amendments set out the parameters of a master’s option to elect senior status, which, similar to provincial court judges, allows a master to work part-time while collecting a pension.

The legislation also codifies the chief justice’s administrative authority over registrars. Registrars handle disputes relating to costs, the amount of lawyers’ bills, the settlement of orders and similar matters.

Finally, the proposed legislation better organizes the Supreme Court Act. The proposed legislation does not change existing practices or laws. Rather, it codifies practices that have existed for many years.

The proposed amendments to the Business Corporations Act, Cooperative Association Act, Credit Union Incorporation Act, Financial Institutions Act and Societies Act will ensure that all audits are performed by qualified individuals. The current legislation creates a potential loophole in which a chartered professional accountant may be authorized to perform an audit whether or not that person has been authorized by the professional organization of Chartered Professional Accountants. The proposed legislation will protect B.C. companies and other entities that may be affected by a similar loophole by ensuring that all audits are performed by qualified individuals.

Finally, Bill 36 makes amendments to the Safety Standards Act. The Safety Standards Act governs high-risk technical equipment such as gas and electrical systems, boilers, refrigeration plants and elevators. The proposed amendments aim to increase safety both for the general public and workers. They do so by addressing gaps and strengthening existing safety oversight tools so that regulators can do their jobs more effectively.

For example, the amendments prohibit advertising to do unauthorized or grey market work. They also authorize an on-line database of information about people who do regulated work, including enforcement history, so the public can make informed decisions about who to hire.

M. Lee: I wish to rise to speak to some of the parts of this Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, and I know that other colleagues of mine will continue on to talk about certain parts of it as well.

Let me just start off by making a few comments about part 1, which is amendments to advanced education, skills and training in terms of various acts relating to the College and Institute Act, Royal Roads University Act and the University Act itself. I appreciate the Attorney General’s comments just now in terms of wanting to make governance at those institutions more effective, particularly for smaller institutions.

I think all legislators in this House would want to work towards that end, to always improve governance for all of our public institutions as well as our professional bodies. But I can tell you that members on this side of the House are very focused on the changes that this government is bringing about across all levels of governance in this province and that we will be very mindful to look at, in detail, the rebalancing of these responsibilities, the composition of these boards and bodies that are being looked at by this government.

When those changes are being made, one has to question in this House: why are they being made? For what purpose? What objective? In what interest of the public is the government proposing rejigging the governance structures of these boards and professional bodies?

[3:00 p.m.]

This is a good example, of course. When we look at the proposed changes in this Bill 36, it’s simple: just delete this section 59(8) of the College and Institute Act. But when you look at the section itself…. Members on this side of the House have had a brief opportunity by way of a briefing only a few hours ago, given the rapid nature in which this legislation is being introduced and being discussed. Having said that, that particular provision is a provision that says that a person is not eligible to be or remain a member of the board if the person is an employee of an institution and a voting member of the executive body of the institution that has the responsibility to negotiate with the board or adjudicate disputes involving members of that institution, at the staff level or otherwise.

It’s one thing to say in our academic institutions, in this context…. I know from my time as a student body president, on a presidential search committee, as part of an alumni UBC board as well as chair, that all universities and colleges want to ensure they have good stakeholder involvement by faculty and staff. That’s something that I think all of us would recognize. But the question for this provision in these particular acts that are being proposed to be amended here would remove something that is there for a good reason. When they’re representing in a bargaining or negotiating context or adjudicating disputes, clearly those individual employees are performing a role and responsibility that is for the particular interests of the staff, the employees that they’re representing. That is in a direct adversarial role to the board of that particular institution.

In the briefing that we heard today, only a few hours ago, we understood that, well, the model for this structure is there in other universities and colleges across other parts of this country. I will say I know that my colleague from Surrey South will have more detailed comments about that, but I question that as well, as I did in the briefing, in the sense that surely, of course, there are conflict-of-interest guidelines at the board level — and there are.

To start to move around this legislation, with the composition of these boards, to eliminate what has been a reasonable, appropriate restriction, we’ll need to put more weight on the rules and the guidelines of each of those boards of these colleges and universities across this province, at least the ones to which these amendments pertain, because at the end of the day, we need to ensure that all our institutions, public as they are, are being governed in the most appropriate way and that we’re not resetting composition of the board that will lead to bad governance.

I will look forward to joining my colleagues from Surrey South and Abbotsford-Mission to talk about, in detail, the framing of this particular set of amendments, with the existing governance rules for the colleges and universities for whom these provisions apply and the way that the board of these institutions is comprised, meaning the appointment mechanism by government or election by faculty, staff and students. These are the aspects that I think that will need a line-by-line detailed review at the committee level.

I’ll just move on to the items around part 3, which are the Attorney General Ministry’s amendments.

[3:05 p.m.]

I think, in terms of looking at the Mental Health Act, I appreciate the further clarification in the case of retired medical practitioners, their ability to continue to serve on boards that the minister may continue to establish and govern. I do think that we need to continue to look at how these boards are being structured by government and the roles that non-professionals are playing on these boards.

This is probably not the best example of that, but we do know that in the case of engineers, geoscientists and the like that there is a real move by this government to hamper and impede the ability of those professional organizations to govern themselves. We will have more comments to make about that in other contexts, but I just wanted to note that we’ve heard from many British Columbians about their concerns about the way this government is seeing those with professional training in this province and how they govern themselves in an appropriate way and in a responsible way.

I’d like to comment briefly about the Offence Act, recognizing that the definition of “any means of telecommunication” will be important to understand at the committee level, the extent of that. I appreciate that there’s an existing Criminal Code section that provides for that, under the Offence Act, to draw that in. But I think we will want to look at that more in detail.

In terms of the codification, as I understand under the Supreme Court Act, in terms of the responsibilities of the chief justice and the Attorney General, we’ll be wanting to look at those roles and responsibilities. I understand there has been some good level of consultation on that. That’s something I’d like to more thoroughly understand and recognize in terms of the roles that are assigned and codified in this act.

Then lastly, in terms of the changes to part 5, the Municipal Affairs and Housing amendments…. There may be another colleague of mine who may speak to this. But in the event that he or she doesn’t have that opportunity here as we go forward, I just wanted to make a general comment that the scope of the minister’s powers to make regulations for safety standard purposes and standards will be something that we’ll want to be looking at, at committee level, because it is a broad scope.

I appreciate that we are all wanting to ensure that there is the appropriate registry for contractors to ensure that there isn’t grey market kind of work that’s going on, as the Attorney General is referring to, for public safety reasons and for consumer purposes reasons. But the scope of the minister’s powers to make regulations for safety standards is something I think we’ll want to come back to in detail to have a thorough understanding as to the breadth of that scope and the ability for the minister to set down those standards.

I look forward to further conversation and discussion at the committee level.

Hon. M. Mark: It is my honour to stand in these chambers. First, I’d like to acknowledge the traditional territory of the Lekwungen-speaking people, members of the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations, the land that we are gathering on today.

I appreciate the comments from the member opposite. I look forward to a robust conversation and debate at committee about the purpose and the intent about bringing into balance, through the amendments to the University Act, the Royal Roads University Act and the College and Institute Act.

We are amending legislation to remove discriminatory restrictions on people who want to serve on the boards of our public universities, institutes and colleges. We are bringing forward amendments to bring balance to our public post-secondary board structure.

Under Bill 18, the Advanced Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2011, the government of the day passed legislation making certain members of the faculty or staff association ineligible to serve as an elected board member. Quite simply, we are levelling the playing field to ensure that there’s representation that reflects the diversity of our province.

[3:10 p.m.]

Prior to 2011, legislation governing boards provided little in respect of members’ overall duty to the institution or conduct, and did not address conflicts of interest on the part of board members. Removing these restrictions allows boards to more accurately reflect an institution’s stakeholders. This is especially important for public post-secondary institutions with smaller populations from which to select board members.

Any real or perceived conflicts of interests are already managed through bylaws in place at our public post-secondary institutions. These proposed changes will increase the pool of candidates from which board members may be selected.

The repeal of these provisions will support broader representation on public post-secondary institutional boards. It will enable greater efficiency in the board appointment process while still enabling boards to manage potential future situations through maintaining statute provisions and their own bylaws.

We want to ensure that the public post-secondary system works for people. Our government was elected on three pillars: making life more affordable, delivering services that people can count on and building an economy that works for everyone.

We have 25 public post-secondary institutions in B.C. We have a robust ecosystem. But in order to guide those institutions, we need to have the right leadership at the table and we need to have a balanced approach to that representation at the table. For the first time, Indigenous representation on every board is at all of those 25 public post-secondary institutions. This isn’t something that happened in 2017 or 2016; it happened in 2018 — because we value the diversity of our province and we want to support our ecosystem.

We are going to continue to make sure that there is representation from community leaders and community members who are going to serve the best interests of our public post-secondary institutions and serve the interests of students that go to our schools to advance their education. And there are robust measures in place to address any matters of conflict of interest, perceived conflict of interest and what have you.

I look forward to our conversation and the comments from the members opposite, here and moving forward at committee. But ultimately, the amendments here are about bringing into balance the representation of those members on our boards.

A. Olsen: I want to rise today and speak to Bill 36, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3).

I just want to say that in general, as we have had a very high-level opportunity to scan this piece of legislation — of course, we expect these types of legislation to come forward and certainly appreciate the opportunity to go through them in detail — we also shared the same initial concern with the members of the official opposition when we had the first read of it.

We’ve had an opportunity today to have a briefing with respect to sections 1 to 3 of the bill. As a caucus, and as our staff, the advice that we got…. We were told that it was fine and that there were other pieces of legislation that covered the conflict-of-interest aspects of this bill.

That being said, I think that, as the member from Langara raised, the opportunity to look through the piece of legislation in detail…. I will be tracking that conversation and that discussion very closely. And we do have questions. Of course, we want to make sure that we are, as a House and passing this legislation, covered on the important aspects that were raised by the member.

At this stage, I’m going to take my seat and just say that we’re happy to follow the bill as it goes through. We support many, many aspects of it in principle, and I look forward to hearing the debate as it unfolds, and participating in the committee stage of this bill.

[3:15 p.m.]

S. Cadieux: It’s my privilege to speak to Bill 36, the Miscellaneous Statues Amendment Act (No. 3). I’ll direct my comments to the changes impacting the appointments to post-secondary boards under three acts — the College and Institute Act, the Royal Roads University Act and the University Act.

Now, the general approach of government, I believe, should be to remove potential conflicts of interest. So I think it’s rather odd that the changes that are being proposed look to set up those conflicts, rather than remove those conditions. The existing acts are clear in that the employees with the responsibility to negotiate with the board on the terms or conditions for employees or who had a formal role in the adjudication of disputes regarding members of the institution weren’t eligible to sit on the board.

These limitations, I believe, played a role in preventing conflicts, whether they be real or perceived, for either the board or the employee. The lines were certainly clear. But the legislation seeks to repeal that limitation, and that raises real concerns that those conflicts could be perceived. I’m not saying they would be real. I am saying that perception is left open.

I think we have a great post-secondary system. I think that our post-secondary system is well respected. It’s respected in that it has provided excellent service to British Columbians and to students and our communities and that it’s governed well. I think, though, that this could potentially have an unintended consequence of tarnishing that reputation. The reason that I think that is that, with the possibility of a change to the board structure….

In the briefing we were given, it was suggested by staff that the reason for repealing this section is that it could be discriminatory and that no other institution in Canada has a similar provision. Fair enough. I’ll be curious to look into that further. Certainly, in the first of the university acts that I reviewed from outside the province, the University of Western Ontario, they indeed don’t have a provision like that. However, they do have a provision that prohibits staff or faculty or a member of a governing body of another institution from sitting on the board of an institution. Theoretically, I would see that as equally discriminatory.

It also provides, within that legislation, specific conflict-of-interest provisions that suggest that no member of the board can participate in or undertake discussions of matters related to the remuneration or benefits, terms of employment, rights or privilege available to employees at a university that are directly related to compensation and that are negotiated in a collective fashion for a class or group of employees of the university, if that person is, indeed, an employee of one of those organizations.

Conflict of interest does theoretically prevent individuals who are already on the bargaining committee of a union or faculty association from participating in, very much, what the work of a board of an educational institution is. That raises, for me, the issue that perhaps a board could get out of balance and, perhaps, be in a situation where they actually could not function as a board because they couldn’t reach quorum to get to decisions. It’s unlikely, but it’s possible if you remove that obligation.

Regardless, I’m sure we will, through discussion in committee, get me to a point where I feel comfortable that that won’t come to fruition. However, I want to go back for a minute to a major concern. That is: why? Why now? The minister mentions bringing into balance and levelling the playing field to get to diversity. I’m all in favour of diversity. Absolutely. But I think there are other ways to get to that, not the least of which would be to change the university acts that we have to actually provide statutory positions for members from diverse groups.

[3:20 p.m.]

We do that already. There are seats for student representatives, seats for faculty and staff representatives, a seat for the president. I don’t understand why we wouldn’t go that route if we were looking to ensure First Nations representation, gender balance, or things like that. However, that isn’t what we’re here debating today or looking at today. What we’re looking at is just a wholesale removal of a clause that, while it might be seen by some to be discriminatory, also could be argued to be there for very good reason — to prevent perceived conflict-of-interest situations.

Now, the minister and the staff have said that this is about bringing balance. That’s fine. Then, I guess, if I’m looking at this as an individual member of the faculty, I want to know that my faculty representatives, my executive on my association and my bargaining unit, are there for me, to represent my best interests. If I’m the university, I want to know that my board is there, first and foremost, for the university. In fact, the codes of conduct for the universities demand that of their board members. But I see that that creates a big problem, if somebody is actually trying to do both of those roles at once. How can you have your loyalty sit with both organizations at once?

Conflict of interest is real, and that’s why we have a body of law that talks about it and deals with that. We also have policies, I agree, within the institutions — although I would argue, if we are going to move in this direction, that perhaps the conflict-of-interest policy and bylaws at the universities should be rolled into the acts, as they have done in other jurisdictions, to be really upfront and clear, because they are not the same from university to university. That, in of itself, presents a problem.

I think curiouser still is that today we are hearing from the government that the argument for making this change, for the repeal of this section of legislation, is that we are preventing what could be a discriminatory practice. I find that distinctly curious, given that just a couple of hours ago, here in this chamber, the same government had great difficulty and chose to argue that it is not discriminatory to preclude 85 percent of workers from working on infrastructure projects in this province because of an association or a lack of an association. How is that different?

We are suggesting that by choice of associations, choice of role to serve as a member of a bargaining unit or a tribunal, you then shouldn’t be able to sit on the board of the institution. You’ve made a choice; you have a loyalty. That’s great. You have a role. It doesn’t prevent you from ever sitting on that board, but for that period of time, it does.

The government says: “No, that’s not fair; that’s discriminatory. These people should be able to hold both positions.” But that same government, then, does not think it’s discriminatory to say that because someone is not a member of a union, they shouldn’t be able to participate in the infrastructure projects in this province. To me, you just can’t have it both ways, and I’d really like to discuss further, with the minister at committee stage, how they square that circle.

[3:25 p.m.]

I think the reality is that the proposed repeal signals a direction that this NDP government wants to go in. I find it troubling that they would prefer to set up the potential for conflicts of interest on the boards of our very trusted post-secondary institutions. I’m curious to explore with the minister why exactly she thinks this is necessary, why or how it brings balance, how it levels the playing field to get to diversity on the boards.

I’d like to understand the challenges that the minister feels are going to be alleviated with this change. I’d like to know: what about the board structure of these universities isn’t working? Who exactly is the government seeking to benefit with the change? I think we need to plan to safeguard the reputation of the institutions and to provide the opportunity for real and perceived conflicts of interest to be managed, if we’re going to make this change.

Is the minister going to propose additional changes to legislation that would limit the number of seats that could be held on the board by somebody that also holds positions that would be in conflict with the board? I think we want to be able to make sure that the boards remain operational and functional. I think that’s important. We’ll look forward to the committee stage of the debate and look forward to discussing why this change is necessary now, all of the possible implications and how they are to be mitigated.

S. Gibson: It’s a privilege for me to follow my colleague from Surrey South with her thoughtful ruminations on this legislation. I, too, will add some comments on Bill 36, particularly focusing on areas related to post-secondary board appointments.

I picked up on the minister’s remarks a moment ago, particularly focusing on the word “discriminatory.” I feel that, when we get into committee stage, that’s perhaps the focus we need to take, because clearly there’s also a discriminatory dimension to this, which we are starting to engage with as opposition.

I have a particular interest in post-secondary education, having served for some years in that environment. When I looked at this, I was, frankly, a little troubled. Whenever I look at legislation like this, where there’s so-called tweaking that takes place, I become mildly alarmed that there’s something else going on. Really, the public good has to be, above all else, at the top of the priorities. As the member for Surrey South commented, we need to get to the heart of this and find out: “Okay. Why is this coming up at this time?”

Conflict of interest is something that we, as MLAs, don’t just talk about; we live it. We submit regular records to a statutory officer, regarding conflict of interest. We realize that if we violate that, there’s concern, both officially and unofficially, with the public. Conflict of interest gets to the heart, as well, of this proposed legislation, Bill 36.

The board, after all, is the employer. The board operates the college or university — some 25, as we’ve heard, around our province. The union president or executive member — their job is to represent the interests of the union. We would say: “Well, that’s not surprising.” Well, it’s surprising when they get them together because, of course, there are going to be tensions. That’s a healthy thing. Those tensions are indeed healthy.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

The members may be advocating for working conditions, compensation, benefits, others, and there are times when the interests of the employer and, if you will, the employee represented by the union come into conflict. There’s a tension there, a natural tension. However, with this case being made to allow that individual to serve in this board environment, it kind of changes the equilibrium.

[3:30 p.m.]

On most boards, there are already faculty members. They are there right now. There are staff members there right now. This compromise that is being proposed would seem to run counter to the current culture. Again, getting back to the word “discriminatory,” I begin to wonder just what currency it has. These staff members, as I’ve mentioned, and faculty members that serve on boards — their role is to do so as university representatives, not representatives of the particular viewpoint or constituency. That’s the difference.

I think it might be analogous to our role here as MLAs. We have members on that side representing a certain party. Here, on this side, we represent a certain party. But for all sides of this House, when people come to talk to us as constituents, we take off our partisan hat and help them the best way we can. That’s our role, and we do that, hopefully, with the best interests of our constituents.

However, in advancing this viewpoint, that individual, who will now be allowed to serve, has a particular agenda. Remember, currently there are faculty members and staff members already there, but they do it in their role as representatives of the university or college. Ultimately when you have to make a decision in that role, you’re going to have to decide: do I do it for the benefit of this side of the agenda, of the constituents, or this side? That choice is going to be difficult to make.

I want to make another comment, if I may. If union leaders, in their role, serve on the board as advocates for that role, for their union, here is a couple of problems that I want to alert government to, and perhaps they haven’t thought about this. It was alluded to a little bit earlier by my colleague from Surrey South.

Here’s what happens. A decision is made by the board which is contrary to the union member, who is now serving on the board under this current proposed legislation, Bill 36. The problem is that when the decision is made, that individual, presumably, will dissent on a particular item related to employee interests — compensation, benefits, working conditions. Then what will they say when the decision is made? Will they came out and say: “I was against that,” or will they be quiet and acquiesce and support the good of the collective? Tough choice.

The second point to make, which is related to this, ancillary to my first comment, is the fact that boards deal with confidential matters, often related to employer relations. Confidential. But that member will be attending all those meetings. You see the problem here? It’s a little more complicated than, I think, government had thought when they first suggested this.

As someone that’s had the pleasure of working in that environment, I can see that this could be a bit problematic. I want to recommend, with respect, that government reconsider this dimension. It could be a problem. I want to suggest that.

In summary, it’s the potential for conflict of interest that I think we need to be aware of. It could happen. Clearly, it’s something that could happen provincewide in all of our institutions. Conflict doesn’t have to be real. It can be perceived. It can be something that the public notices.

The boards of colleges and universities sit at the pleasure, for the most part, of government. They’re there to protect the interests and reflect the standards of the community. All the staff, faculty and students expect that the board will operate in their best interests.

I’m looking forward to the debate that will be continuing at committee stage. I want to ensure that we do the very best for our institutions. We have fantastic universities and colleges in this province. They work well together. There’s great synergism.

[3:35 p.m.]

In fact, we are the model for all of Canada. Many prov­inces would like to emulate what we do — the amount of warm relationships, collegial relationships, between our colleges and our universities. So why is government making this change? Let’s get to the bottom of that, please, and let’s determine that we’re doing something in the best interest of the public good of our universities and colleges.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure just to take a few minutes to talk about what I’d remind the member — that it is the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. It is not the conspiratorial theory statutes amendment act. Perhaps what I might do is just sort of outline exactly what a miscellaneous statutes amendment act is and how they come about.

Now, laws in this place are made in a number of ways. There’s legislation that comes forward on the basis of it being part of a party platform, which is debated at election time and parties campaign on that, regardless of whether it is our party or the opposition party or the third party. They come in with an agenda of work that they want to do that requires legislation. That’s commonplace to all governments.

Also, there is often legislation that government is required to do because, for example, the federal government changes statutes or does a new public policy shift. An example of that would be the legalization of cannabis. It was not on our platform agenda. It wasn’t on the platform agenda of the official opposition. But it was a change made by the federal government that the province then has the requirement: it must do something, and therefore, legislation comes forward.

What also happens is that within ministries themselves, and within governments, we have extremely capable public policy–driven individuals within the ministry whose job it is to work on what is happening within governments, the day-to-day administration of public policy, who over time identify issues that they know government has to deal with — that often can back up in the form of a queue of changes that must be made to keep up with times — to keep up with changes in terms of precedent or court rulings or changes in public attitudes, to deal with priorities that emerge over time within ministries.

Those come forward as well. Often, they are small changes. They are changes that are important but don’t meet the definition of a stand-alone piece of legislation. There’s nothing untoward about them. They’re not brought forward in some nefarious way, a cabal of MLAs getting together to sit: “Okay, how can we do something? And if we do this, will it impact this?”

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Wish that we could, exactly.

As somebody once said about conspiracy theories and the problem with conspiracy theories: if government was ever that smart — any government was ever that smart — to actually be able to put in place a conspiracy theory, then we really would all be in trouble. Conspiracy theories are best left to novelists and Hollywood writers to create TV shows to entertain us as opposed to think that they are something that government either has the interest or, more importantly, has the ability to actually put together.

The fact is that the changes in this legislation are changes designed to deal with specific issues and specific problems, and there’s nothing untoward about that. That’s why they’re in a miscellaneous statutes bill.

[3:40 p.m.]

Now, it’s always important…. I know the opposition will go through each of the proposed changes, section by section, at committee stage, where ministers will be here with the staff to answer fully and comprehensively the questions that arise out of those changes. It’s actually quite interesting when you look at some of the changes.

Let’s take the Milk Industry Act. Section 4 is amended by repealing the definition of “dairy plant” and substituting the following: “‘Dairy plant’ includes, subject to the regulations, every place or building where (a) milk is received from dairy farmers, or (b) dairy products are processed, manufactured or pasteurized.” Then it goes on….

Nothing too controversial about that, nothing conspiratorial that I can see about that. I mean, cows get milked. Milk goes to the dairy. Then at the dairy, it’s turned into yogurt; into cheese; 2 percent milk; skim milk; full-cream milk; regular yogurt; plain yogurt; sour cream — let’s not forget that; or my favourite, the extra-strength cream, the 15 percent milk fat stuff.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yeah, exactly. I love that stuff too.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Ah, but that’s not from cows, hon. Member. That’s from nuts — okay?

Anyway, what this section will do is recognize that we also have extremely stringent food safety rules and regulations in place that apply at restaurants. One of the abilities of this will be that they will now be allowed to make their own yogurt or paneer, for example. And that’s a good thing. I know my colleague across the way appreciates paneer just like many of us do in this chamber.

There are small-scale producers for whom this will benefit, and it will be very much a welcome change. It’s something that came about because of work done within the ministry, work done to ensure that it meets the needs of individuals. It’s not violating any health standards, and it’s recognizing that the world is changing and that we can be flexible.

That’s section 4, for example. Nothing I can think of that’s conspiratorial about that.

How about section 6 and the Mental Health Act? Section 24.1(3) (a) and (c) of the Mental Health Act, 1996, c. 288, is repealed and the following substituted: “(a) a medical practitioner or a person who has been a medical practitioner” and “(c) a person who is not referred to in paragraph (a) and is not a lawyer.” Well, what this recognizes is that a medical practitioner could actually serve on a board. Oh my god. A doctor, a highly educated individual.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I know. I mean, talk about a risk. Do we really want medical practitioners to be able to serve on a board dealing with mental health? God forbid such a thing could happen. But again, this is the kind of change that you’re seeing in here. It’s a practical change recognizing that — you know what? — a lot of people have something to contribute, and physicians should have the ability to serve on a board where mental health issues are under consideration. Shocking. Again, it makes sense to me.

There are changes to the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The Supreme Court of British Columbia is continued under the name and style of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. It outlines that the court consists of a chief justice, who is called the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Now, I have no idea how anybody could think that is conspiratorial or that there is….

Interjection.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: My colleague says it’s Robert Ludlum material, and she may well be right, which is why I think that maybe, just maybe, those who think that this is a conspiratorial bill should remember that, really, Robert Ludlum is expert at that — Hollywood writers, just not governments.

There’s a lot in this legislation. Like all bills, it deserves the scrutiny, and I’m glad to know that that will take place because I’m sure that when we get to that committee stage and the questions are answered, the member who preceded me will, in fact, find that his fears are unfounded.

The amendments to these acts will remove discriminatory restrictions on the membership of colleges, institutes and university boards. That strikes me as pretty straightforward. Removing these restrictions will result in boards that more accurately reflect stakeholders, especially at institutions with smaller populations from which to select board members. Most of the conflict-of-interest legislation in the acts will remain intact, and potential issues can be addressed through boards’ bylaws. The boards have the ability to do that.

An Hon. Member: Not if it doesn’t work.

Hon. M. Farnworth: But it will work, hon. Member.

That is why it’s so important, as I said, that we get to the committee stage to be able to fully explore these questions. I remember when I sat on that side of the House and a miscellaneous statutes bill was tabled….

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Exactly. I have lots of experience, and I’m sure through the passage of time, hon. Member, you too will catch up.

Anyway, clearly, this is a section that members on the other side have questions on, and we look forward to them.

Safety standards. Changes to the…. Let’s go back to where we were. We went through section 6, which was Mental Health Act. In section 7, there are some changes to the Offence Act: “(1) A peace officer may lay an information by any means of telecommunication that produces a writing. (2) A peace officer who uses a means of telecommunication for the purpose of laying an information must, instead of swearing an oath, make a statement in writing stating that all matters contained in the information are true to the peace officer’s knowledge and belief, and such a statement is deemed to be a statement made under oath.”

Wow. Hardly radical stuff. Hardly stuff that lends itself to anything but thinking: Wow, it’s kind of common sense. Why haven’t we been doing it already? And maybe we could have if we’d sat in the fall in previous years, but that’s okay. We’re doing it this fall.

There are changes to the Public Guardian and Trustee Act and, as I said, changes to the Supreme Court Act. There are changes…. That’s a long one — senior masters and legal stuff that’s probably best dealt with by the Attorney General.

Finance amendments, again, which are important. Section 205 of the Business Corporations Act is repealed and the following substituted — that the person is “a member of, or is a partnership whose partners are members of, a provincial institute of chartered accountants within Canada.” Again, straightforward change that the Minister of Finance will be addressing at the committee stage.

There are changes in terms of the Cooperative Association Act and some to Financial Institutions Act.

Here’s a great one. Again, I’m not sure how one could be conspiratorial about this, but it’s a change to the Societies Act.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I know. The Societies Act. Not secret societies — societies. So this is about persons qualified to act as an auditor. Imagine that. Government is spelling out what the qualifications are to be an auditor when it comes to a society.

[3:50 p.m.]

Section 112 says:

“A person is qualified to act as an auditor of a society only if the person is (a) a member of, or is a partnership whose partners are members of, a provincial institute of chartered accountants within Canada, (b) a member of a provincial organization of chartered professional accountants within Canada, authorized by that organization to perform an audit, (c) a professional accounting corporation as defined in the Chartered Professional Accountants Act, authorized by the CPABC as defined in that Act to perform an audit, or (d) a registered firm as defined in the Chartered Professional Accountants Act, authorized by the CPABC” — Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia — “as defined in that Act to perform an audit.”

I think even Robert Ludlum would have a hard time trying to make a conspiracy out of that one. I’m sure, at committee stage, we can explore that, as the members so desire.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Perhaps in one of his many plays.

Then there are changes to the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, exactly. Now, I don’t know about you, hon. Member, but I have a hard time trying to think of a secret government cabinet committee sitting down and going: “Okay. We’ve got something really bad we’ve got to do here, and the only way we can do it is by making an amendment to the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act.”

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Exactly. That would really smell. That one just reeks of conspiracies. Absolutely. Member, you are so right. That just reeks of a conspiracy theory right there.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, no. Hiding the conspiracy, burying the conspiracy in a…. No.

Well, let’s see what else it looks like could be really bad. Uh-oh, there are changes to the Legal Profession Act.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yeah, exactly — more, more.

The Notaries Act, okay. This one looks really bad. This one is repealed and the following: “The accounts of the foundation must be audited annually by a person appointed for that purpose by the directors who is (a) a member of a provincial organization of chartered professional accountants within Canada, authorized by that organization to perform an audit….”

Now, that’s some grand conspiracy right there. Clearly, government got together and decided: “Wow. Maybe we should actually have people who audit societies be members of an actual chartered professional accountant association.” I don’t know.

Let’s see. Here we go, safety standards — Municipal Affairs and Housing amendments, Safety Standards Act. “Minister’s powers to make regulations for safety standards.” Sounds pretty straightforward. “Failure to pay fee, penalty or money owed.” No. That’s, again, I think, conspiratorial right there.

I think I’ve made my point, and I know that I don’t have too much time.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I hear the member saying: “I’d like you to keep going.” The problem is….

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I wish. At four o’clock, unfortunately, I have to yield the floor, because the real conspiratorial work is taking place in my office — right? — not in this legislation. The secret is out, on the record.

[3:55 p.m.]

Anyway, I listened with interest to the comments of the previous speaker, and I understand, given that that may be how government functioned when he sat on this side of the House. But I want to assure members that the miscellaneous statutes bill is an attempt to deal with a number of issues that would not normally qualify as a stand-alone piece of legislation but are, rather, packaged into a piece of legislation that is an omnibus bill, which is a miscellaneous statutes bill.

That is standard practice for any government throughout the history of this province. There is nothing untoward in it. What it ensures…. If the opposition is doing its due diligence — which I know they will, because they’re starting to learn how to do that — they will address their questions in committee stage.

I know that the ministers will answer any concerns they have and that they will see that this piece of legislation is, in fact, a piece of legislation that addresses and deals with a number of outstanding issues in this province, in different sectors of our province, in some cases that have been nagging for quite some time but have made their way to the top of the legislative pile. Others will, in fact, really make some significant improvements for people in B.C.

With that, I take my place and look forward to remarks that others may have.

S. Sullivan: It is typical for this government’s playbook to hide conspiracies within innocuously named bills like the miscellaneous statutes amendment act. I have, in fact, been looking for the nefarious sleeper clauses and insidious amendments embedded throughout. I have not found them yet, but I am looking.

They do seem to be innocuous: clarifying regulation-making powers, powers of provincial safety managers in relation to training and examination and the power to refuse, suspend or revoke an authorization of fees unpaid. I am sure there’s something evil there. Expands the disclosure of enforcement action details. Provides the registrar options to publish registry details. We’ve got amusement rides. We’ve got boilers of pressure vessels. I’m sure there’s something really suspicious within those.

So far, I have not found these conspiracies, but I will continue to be vigilant in looking for them.

R. Kahlon: I have the pleasure to speak in favour of this amendment act. Let me pull up my notes here. I’m waiting for the House Leader to give me the indication on what it is he would like to continue to do here.

Let’s start with the College and Institute Act and the Royal Roads University Act. First off, let me share with the members the hope of this. We are amending legislation to remove discriminatory restrictions on people who serve on boards in universities, institutes and colleges. Removing these restrictions will allow boards to more accurately reflect the institution stakeholders, especially at institutions with smaller populations from which we select board members.

Of course, we’re always engaging with our board members. I think it’s important to do. Sometimes we hear critiques that we’re engaging the public too much, but I think you can never listen to the public too much about things that matter to them.

Partly, also, we’re selecting…. Part of this is consultation with major stakeholders, including industry associations, boards of governors, staff, faculty associations and institutions themselves. These proposed changes only increase the pool of candidates from which board members may be selected.

[4:00 p.m.]

We’ve heard lots of things today. As the House Leader was mentioning, this amendment act is essentially to do some housekeeping. I know that the member from Vancouver, who spoke briefly before, will continue to dig and find those small details that are hidden everywhere. But we will hope he doesn’t find any, because that was not the intention of this amendment act.

Some of these changes…. The Mental Health Act. This amendment will authorize the appointment of a retired physician to sit on a review panel, the Mental Health Review Board. The amendments will also retroactively validate review panels constituted under the old law. These amendments will bring legislation in line with the current appropriate practice. They address the shortage of practising physicians on the review board, due to the limited availability, loss in clinical wages and potential conflict-of-interest situations. These amendments will also provide an effective means….

Interjections.

R. Kahlon: I think I’m hearing heckling from the other side. I actually would welcome heckling right now.

Interjections.

R. Kahlon: Gentle heckling. This is actually the most exciting part of the debate all day for many folks here.

Interjections.

R. Kahlon: Sorry? They’re saying: “Louder and more.”

Let me mention the Public Guardian and Trustee Act. This amendment will clarify the public guardian and trustee may, as a corporation, so become and act as a director of a client’s company. As the Business Corporations Act requires a director of a company, a public guardian trustee can act as a director of a client’s companies in order to meet the obligation to clients by protecting their financial interests. Pretty standard housekeeping stuff there.

We’ve got the Offence Act that needs the amendment. This amendment adds specific provisions to expressly authorize tele-informations, which are sworn statements made by a peace officers. When it’s impractical for peace officers to appear in person before a justice, they must submit a sworn statement using a written telecommunication method. Pretty straightforward, I think. I think all members in the House would agree.

This is, in a way, removing red tape. I know everyone in this House likes to remove red tape, and I think this is partly doing that. The Criminal Code specifically allows us for the swearing of tele-information for criminal offences. So I think this move will be a more efficient use of police and judicial resources.

There’s a change to the Supreme Court Act. The proposed amendments clarifies the Chief Justice administrative authority over masters who handle pretrial applications, case management, conferences, settlement discussions and similar matters — and registrars who handle disputes relating to costs that amount to lawyer bills, the settlement of orders and similar matters.

This legislation better organizes the Supreme Court Act and codifies long-established practices on salary, benefits, retirement, security of tenure. It does not change existing practices or laws.

Also there are changes to the Business Corporations Act and Cooperative Association Act, the Credit Union Incorporation Act, Financial Institutions Act and Societies Act. These amendments close the potential loophole in current legislation in which chartered professional accountants may be authorized to perform an audit, regardless of whether that person has been authorized by professional organizations of chartered professional accountants.

The proposed legislation will protect B.C. companies under entities that may be affected by similar loopholes by ensuring that all audits are performed by qualified individuals. I think we would all agree that that is a very important thing.

[4:05 p.m.]

The Safety Standards Act governs high-risk technical equipment, such as gas and electrical systems, boilers, refrigeration plants and elevators — all very, very important, exciting stuff. The proposed amendments address gaps and strengthen existing safety oversights and tools. They also authorize an on-line database of information about people who do regulated work, including enforcement history.

I think that one is particularly important. I know of someone who had some work done on their home recently, and they had a gas pipefitter come in to do some of the work. This is about two years back. Then they realized, when they did renovations in their home, that the work wasn’t done properly. Then, when they did some digging, they realized that the person doing the work was a student, who actually wasn’t certified.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. Member, if I might caution you against the use of hand-held devices during debate.

R. Kahlon: Oh sure, no problem. Thank you, hon. Speaker.

As I was saying, this person had been doing work on this home. The person that had the work done did not know that he was not certified. Two years later, when they got the home renovations done, they were told that in fact it was a very dangerous situation because the work hadn’t been done properly. So I think this piece is very important, because it ensures that people that come in and do the work…. Whether it’s working on gas lines and so on within a house, it’s done appropriately. So I’m grateful for that change.

I think people that are everyday consumers will appreciate that. It ensures that people that come in and do the work have the appropriate qualifications. And they have to state it, so it’s a good protection for consumers.

It’s also good for the industry, I think, to ensure that people that don’t have the certifications aren’t doing work and undercutting people who have spent years getting their certifications and perfecting their trade. I think it’s an important piece to ensure that the market doesn’t get undercut, that wages remain for those folks who have put their commitment in to go to school and get their studies done and ensure that they’ve got the appropriate accreditation.

So as the House Leader was mentioning, this is housecleaning. There’s nothing secretive behind this. It’s mostly pretty straightforward, as my colleagues across the way have noted. Hence the reason why this moved along so much faster than we had expected.

The amendments to the board membership eligibility in the University Act and Royal Roads University Act and the College and Institute Act are also having some changes. Again, this is very basic housekeeping. It removes some basic restrictions.

The people that step up and do this important work — that step up and serve on our universities and institutes and boards…. It takes a lot of time, and there’s not much upside and not much reward. These people are doing the best they can for serving the community, serving the public. We want to ensure that the best people are in those roles. If we can clean up and ensure that restrictions are removed and have the best people possible…. I think that’s something that everybody in this House would welcome.

The risk of real or perceived conflicts of interest are already managed through bylaws in place at our post-secondary institutions. Removing these restrictions will allow boards to more accurately reflect an institution’s stakeholders, especially institutions with smaller populations, from which select board members are going to be selected.

I think it’s important that the boards and government-appointed institutes reflect the population within the community that they’re serving. Sometimes there’s a limited pool of talent. So these changes will allow for people to serve perhaps longer terms. It just removes some basic, I guess, obstacles, to ensure that the talent that we have serving on boards can continue to serve on them.

[4:10 p.m.]

Obviously, we’ve done lots of consultation on this topic. Again, I think the consultation piece is critically important, because anything that we’re doing, whether it’s something as simple as changing these amendments or something very complicated, I think it’s important to hear from people to ensure that their voice is being reflected in any task that government takes.

The other piece, the Offence Act — I think that that piece is also critically important. The Criminal Code specifically allows for swearing in. I think that the piece around allowing police officers and members of a police force to not have to come in, to be able to communicate messages and to be able to not physically leave their location of work and to be able to teleconference in for routine activities is a measure that we all, in this House, would want.

I think that there are always pressures on police forces and others to do more. There are always pressures or more demand to get more police officers. If we can eliminate some of the time required for these officers for travelling and so on, and have them be able, at whatever location that they are, to teleconference in to provide support, is certainly something that everybody in this House would support. Again, it’s a piece that’s part of this legislation.

The other piece is the Public Guardian and Trustee Act. This amendment clarifies that the Public Guardian and Trustee may, as a corporation sole, become and act as a director of a client’s company. I won’t go too much into that.

The Mental Health Act. These amendments allow authorized appointment of retired physicians to sit on review panels and the Mental Health Review Board. Again, it’s always a challenge to try to get the best people we can. So if we can remove some of the barriers to allow those people to continue to serve, I think it’s positive all round. Again, we are amending this legislation to remove discriminatory restrictions on people who want to serve on boards of universities. I think I’ve said that briefly once before and said it again.

The changes to the Safety Standards Act govern high-risk technical equipment, which we already touched on.

The Supreme Court Act. The proposed amendments clarify the chief justice administrative authority over masters, who handle pretrial applications and case management. This legislation better organizes the Supreme Court Act and provides for long-established practices on salary, benefits — again, simple housekeeping. I think we would all agree that we would want the best people, and we want to make sure that the salaries and wages and benefits are available for people, for anyone that’s serving in those capacities.

I guess the best way to summarize all these changes is to say that they’re basic housekeeping. They’re something that we wanted to ensure that we got done in the early days of the session. I know there’s going to be lots of other legislation coming forward. I know some of my colleagues are really looking forward to speaking to this as well, who can’t wait.

I just feel like there’s so much more I could say to this. But I will do everyone a favour, and I will end that there. But I look forward to supporting in favour of this.

Hon. R. Fleming: It’s a pleasure to follow the member for Delta North. I think his thoroughness for doing a clause-by-clause analysis of this miscellaneous bill is something that does the legislative chamber a good service, and I hope to follow in that example as well.

[4:15 p.m.]

It’s only day 2 of this fall sitting, but I think the opposition has quite correctly found the grassy knoll of legislation already, as we’ve already seen under some of the scrutiny of the different clauses.

I would perhaps begin with what I think is one of the more substantive pieces in an admittedly housekeeping-oriented miscellaneous bill, and that would be the issues around university, college and Royal Roads University governance legislation. I think this is well considered and long past due for a number of reasons.

I think the amendments will serve those institutions in the province very well in expanding the pool of potential applicants to be part of governing those institutions in every part of British Columbia by opening up who may serve. Right now, we have restrictions that are costing a number of institutions potential talent to make decisions, to work with senior management teams and communities in different regions of British Columbia. That’s been identified as a flaw in the act that could be quite easily remedied.

You can see that the sections that would need to be amended here are quite brief, but I think the relative lack of text in terms of what it would take to adjust the law in no way reflects upon the significant improvements that we could see in places around British Columbia, whether it’s at our major universities, our teaching universities, our colleges and vocational institutes or specialized universities that focus on management and advanced degrees, like Royal Roads here in this region.

I think that we’ve heard from stakeholders. There has been a lot of consultation by the Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Training with the business community, with those involved in the sector and with community members about some of the restrictions that were put in place a number of years ago around board service. I think the results that came back from that consultation were all of the same mind. Whether it was staff and faculty associations or local chambers of commerce, all parties sought to enhance the pool of people that could apply to be part of governing these institutions.

What am I specifically speaking about? It is the restrictions that were put in place relatively recently — but enough years ago to know that it was, I think, misguided — that prohibited staff and faculty members from directly serving on the boards of these institutions. I think probably the strongest critique about the impracticality of it came from small institutions in rural B.C. It basically shut out the ability for government to appoint people who had a lot of skills and knowledge, decades and years of dedication to building up institutions and, therefore, had incredible institutional knowledge about programs and about the evolution of these institutions from then sitting on the boards and acting in the best interest.

It basically ascribed motives to them, that they would be hopelessly conflicted and only acting in their own self-interest if they happened to be an employee of one of these institutions. I think if that was caution or whether that was ideology, it hasn’t served the governance of those institutions well.

Here we are with a chance in a fall sitting — which used to be rare upon occasion, but they’re a regular feature of democracy in British Columbia again — to introduce legislation that will right some of these problems that we’re seeing in different parts of our province.

[4:20 p.m.]

I think the past message — that valuable employees couldn’t be a vital, contributing part of post-secondary institutions — was wrong. I think what we see here in terms of the relevant sections of the bill that will take away those barriers to making such quality appointments is simple and well advised.

I noticed an interesting story the other day. It was quite an uplifting story on CBC. It was an international story, actually, about a woman — Caitriona Lally is her name — who wrote an impressive, well-regarded novel called Eggshells. It actually ended up winning the Rooney Prize for Irish Literature.

It turned out that this woman, who had written a novel and had lived as a single mother, struggled in poverty and worked as a cleaner at Trinity College in Dublin, had now received the most esteemed literary prize in Ireland, from the Trinity centre for writing. Here was somebody who was an employee, who cleaned the very halls upon which she was given an award in front of all her friends and peers not too long ago — it was just a few days ago — who worked as an employee….

It’s an uplifting story and a very happy story for a struggling writer who deserved recognition and is now starting to receive it. But let’s just suppose that if this had happened in British Columbia and this employee, who turned out to be a manual worker at an institution in British Columbia but had a writing talent and had something to offer to perhaps the development of an English or writing department in one of our universities…. That person would be prohibited from being promoted and part of the governance structure of our institutions.

I raise it as an example because I think it’s a great story in and of itself, but it also maybe illustrates a conundrum that we face today in British Columbia and that we’re going to be fixing with the passage of Bill 36.

I think, as well, that I did hear the member for Surrey South wonder whether the conflicts of interest of reintroducing the ability to serve among staff and faculty members would be able to be managed.

Again, I go back to the consultation that the minister and the ministry have done with our post-secondary institutions — which we should all be proud of in British Columbia, by the way, for their performance and how well they serve students, families and communities and our economy. They did that work. They looked at potential conflicts, and they actually have become much more sophisticated in managing conflicts than, perhaps, we saw years ago when some members of boards, indeed, were found to have acted in a conflict of interest. Today that’s been dramatically improved in terms of practices that we see, typically, at colleges and universities and other institutions in B.C.

But that risk that the member for Surrey South identified was one that was directly consulted upon during the process before this bill was tabled here in the Legislature for debate. And what the common consensus finding around potential new conflicts of interest being introduced — or reintroduced, depending what your opinion is — is that all of those can be mitigated, because there are provisions in the other acts, in the three acts that are being amended here — the University Act, the Royal Roads University Act and the College and Institute Act — that require, explicitly, members of boards of governors to act in the best interests of the institutions that they’re serving.

So those kinds of conflicts are well covered in different parts of the act. Members that run afoul of that face sanctions under the other legislation. So the amendments we propose here today do not introduce any potential conflicts. In fact, they continue to build on the reduction, the identification and the risk management of conflicts of interest in the legislation.

[4:25 p.m.]

In any event, were they even to do that, those could be addressed by local bylaws of the boards of governors themselves. And that was certainly an opinion that came through loud and clear on this considerable, extensive consultation on this aspect of this miscellaneous bill.

We know that there are some tremendous benefits that will flow from making these amendments. The diversity of opinions will be that much greater. The experience that will be around the table will also be enhanced. The variety of perspectives that are valuable to a board that works together well as a team to make decisions, working with executive members of our post-secondary institutions, will be that much better, I believe, as a result of these amendments.

I think all members of the House should indeed come together and support this section of the bill, because we have enough experience to know that it is, in fact, required. It’s a good thing to do.

We have very recent opinions that are strongly in favour of it from the sector. I think, given that all members in this House, regardless of their party, have strong connections with their local and regional institutions and do their best to work closely for the well-being and the interests of those institutions…. This is something that’s coming directly from them, and I think we should take that advice quite carefully and look to fix, in law, the acts that need to be fixed, in the interests of even better governance.

Lots of other thrilling aspects to this bill as well. I’ll move away from what I find the main area of interest for me personally — the post-secondary institutions acts and those pieces of legislation — to look at some of the other elements that the miscellaneous bill gives an opportunity to fix.

There’s been a very animated discussion about the Milk Industry Act and some of the changes that are required to more accurately categorize places and buildings and the types of dairy products that are processed or manufactured in those buildings. There have been, apparently, some problems around establishing the proper classes in these sections of existing legislation. I think these are the kinds of things that often take an onerous and drudgery course before they finally get before a legislative chamber to happen.

I don’t know the origins or genesis of exactly why these amendments are required. I do know that on the face of it, you can see that perhaps it’s mostly just an omission in the legislation that needs to be remedied now.

The Attorney General’s amendments around the Mental Health Act are also critically important because they deal with who can practise as medical practitioners. It’s going to enhance the mental health care of British Columbians. That’s why it’s offered today.

The Offence Act changes are important around, I think it looks like, evidence gathering, around what means of communication can be validated in the event of providing information — the swearing of oaths, making statements, writing statements, those kinds of things. It’s simply modernizing legislation to keep up with the pace of technological change and the kinds of tools that peace officers use as a daily course of their jobs in today’s British Columbia.

The Public Guardian and Trustee Act. Very important amendments here around directors of companies. Clarification around sole shareholders of such companies and other roles in the event of clearing up estates and clearing up legislation that has to do with the Missing Persons Act. These are often things that, certainly, the public doesn’t think directly about until it involves the lives of themselves and their families. I think, again, we have opinions being advanced, experiences being advanced to ourselves as legislators, that have shown that there have been some problems that result from a lack of clarity and that are failing to protect people’s interests in B.C.

[4:30 p.m.]

Looking at situations where there is the dissolution or winding up of companies and how that can be done in terms of administrative fairness — I think we’re all interested in that. Again, I’m still looking for some conspiratorial elements, but I don’t think we’ll find them in the Public Guardian and Trustee Act section.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The Supreme Court Act, of course, is around appointment of judges, around some of their powers. I believe — maybe it’s a later section — it’s around their compensation as well, and I’ll be careful not to comment on that. It does lay out a process around the powers and their necessary consultations with the Attorney General.

Again, this is modernizing and clarifying practices that would be in the best interests of the smooth administration of our courts. It clarifies the role of the Law Society of B.C. at the time of appointments for chief justices, and it clarifies some of the issues around remuneration — which, again, I’ll leave aside for other members to comment on, because it does have a specific formula here in section 11.1 that may be of interest to members.

Terms of office, duties and powers — those are the things that are being amended here and also clarifying what may happen after leaving office within a period of time, where cases and trials are being heard and what the role of the retiring judge may be in certain situations. I expect that that could be well animated by the Attorney General in terms of perhaps some problems and challenges that have been confronted in real court experiences. I think the opposition will have a chance to query that quite directly when we get to committee stage of debate.

The further amendments around the Mental Health Act that are important here are around establishing and giving parameters to review panels and, again, the role of retired medical practitioners that may be appointed in this role. Again, a clarification around review panels, when they came into being, their validity, and also a section there that outlines the retroactivity of these structures.

Again, I think this is important just for those who are involved in the mental health system, either as family members or those who may know somebody involved in a situation where the Mental Health Act is brought into force. I think these changes around the validation provision are aimed to make that act work better for the mental well-being of British Columbians and the situations that B.C. families find themselves in.

The Cooperative Association Act. Again, if there’s a conspiracy in the legislation, perhaps it’s from the accounting profession, because this clarifies who may or may not conduct audits on behalf of registered members of the co-op sector — the Cooperative Association Act, the Business Corporations Act.

I think it’s self-evident why that clarity important to members of this chamber who rely, for example, on the independent Auditor General — who is, of course, at the pinnacle of the accounting profession. In these sorts of civil society organizations and business organizations, it’s pretty important that they be part of a self-governed profession that’s able to uphold professional standards, discipline members who don’t perform their duties well to the organizations that pay for them, rely upon them and trust them.

Similarly, there is a provision that relates to the Credit Union Incorporation Act, clarifying again the requirements for those to be part of the certified accounting profession, the CPABC.

[4:35 p.m.]

As the members will know and the Speaker will know, the province of British Columbia spent a long time consolidating the various numbers of professional accounting associations into a unified body in B.C. It took years. It’s worked out well, and it’s now time to modernize the laws of B.C. That will make sure that there are no cracks or flaws in legislation that may undermine all of the work that was done to secure a place for the accounting profession, formally, in the areas where their practice should be recognized.

The Societies Act, I think, also follows along with the Cooperative Association Act and the Credit Union Incorporation Act amendments that I just talked about.

Yes, we did speak about the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act. Obviously this is critically important for a whole host of reasons that I won’t get into. The Greater Vancouver Water District Act, as well, is amended, as is the Legal Profession Act, the Notaries Act.

The School Act, most critically, too, is amended, again, to outline audit requirements for financial statements and reporting in our school system. Again, we work very closely with the Auditor General of British Columbia around external audits of those organizations; these would be the internal audits that elected trustees and others rely upon. They need an attestation that is professionally conducted and can be relied upon.

I think and hope that members of the opposition will have ample time to debate this bill, either this afternoon at this stage of debate — if they wish to get on their feet again — or at committee stage. I know other colleagues are champing at the bit to speak to this bill. It’s been a pleasure on my part.

Again, I look forward to all of these amendments, particularly the ones I spent the most time talking about, which are to improve the governance of our colleges and our universities in B.C. It’s about time that we didn’t shut out people who have the most experience and some of the most valuable perspectives and hamper their ability to serve our great province and our institutions and that we do a better job of running those institutions. The way we can do that is by passing Bill 36.

Hon. C. James: Thank you for the opportunity to rise to speak to the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, and an opportunity to talk about some of the specific clauses in this bill that do relate to my ministry, the Ministry of Finance, but also to comment on a few other pieces in this bill.

I think we’ve heard, in this discussion this afternoon, people talking about the bill as routine. A miscellaneous statutes amendment act often brings in sections from a number of different bills and a number of different acts.

I certainly agree that most of the pieces that are here are very routine, but I think they’re also critically important to good government, to the continued operation of good government. They cover societies. They cover groups. They cover organizations out in communities.

It’s important to pay attention to the detail. I think that’s really the best description of a miscellaneous statutes amendment act. It’s about the details. It’s about ensuring that the details are in place to help with good governance, in many cases — whether we’re talking about cooperatives, notaries or other organizations — to make sure that the details are there and the rules are in place so that good governance does occur.

I also want to express my appreciation — I think from all of us in this Legislature, because the members on the other side also know the experience of government — to say how much we appreciate the drafting staff in the Leg. department, the lawyers, the folks who really, thankfully, are people who love detail and who will pay attention to the kind of detail that helps all of us in this Legislature and helps our province, as I said, with good governance. I want to express my appreciation to the drafting staff and to all those who put together the kind of detail that, I think, is critical.

[4:40 p.m.]

I want to speak to, as I said, a couple of pieces in this Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act that I think are important, and then some pieces, as I said, that are fairly routine but also to really point out how important this work is and how important it is to pay attention to the detail.

I’ll start off with the beginning of the bill, as my colleague did, as well, to talk about the College and Institute Act. Again you’ll see a theme runs through the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, where two or three or four acts are impacted by one change that’s occurring. So the changes that happen in the College and Institute Act, in the first section of this bill, the Royal Roads University Act and the University Act itself are all linked in the direction that they’re taking.

The changes that are proposed in this bill that are coming forward…. I really see them as the opportunity for us to utilize the best expertise that is out there. It’s really a chance for us to be able to allow everyone who can contribute to have an opportunity to contribute. The current act doesn’t allow the opportunity for employees who have responsibility to negotiate with the board — in other words, employees — or adjudicate disputes regarding members of the institution to actually sit on the board, to actually bring their expertise.

I’ve heard a number of members speak about conflict. I would agree that conflict is critical, that the issue of conflict of interest has to be addressed. But in fact, we already have those safeguards in place. If someone is in a conflict, they already have an obligation to remove themselves from a discussion that may have a conflict for them. So to open up these sections provides an opportunity, as I said, to utilize the expertise of individuals and to bring that around the board. Just because you’ve had experience as a staff person or just because you’ve had experience on faculty shouldn’t mean that you can’t bring that expertise to the table.

You know, I heard some members saying that you can’t wear two hats. You can’t come to the table and wear your faculty hat and then sit around the board. Well, I think there are a whole number of people around our province who have utilized the expertise that they have in their worklife on boards and agencies and commissions and organizations in their community and who provide a huge amount of expertise and huge value to that organization.

It doesn’t make sense to me to cut those people out simply because they bring that expertise. In fact, we should be utilizing that expertise, while ensuring that there are clear conflict guidelines in place, which there are, to ensure that there aren’t any conflicts. But what an opportunity to be able to utilize that.

I heard another member talking about the challenge of small communities and the difficulty that small communities have — rural communities, in particular — in finding people who have the time and the energy to give. It’s not because people may not want to but because people have busy lives. Usually the people that are the busiest are the same ones who get asked to be able to sit on boards, to sit on commissions. They’re usually the same individuals, the people that get tapped on the shoulder to take on these positions. So again, to cut people out, you lose that pool of people who are already busy people, who are already engaged and involved in their community, doesn’t seem to make much sense.

I think this is a positive move. I think it’s a smart move to actually utilize the knowledge that’s in communities, and I’d certainly support it. I know there’ll be more discussion when we get to the committee stage about the specifics. But from my perspective, people who put their time and energy out, people who are willing to come and volunteer…. That’s something that we should be embracing and finding more opportunities to be able to do.

Section 6 speaks to the Mental Health Act and talks about authorizing the appointment of retired medical practitioners to review panels under section 24.1. I think this again speaks to utilizing expertise.

You know, one thing that I have seen, and I know every member in this House would recognize it as well, is the contributions made by people after they retire from their worklife. I think that, previously, retirement was often seen as: you’re finished. You’re done. You’ve finished your worklife. You go off and sit in the rocking chair on the porch, and that’s retirement. Well, I think retirement just means moving on to new challenges and new opportunities and new experiences in community.

[4:45 p.m.]

I am certain — in my community, I know, and I’m sure it’s the same for all members in this House — that if we had the services and supports that are provided by retirees in our community withdrawn, the community would not continue. It would not survive.

Whether we’re talking about schools, whether we’re talking about long-term-care homes, whether we’re talking about groups and organizations, not-for-profits, who sits on the strata boards in communities…. I mean, all of those groups and organizations, all of the good services that go on, all of the volunteer activities that happen in communities — those are often carried, and the load is carried, by retirees. They are the people who step up. Again, they bring their expertise. They bring the knowledge that they have from their worklife into their next challenge in life.

I think that authorizing the appointment of a retired medical practitioner to be able to help on these review panels just, again, makes good common sense. You’re using someone’s expertise. They’re bringing their expertise. And as I said, retirement isn’t retirement anymore. Retirement is really moving on to other experiences and providing an opportunity to be able to give your skills. So I think it’s a positive step to recognize that and, again, something that all of us should be embracing.

The next sections I want to just speak about are sections that fall under the Ministry of Finance and are related to a number of different acts. Again, this really speaks to the importance of the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act and the links that happen between acts across government. I’ll just take a minute to talk about what I mean by that.

I’ll start off with the Business Corporations Act. I’m sure most members in the House know this, but it’s the act that provides the legal framework for corporations that operate in our province. It includes the provisions that relate to incorporation, to corporate governance and the auditing of companies.

This is the first…. This is section 19. Again, I know we’ll have a chance to talk about this more specifically as we get into the committee stage, but the amendments that are coming forward, as you’ve heard from other members today, will clarify that the chartered professional accountants must be authorized by their professional organization to be authorized to act as an auditor.

Again, this has to do with the protection of professions and protections of the groups and organizations that are being audited. You want to ensure that you have someone who has the right qualifications to be able to do this kind of work. This legislation, through the miscellaneous bill, amends the Business Corporations Act and eight other acts — and I’ll talk about those in a minute — to clarify that a person permitted to audit companies and other entities has to be specifically authorized by the professional organization of accountants. Again, this provides the opportunity for those kinds of checks and balances that I think are critical.

Some members talk about why we would bring these pieces forward. Why would the legislation come forward? What was it that was important in these pieces? Again that’s where I give huge credit to the civil servants and others who work across government who know that these pieces have come up, who hear from groups and organizations or, through their own work in our ministries, know that there are pieces that need to be paid attention to and bring them forward to us as ministers to say: “These are pieces that need to be cleaned up, that need to be tidied up to make sure there aren’t any loopholes out there that could cause problems.” That’s what these amendments really do.

No one is aware that a chartered accountant, that a member acted as an auditor without being authorized. There aren’t specifics where someone has come forward and said: “This happened, and this person wasn’t authorized by their association.” But in reviewing the acts, what it pointed out is that that loophole could exist, so let’s close it.

This is a prevention piece. This is the piece that we want to do before something happens. Let’s clean it up so that it doesn’t occur. I always think that prevention is the best tool that we can take a look at instead of waiting for something to occur. So if you look at the act — as I said, in section 19 — it talks about those changes and making sure the authorization is there.

[4:50 p.m.]

Then it goes on to other acts. Again, this is a piece I talked about earlier where, with one change, a similar kind of change then occurs through a number of acts that talk about auditors. If we’ve made the change in one act, in the Business Corporations Act, we then have to look across government at all the other acts that talk about auditors and talk about the chartered professional accountants to make sure that there’s consistency there, because if the loophole exists in one act, it could exist in other acts.

Section 20 talks about the Cooperative Association Act. It’s not a different piece coming forward, not a different kind of change, but in fact it mirrors the Business Corporations Act change because, again, the Cooperative Association Act talks about auditors.

I think all of us in this House have been to annual general meetings. I often say June is the season for MLAs to have the opportunity to attend all of your not-for-profits as they hold their AGMs. Well, you will see, at an AGM, the accountant get up, talk about the audit and talk about the work that they’ve done with the association. We want to make sure that those people are professionals who are authorized by their associations.

Section 21 is the Credit Union Incorporation Act — again, a very similar kind of change. There’s not anything different in that change, but it needs to be mirrored in the next act. Section 22, Financial Institutions Act. This speaks to the importance of recognizing the existing associations that are in place. My colleague spoke about the associations coming together a number of years ago. That’s exactly what happened, so this actually modernizes the act and mirrors those changes that occurred.

Section 23 replaces the section in the Societies Act to make sure that it’s better aligned with the existing associations that are in place. Section 24, Chartered Professional Accountants Act, mirrors those changes. You’ll see there’s a theme, as we go through this, where the drafters and others have had to go through all of those acts to ensure that there’s commonality across them.

The Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act. People would imagine that it’s a different piece. No, in fact, it’s talking about the auditors again and the importance of making sure that that is mirrored. The Greater Vancouver Water District Act — very similar kinds of changes.

The Legal Profession Act — again, a similar kind of change to make sure that there’s commonality in that piece as well; the Notaries Act — that’s, again, a common piece; and the School Act.

That covers off the sections that are within the Ministry of Finance and the pieces within this bill that, I believe, are important at our end. Although, as I said, it seems like routine and seems like detail, I think it’s important for us to pay attention.

Just the last sections I want to speak to are sections 31 and 32, which are the Safety Standards Act. Then I’ll turn it over to my colleagues to add their comments as well. These pieces, again, I believe, are critically important and may get passed by as routine pieces, but the Safety Standards Act is an act that governs high-risk technical equipment. That would include boilers, refrigerator plants, elevators and gas and electrical systems.

These amendments will strengthen the existing safety oversight tools and address gaps that are in place to ensure that regulators can do their jobs effectively and to allow the public to make informed decisions — in other words, to ensure that the person who comes to look at your gas fireplace and do the maintenance actually has the qualifications that are necessary.

I think we can’t underestimate, when we’re talking about this kind of equipment — whether we’re talking about boilers, elevators or gas plants — how critical it is that the safety standards be in place, that the technicians and the people who are coming out to do the work have the necessary qualifications and that the public is able to feel confident that when they see a qualification, they know that that’s in place.

Sections 31 and 32, I think, are also really important pieces that, as I said, I wouldn’t want to be lost in a miscellaneous statutes amendment act. So I’ll certainly be supporting this act. I’ll be supporting the changes that are coming forward. I think they cover off a whole range of areas across government. But as I said, I think the detail is important to ensure that we provide the kind of framework that allows governance to happen across a number of different areas, as you’ve heard, from the areas that I touched on in the bill.

With that, hon. Speaker, I’ll pass it on to my colleague.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: It gives me pleasure to rise to address Bill 36. I do have a series of comments directed to some of the specific amendments that are proposed here.

Certainly, as the Government House Leader expressed earlier in his comments, one of the ways in which legislation is brought here is in an effort to correct anomalies through the internal workings of individual ministries. Where problems are identified, where there are legislative barriers, amendments are brought forward.

The advantage of having a fall sitting is that there is that opportunity, that time, to bring that legislation forward and, indeed, time for the opposition to engage in the kind of scrutiny that’s required, sometimes, of these specific pieces of legislation. That’s why in the campaign prior to the election, the now government made a commitment to convene fall sessions. That’s why we are here.

Although my enthusiasm for fall sessions is somewhat diminished, compared to my time when I was in opposition, I must say — because there are many other things that one is required to do — I’m happy to be here and happy to be able to address this particular piece of legislation.

Now, in Bill 36, sections 1, 2 and 3 deal with amendments to, in the case of section 1, the College and Institute Act; in the case of section 2, the Royal Roads University Act; and, in the case of section 3, the University Act. They are all designed to focus on one particular point.

In the explanatory note that’s attached to the bill — this is a public document, so this is not a secret, or anything like that — it “removes the board membership eligibility restriction respecting employees who have responsibility to negotiate with the board the terms and conditions of service of members of the association or adjudicate disputes regarding members of the institution.”

I recall the debate, when the amendments were introduced to put those provisions into those respective acts, back when Naomi Yamamoto was the Minister of Advanced Education and the now Minister of Energy was the critic for that portfolio. Clearly, the motivation — I can’t recall the precise language that was used in the debate, but we hear some echoes of that from members of the opposition today in debate — was to remove those members who represented other members or who are members of a trade union or association representing members, within the institution, from membership on the board.

The ostensible reason was, I think, put in fairly high-minded terms about avoiding conflict, but clearly, the motivation was the consideration that people who represented members in a union or an association were not desirable or wanted on a board. Some of that attitude was reflected in some of the debate yesterday at question period, where clearly the Leader of the Opposition does not hold what he referred to as union bosses — and, in fact, union leaders — in very high regard.

There is a strain, in the opposition’s view of the world, that members of unions and, particularly, union leaders are not the kind of people who should be invited to participate in that way in civil society. That, I think, was the motivation for the original amendment back when Naomi Yamamoto was the minister. Clearly, this is simply to redress and return balance to the board, in the sense that those people will not be automatically on the board, but they will be eligible for appointment to the board.

[5:00 p.m.]

This is something on which the present Minister of Advanced Education has engaged in consultations with the board members and stakeholders, including industry associations, boards of governors, staff and faculty associations. That has occurred. And there’s a wish that this opportunity be available, particularly for smaller institutions in areas where the group of people who may wish to be even considered for an appointment to a board is not as large as in, perhaps, some of the more metropolitan areas of the province. That is, I think, the reason for this amendment. That’s the motivation for it.

The objection is raised that somehow by the very fact that people represent others in the institution, they are in an automatic conflict of interest. I would submit that that is not the case. Indeed, through procedures, codes of conduct and procedural rules at the board level, those kinds of issues could be very well taken care of. Certainly, one would not expect that members representing members who are engaged in negotiations with that institution would vote on any of the matters concerning compensation. Indeed, they would recuse themselves, and properly so.

But they would be there on the board to offer their opinions on how to run the institution — drawing on their experience in the community; their experience, whether teachers or employees in the institution; whether it’s opportunities for new programs; their community experience in terms of knowledge of local industry, changing conditions, opportunities to introduce new curriculum, new courses — and ways in which the institution could be made more effective, better serve the community, better serve business in the region and generally contribute to the well-being of not only the institution but the local community and, indeed, the economy of the community.

These institutions throughout the province are an integral part of the training system. One of the big challenges that I think everyone recognizes, as everyone in the chamber would agree, is the increasingly difficult challenge faced by some employers — in fact, many employers — to find the kinds of people that they need to run their business, their non-profit association, their profession or even within government. Certain government agencies have difficulty, not for reasons of the insufficiency of salary but simply that there aren’t trained people available to take those positions.

That opportunity to draw that experience onto the board and get the benefit of that kind of experience in the general direction and leadership of an institution in any one of our regions and the institutions in the province….

I’ve met most recently with the board of Northern Lights College, with campuses in Dawson Creek…. I met with them. They have a small campus at Tumbler Ridge, for example. That’s where we met. I was up in Tumbler Ridge. There are specific opportunities for training that, in conjunction with the local secondary school, the institution is trying to develop.

To say in a small community that the leader of the local union at that campus of the college couldn’t participate in those decisions or offer a view on the board, I think, is to deny the benefit of that experience and that wisdom to the board and would not be to the advantage of the institution.

More broadly speaking, many institutions and successful economies certainly draw in those who work on the shop floor or represent workers who are on the shop floor. I think of Germany, one of the most successful economies in the world. It currently requires that 50 percent of the members of the supervisory boards of large corporations be employees.

[5:05 p.m.]

Probably by G7 standards, that’s an unusual feature of the German economy. But 50 percent requirement on supervisory boards of large corporations means that there is an attention to worker training.

I think Germany is fairly exemplary in the way in which vocational programs, training programs, the educational institutes — both post-secondary and technical schools — educate their students, their children, their young adults for the workforce. I would attribute at least part of that to the fact that they have representatives of those employees in those companies on their boards. So when you’re thinking of the bigger picture of training, personnel planning, resource allocation in the long run, you have the benefit of all that kind of experience.

I think that is something that, in a small way, is to be welcomed and is the purpose of these particular amendments here. Those institutions will have that opportunity to select, in conjunction with the appropriate authorities, people that would represent, I think, the exemplary board members.

I invite the members opposite to be slightly more trusting of those people who would put themselves forward for that role and to not automatically dismiss them as unqualified from the start, which appears to be the position. Judging from what I heard opposite from several members — the member for Vancouver-Langara and one of the members from Abbotsford — they seem to have that reservation about those types of candidates.

I think that particular amendment is one well worth supporting. No doubt, judging from the comments by the opposition, we’ll have more debate at committee stage. But I think that that’s what I wanted to say about those three sections.

The agricultural amendments, the Milk Industry Act, has been commented on. The purpose of this is actually to accommodate a more contemporary development in the restaurant industry, because a dairy plant in the definition under the Milk Industry Act includes every place or business where milk is received from dairy farmers, or where dairy products are processed, manufactured or pasteurized.

This is the reason for revising this definition. The restaurant association came forward and said: “We have members of our restaurants who make yogurt on the premises as part of the offerings of food that we serve in our restaurants.” According to this definition, since they are processing, manufacturing — they’re probably not pasteurizing, but they’re processing and manufacturing — a dairy product, they are technically a dairy plant and, therefore, have to seek licensing from under that act.

That’s the reason for amending that, to give those restaurants with the appropriate scrutiny — but certainly, not in the way that it was prior — the opportunity to lawfully meet that obligation to preserve the safety of the food that they are preparing and not run afoul of this act. That’s, I think, certainly something worth supporting. It does come forward in the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, because that’s the only way in which the regulatory process can be altered.

[5:10 p.m.]

Certainly, I think it is an example of where perhaps a regulation is not as agile as it could be in some respects. I was looking recently at the Innovation and Competitiveness Imperative. It’s a report from one of Canada’s economic strategy tables. One of the things that they talk about there…. These are tables convened by the federal minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development — ISED is its acronym — in Ottawa, Minister Bains.

What they talk about is the regulatory system — of the lack, in some cases, of an agile system of regulation as a difficulty in creating economic growth. I know this is a theme that some members opposite have spoken of, but it’s something within the ministry that I am now heading up, part of the responsibilities that I have. Certainly, an excessively complex regulatory system can deter investment and can be a barrier to competitiveness.

What this report offers…. This example of the restaurant industry is a good one in the sense that it illustrates the challenges to having an agile regulatory system. I just want to talk a little bit about what’s in this report, if I might, in the sense of illustrating the point and the reason for bringing the amendment forward on sections 4 and 5 — the amendments to the Milk Industry Act. They recommend and they suggest…. I’m interested in what they’ve got to say because of the calibre of reflection and thinking that’s been brought to their process.

They’re interested in a regulatory system that is outcomes-oriented, using the most effective policy tools to achieve the best outcomes, including health, safety and environmental outcomes. They suggest that the regulatory system should assign clear accountabilities without jurisdictional overlaps. I think that everyone is familiar with the challenge of regulatory overlaps.

In this particular document, they give an example of the regulation of air quality emissions in Alberta. They say that there are 11 overlapping federal and provincial regulations for the same air emissions, all of which are important. I’m not diminishing the need to regulate air quality and air emissions. An important part of any climate plan is that you need to be able to measure emissions. They give this as an example, not of the lack of the importance of that, but of the way in which the measurement of those emissions is regulated.

Certainly, that would allow a more simple process — not a diminished process, but a more simple process. Measuring all of the same elements in a less cluttered way would, doubtlessly, assist policy-makers, assist the public to understand the emissions that are being regulated and assist the development of further policy, because the measurement of those emissions would be more transparent.

The other issue in regulation is the predictability of regulation so that policy-makers — whether they’re local government, whether it’s Crown corporations, whether it’s business — can plan in the long term with cost and outcome certainty. Certainly, we’ve all heard of….

[5:15 p.m.]

I was formerly, at one point, a councillor in the city of Surrey. One would hear regularly at public hearings about the discomfort and the upset of citizens where change in zoning in their neighbourhood had been foisted upon them without any advanced notice. People do tend to resist change, but in terms of long-term planning, it’s important in a regulatory process that there be some predictability to it.

They also recommend…. I think this is particularly apt in light of changing technology, and probably it’s a good example. The Offence Act that we have here at section 7 provides express authority for the laying of an information by any means of telecommunication that produces a writing. This would give a peace officer a means of telecommunication for the purpose of laying an information. They must, instead of swearing an oath, make a statement in writing and setting out and then swearing to that document.

It’s an effort to recognize that changing technology would still enable the document that’s generated — an information, which is the document charging someone under the Offence Act. It would still be valid, although it would not necessarily need to be sworn in person. There’d be an opportunity for the officer, presumably, to communicate via email. I suppose fax has become obsolete now.

I use this section as an example of the principle that they speak of here, in terms of: effective regulatory process is technology-agnostic. Regulations continue to be relevant as technologies evolve and change while driving technology adoption.

That’s a good example of the rather cumbersome procedure that we’re engaged in here — bringing an amendment to that section of the Offence Act — because the regulation is not technology-agnostic. Perhaps at the time it was written, the writers of the Offence Act did not foresee the option of swearing an information any other way than in person. I would say that that was particularly important as a principle to be considered in the regulatory process.

They do also speak of continuous review enabling efficiency and effectiveness. In fact, the process that we are engaged in here, by reviewing based on internal advice and bringing forward statutes such as this, is a form of continuous review and enabling, to some measured degree, efficiency and effectiveness.

I don’t want to go on unduly on this topic, but I think it’s important to recognize the importance of this particular form of bill and some of the amendments that seem to have attracted attention from the opposition. Doubtlessly, we will hear further from other members as soon as I conclude here.

They do give some examples here. For example, Norway fast-tracks projects for regulatory approval when certain criteria are met, such as environmental performance and community enhancement and when the project proponent has a proven safety record.

So there are opportunities that we can do that go well beyond this bill, but that’s probably beyond the scope of this particular debate.

I’m going to conclude. I believe the member from Oak Bay had expressed an interest in addressing the Legislative Assembly on this particular bill, and I know there are other colleagues I see who seem to be ready to speak as well, so I will cede the floor to them.

A. Weaver: It gives me great pleasure to rise and stand in support of this bill, Bill 36, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act — (No. 3), no less — 2018.

I thank the member for Vancouver–False Creek for the welcome to speak to this.

[5:20 p.m.]

Now, those who have been riveted to Hansard videos for the last five years will know that I’ve made it a frequent occurrence, speaking to miscellaneous statutes amendment acts. This one actually is quite remarkable in that it is somewhat unlike a lot of the acts we see in that there are a lot of quite meaty changes that are brought in and a diverse array of bills. You know, sometimes we’ve joked in this House about spell-checker and comma acts when they’ve been the whole bill. Important changes are made, but these have meatier changes.

I would like to start by speaking to part 1, the Advanced Education, Skills and Training amendments. Now, I understand where opposition are coming from in their concern about this, and the very first thing I did, as well as my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands, who spoke so eloquently earlier on this issue, was raise a flag. The first thing I did was pull out my conspiracy theory hat, thinking that perhaps we were seeing a political payout for union friends here and perhaps this was a way to try to get negotiators on the board of governors.

I actually requested a briefing. I was delighted to have that briefing this morning with ministerial staff who I was able to ask and probe some questions as to where this emerged from.

To give you some context of this, I was the president of the UVic Faculty Association when I was at the University of Victoria, and I was chief negotiator in two bargaining sessions spanning about five years. At that time, when you look at what’s being removed here, you might suggest that perhaps by removing the language, I could potentially put myself in a conflict of interest by being allowed to serve on the board of governors of an institution while at the same time serving as chief negotiator for the faculty. In essence, you would be negotiating with yourself. I understand where the concern was coming from with the opposition.

Now, therein lies the source of what I believe is some further necessary comment. To get there first, I think it’s important to see what has actually been repealed. In the College and Institute Act, the University Act and the Royal Roads University Act, the same bit of language…. I’ll only read the one, because it’s slightly and subtly different in the University Act from the College and Institute Act. This is what’s being removed. Language presently exists, and it was recently added by the previous government.

“A person is not eligible to be or to remain a member of the board if the person is (a) an employee of its institution, and (b) a voting member of the executive body of” — that would be like a president, a vice-president or someone like that — “or an officer of, an instructional, administrative or other staff association of the institution who has the responsibility, or joint responsibility with others, to (i) negotiate with the board, on behalf of instructional, administrative or other staff association of that institution, the terms and conditions of service of members of that association, or (ii) adjudicate disputes regarding members of the instructional, administrative or other staff associations of that institution.”

My Spidey senses were raised when I saw that being removed. I thought: “Well, hang on here. Is this some nefarious backroom deal to pay back friends?” Was this one of these “good faith, no surprises” kinds of step-asides?

Again, coming back to the briefing, it turns out that what I was able to learn from this briefing was that we are the only province in the country that has language like this, and we are unique in that regard because in essence we already have a requirement. Again, the previous government put in place very fine conflict-of-interest measures, and demanded that with institutions, that exist that would not allow the negotiator like me, for example, to negotiate with myself on the board.

Again, this is not what I had originally thought it would be, as some kind of payback. It wasn’t. It was actually trying to streamline a process that was already being dealt with, which is the issue of conflict of interest. But in fact, it is making it more accessible for some smaller institutions, particularly in rural B.C., where there are some difficulties to actually get qualified members on the board.

What this has laid out as is a broader ability, particularly…. I mean, this is not an issue for the University of British Columbia or the University of Victoria. But it is an issue for some smaller rural colleges subject to this act, and this is clarifying that the existing conflict-of-interest legislation is sufficient and the responsibilities that are governed by board members are sufficient to ensure that you can’t negotiate with yourself, in essence.

[5:25 p.m.]

While initially very suspect about this component, I’m pleased to say that I was very satisfied. Again, I’m very grateful to the ministry staff who provided the briefing at such short notice and did so in such an informative manner — and to the government, frankly, for arranging a briefing on this important topic within literally 24 hours. Because as we know, this bill was only brought before us two days ago, and ministry staff were able to get the briefing this morning, shortly after QP.

I wasn’t the widest awake of all days, having been up since four in the morning, preparing questions and other things, because it was rather a lot of things that have been going on here today in the B.C. Legislature. Nevertheless, though, I am grateful that we were able to do this.

I look to part 2, and this is changes to the Milk Industry Act. I suspect the Minister of Agriculture will speak quite passionately as to why these changes are necessary, required and fundamental to good governance here in British Columbia.

I’d like to say…. Obviously, I support it. This is important and timely that we start to talk about the dairy industry in British Columbia. Why is it important and timely? Because we’ve seen recent signing of a NAFTA agreement where our supply management component of the dairy industry has taken a little bit of a hit. They’re not happy losing 3½ percent of their supply to potential U.S. milk products.

I will say to British Columbians who are riveted to the television, watching Hansard today, I’m not worried about that. The reason why is that in Canada we don’t put hormones in our milk. In the U.S., they do.

Why would anyone go to a supermarket and choose to have hormone-laden milk from somewhere else when you can get Vancouver Island Dairyland cows or Island Farms cows? You can buy milk made in B.C. that doesn’t have steroids, that’s supporting local farmers.

I’m not worried about this supply management, so I say good on Canada in their negotiations with NAFTA. I think we’ve done well in the auto industry. I think we’ve done well in other aspects of that, in order that we’re ensuring that labour standards in Mexico, for example, are up to the same, or at least better paid, compared to us here, which ensures that the so-called Dutch disease doesn’t occur by shipping manufacturing jobs offshore.

Again, with the small changes to the definition of a dairy plant…. I didn’t go into a detailed briefing as to what those were. Clearly, the civil service would have identified, in consultation with the minister’s office, issues that have arisen in recent years where the definition of dairy plant has been troubling in terms of legislation. Again, small yet important changes have been put in here.

When we move on to part 3, we see a number of amendments to the Mental Health Act, the Offence Act and others. These are all under the purview of the Attorney General’s office. Again, these are relatively minor yet potentially impactful.

The first, of course, the changes to the Mental Health Act, are, in essence, saying that a retired medical practitioner can now serve on a review panel. It doesn’t have to be a current practitioner. Why this is important is that I understand there have been some issues, historically, where perhaps a retired member has been on it, and then panels have made deliberations, and there’s some question as to whether this person was allowed to be on it.

Frankly, it’s hard enough getting a GP in our present system here in British Columbia. It’s hard enough getting access to a medical practitioner. Let’s actually use those and allow those who are no longer practising but actually have the ability to make informed decisions to serve on these panels, to free up our doctors to actually spend the time in the health care system that they so want to do. Again, that’s another small yet important change.

There are slight changes here to the Offence Act, slight changes to the Public Guardian and Trustee Act. On that note, I would like to raise — on the Public Guardian and Trustee Act — some issues that I think government needs to further explore.

This is especially relevant to an ongoing case I have in my constituency, where there are examples in British Columbia where you might have a child who’s taken into care in one province, into the foster care system, and then is adopted, legally adopted, by a family member in another province. The system that we have set up in Canada makes this extraordinarily difficult for that family care provider to actually get the services that they need in the province of British Columbia if, in fact, the case or the child originated from a seizure — whatever the word is.

Interjection.

[5:30 p.m.]

A. Weaver: Apprehension. Thank you to the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast who has worked in the field. If there’s an apprehension in another province.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

This is an important issue. In the one particular case we’re working on right now, this person, this family member has stepped in where the system has failed and given a home to two young children from a family member, two children who were apprehended from another province and now have a safe home here. The irony is if the children were apprehended in that province and put in care in that province, there would be funding for the caregivers in that province. If their children are apprehended in that province and given a safer way forward in another province — in particular, in this case, British Columbia — there are barriers to access of funds.

I’m hoping, as we make small amendments here to the Public Guardian and Trustee Act, we might keep a view of what the bigger picture here is and look at other barriers that exist for existing issues here.

Section 9 — and through 16, frankly. Changes, again, are being made with respect to the Supreme Court of British Columbia, roles and powers of chief justices. My colleague would have addressed these issues in further detail.

Then we move on, of course, to the important changes in part 4. These are the Finance amendments. I had the pleasure — the distinct pleasure, no less — of hearing the Finance Minister talk so eloquently and so passionately about these changes that have been added to ensure that there’s consistency amongst myriad acts with respect to recent changes in the Business Corporations Act.

What do I mean by that? In the Business Corporations Act, there is a new requirement or, essentially, a definition in there as to who is authorized to act as an auditor for a company. The need for this has clearly arisen from issues that were brought to government’s attention with respect to auditing and non-qualified auditors serving as an auditor in the cases of the business corporation.

In the act, what is done in the Business Corporations Act is actually mirrored in a series of acts to ensure consistency across legislation in British Columbia. We see changes that mirror the definitions as to who can serve as an auditor occurring in the Cooperative Association Act, the Credit Union Incorporation Act, the Financial Institutions Act, the Societies Act, and the Chartered Professional Accountants Act. We got into the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act, the Greater Vancouver Water District Act, the Legal Profession Act, the Notaries Act, the School Act, the Vancouver Foundation Act.

That’s a lot of acts, but now we have consistent definitions or, in fact, regulations as to who can serve as an auditor. You can’t just phone up Uncle Bob and say: “Uncle Bob, can you audit my accounts and give me your stamp of approval?” That’s no longer going to be approved. Although Uncle Bob may be qualified to do so, there are proper and more rigid measures that are now put in place.

We turn finally to part 5 of this act, a number of Municipal Affairs and Housing amendments. These are, again, providing some regulatory powers, changes, some minor language adjustment, some standardization of terminology. All in all, not very controversial — housekeeping — yet important changes of various act under the Municipal Affairs and Housing Ministry. And then, of course, we have the concomitant amendments, some related amendments, in the Safety Standards Act at the end.

All in all, this is not, in my view, a controversial bill, although on my initial reading of sections 1 to 3, flags were raised. I understand where opposition is coming from. I had exactly the same concerns. I had the benefit of a briefing from ministry staff. I feel comfortable now, knowing that this is actually bringing us in line with what every other province in the country has done, as well as the fact that this has been already covered under conflict of interest and fiduciary requirement and other existing rules that apply to governance of boards in our colleges sector.

[5:35 p.m.]

The importance of this change actually goes to rural B.C. where there are some issues in terms of getting qualified board members representing various institutions in some of the colleges that we have. This has been asked for, as well, by other representative organizations that have pointed out some of the difficulties that arise.

With that, there’s not much more, I think, in this bill that needs to be addressed. I do suspect we’ll see other miscellaneous statutes amendment bills coming forward. I do commend government on providing a substantive bill here, of substantive amendments. It’s much easier to actually go into the depth and detail of these with briefings. I hope that the support that we’ve given to this — that I’ve given to this bill and also reflected in the support of my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands — is recognized by government as: we’re happy to support this through second and final reading.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the Minister of Agriculture.

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you, Madame Speaker, and welcome back to the chamber. It’s great to see you. It’s great to be back here, and it’s great to be starting off with such a load of legislation that’s flowing into this chamber. It gives us all a lot to talk about, a lot to debate and a perfect opportunity to bring forward the reasons why we want to make changes.

We’ve got in front of us right now the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. It is a bundle of changes. Sometimes with acts like this, it’s a lot about housekeeping. It’s about modernizing things, not making massive changes, just maybe reflecting what’s happening on the ground now.

For example, the Milk Industry Act amendments are going to be tweaking some legislation that has been in place for 40 years. The world has changed over 40 years, and one of the things that we’re seeing right now is the interest that consumers have in their food. They’re not just interested in their food; they’re interested in the stories about their food.

These changes that we see being brought forward are a reflection of modernizing the way that restaurants are presenting their food. The restaurant industry, of course, is sourcing from our amazing farmers in British Columbia. They are sourcing vegetables. They’re sourcing dairy products. They’re sourcing meat products. With those relationships with the farmers that they’re sourcing from, they’re able to tell these wonderful stories within their restaurants.

What we’ve seen is that restaurants are becoming more creative. They’re taking traditional recipes, and they’re putting their own twists on things. This is where this legislation comes in.

The amendments that are proposed in this legislation are going to enable restaurateurs to be able to create milk products in their kitchens without having to go through an onerous amount of paperwork to do so. Specifically, this bill modernizes the definition of “dairy plant.” The definition of dairy plant, as I said, is 40 years old. It will eliminate the unnecessary regulatory burden. This has been requested by the restaurant industry.

Now, the really important thing about this is that it’s not compromising food safety at all. This bill eliminates the outdated and archaic parts of the definition of dairy plant and creates a new authority to exempt, by regulation, buildings and activities from the definition of dairy plant. The exemption authority will identify specific places, activities or dairy products that can be manufactured without a dairy plant licence. To have a dairy plant licence is a lot of paperwork and a lot of work, and some restaurants just want to be able to make some yogurt in their kitchens or some paneer in their kitchens to be able to serve along with the other food that they’re serving in their restaurants.

The one thing that this will do is that it will allow the creativity to happen and the restaurants to put their own signature on these products. We have some amazing dairy processors in the province that are making products like this as well, but these are restaurants that just want to have a different addition to their menu and to put their own stamp on it.

[5:40 p.m.]

While we’re talking about dairy, it would be unfortunate if I didn’t reflect just briefly on the situation with the new trade agreement that has happened and how it has affected our dairy industry in British Columbia. We have an amazing dairy industry. We have farmers that are extremely committed to what they’re doing.

One of the things in Canada that the dairy industry is offering is the safest milk products that we can find. As the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head mentioned, there are additives that are added in different countries that we don’t use in Canada. It’s really nice to see the acknowledgment from the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, because the dairy industry, really…. We are a smaller industry in British Columbia.

These are people that have committed their entire lives to this industry, their entire families, and they’re really the backbone of a lot of communities in the province. They have been building their industry over the years, and they have now gotten a bit of a hiccup with this new trade agreement. They’re not that happy right now. They really see themselves as being able to grow, because there is a huge interest in Canadian food products because of the safety.

There’s also a really interesting side to this story, and it’s that the Canadian dairy industry has one of the highest standards for animal welfare. So when consumers are looking for products that consider the welfare of the animals being farmed and also what’s being put into the products being produced, I think you will find that consumers really want to stand behind Canadian products. I couldn’t be more proud to be working with the dairy industry to make sure we get over this bump in the road with them and make sure that they’re as successful as they’ll ever be.

Now, the idea that we’re tweaking the milk act has nothing to do with a threat to the dairy industry. In fact, these restaurants are certainly not going to be in competition with the dairy industry, in the least. They’re making small lots of products like yogurt and paneer and any other kind of processed product that they would be able to serve along with the dishes that they’re already creating in their restaurants.

They won’t be able to resell these products in their restaurants to consumers. If a consumer wants to buy yogurt, they will still go to their grocery store and buy that yogurt. They won’t be able to buy it in the restaurant that’s creating its yogurt in the back under the new definition of dairy plant. This is a modernization.

The restaurant industry, of course, welcomes these amendments. The only concern that I have heard from the dairy industry is that…. Before it was clear that they wouldn’t be in competition with dairies, the dairy industry was concerned and wanted some clarification on that. But once that clarification was reached, they weren’t concerned and didn’t see it as a threat to their businesses. The Ministry of Health, also, is supportive of these amendments, because it still adheres to the idea of strict food safety, and that’s really important as well.

The legislative proposal that’s being put forward in this bill will amend the Milk Industry Act to modernize the definition of dairy plant, to summarize, and to create an authority to exempt, through future regulation, prescribed buildings and activities from the definition of dairy plant. These changes will provide flexibility to address the changing needs of consumers and the marketplace to allow restaurants to make small batches of yogurt and other dairy products, like paneer, on site for immediate consumption by consumers without having to be licensed as a dairy plant and be subject to the rules and requirements of the act and the Milk Industry Standards Regulation that are imposed on dairies.

I think that’s quite a good idea because we’re reducing the red tape for the restaurant industry. The amount of red tape that restaurants already have to deal with is a lot, and really, they’re trying to run a business. So the easier we can make it for them to produce their outstanding food in the province is a step in the right direction.

Now, just by chance last night, we had an amazing event here in British Columbia. Some of the best-known names in the B.C. hospitality industry gathered in Vancouver for the B.C. Restaurant Hall of Fame gala. Leading restaurants, celebrity chefs were all honoured for what they are doing in their industry.

[5:45 p.m.]

Unfortunately, I had to miss it, although I was watching Twitter, and I was getting updates as the night went on about how much fun it was and how great the food was at that event. I think what it really speaks to is how important the restaurant industry is to the province and to the economy of the province. I love the restaurant industry. Being a farmer, for the entire time I had my business plan as a farmer, I thought that my relationship with the restaurant industry was one of the most important relationships that I had.

I used to meet with the restaurants in the fall, here in Victoria, along with other farmers, and we basically used to have a crop-planning session. What we would do is we would figure out…. It was maybe more like a menu-planning session. The restaurants would tell us, as farmers, what they wanted to serve over their season, and we would grow specifically for what they wanted. It was an excellent way to plan my businesses as a farmer, because I knew exactly what to grow, and I had a market there to sell into that was guaranteed.

The relationship between agriculture and the restaurant industry is one that’s been getting better and better. I think when we do amendments like this, we modernize things to make business better and also to reflect the needs and wants of consumers, which will only, in the end, make the restaurant business even more successful. It’s the right thing to do.

I’m going to use this moment as well. I think it’s an important time to mention that because this amendment supports the restaurant industry, we’re taking it a step further in November, and we’re having this amazing event called Every Chef Needs a Farmer, Every Farmer Needs a Chef. It’s going to happen on the 13th of November. We are pulling together all of the top restaurants and top chefs, small restaurants and chefs that are just starting out — chefs that really want to make a connection to our farmers — and we’re pulling together farmers from across the province.

This event is going to be held in downtown Vancouver in the Wall Centre. We are showcasing agriculture in B.C., but we’re matchmaking with the restaurant industry. It’s like matchmaking for farmers and chefs. We have had so much interest in this event already because, around the province, this has been done on a small scale. My whole time as an MLA, I always envisioned that it should be done on a provincial level. We should do this in a way that it’s never been done before, so the 13th of November, we’re going to make that happen.

This room is going to be set up by commodity. If a chef wants to come in and talk to the B.C. dairy industry, there will be the dairy section of the room. If they want to come and find grass-fed beef, there will be that section. What it’s going to enable is these new relationships between our agricultural sector and our restaurant industry. The more we can get the restaurant industry to support our agriculture sector, the better that’s going to be for rural B.C. and any farming community, like Delta.

My critic is sitting across from me. He’s from an amazing agricultural area in B.C., one of the best. We were both at an event in Delta not long ago where we were talking about potatoes. There was a potato trial happening. White Spot uses B.C. potatoes, and that’s just an example of how a great B.C. restaurant has created such a great partnership with B.C. farms, most of them in Delta, and how they’re making that relationship work. Those farmers depend on that business. They depend on the success of White Spot. That’s just one example of how this works.

Tweaking this act here is really just a show of support for the restaurant industry. Now, I don’t know if you know the restaurant called Vij’s in Vancouver. They make paneer, and they serve it in their restaurant. That’s just one example where, in the kitchen, you have a chef with a vision. They’re using B.C.-raised meat, they’re using B.C.-raised vegetables, they’re using B.C. dairy, but they just want to transform that into another value-added product.

The restaurant business is all about value-added. What this act and these amendments speak to is the opportunity to have value-added products available for consumers. That’s good for business.

[5:50 p.m.]

I think my colleagues want to speak to this bill as well. I just really want to say that when you see a list of changes like this that are put together in a miscellaneous act, often they don’t look that significant — there are little tweaks here and there — but in this case, it’s a really big change for the restaurant industry. It allows them to be more successful. I hope that both sides of the House, all three parties, can support a change like this. Thank you very much.

Hon. K. Conroy: I’m honoured to stand and speak to Bill 36, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2018. The bill does include eight amendments to existing legislation across government. These amendments are going to streamline processes. They’re going to modernize the legislation and improve services for British Columbians.

I’m not going to speak to all the amendments, but to some of the ones that I’m near and dear to. I want to start with the College and Institutes Act, the Royal Roads University Act and the University Act. These amendments will remove the board membership eligibility restriction respecting employees.

We have, in Castlegar, the very first community college ever to be built in B.C. It’s Selkirk College. Last year they celebrated their 50th anniversary. It’s near and dear to my family. A number of us are alumni from Selkirk College. My mother worked in the bookstore. My father, who just turned 90 a couple of weeks ago, is a member of the vintner’s group where they actually grow grapes at the college and produce wine from it. It’s a really well-established college in our region. They have campuses throughout the entire West Kootenays.

They have had representatives from the Selkirk Faculty Association, from BCGEU, from exempt staff. They actually have a student representative on their board. They have had those staff members representing their board for many years. It was only with the last government that the restriction came in that any staff or faculty with negotiation and dispute adjudication roles for their respective staff or faculty associations were no longer eligible to serve on the boards.

That did cause an issue in some communities, especially, as a number of people have already pointed out, in rural communities where there aren’t always a lot of people who have the expertise to be on certain boards. I am really glad to see this amendment back in the legislation. I know, having talked to some of the faculty members at Selkirk College as well as some of the other board members, that they also see this as a move in the right direction.

As the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head said, this is not an issue around conflict of interest. In fact, the college president sits on the board, and of course issues around compensation are discussed for him. But people would recuse themselves when there are obviously issues of conflict, because we have great conflict of interest legislation in this province. I think this is a really good way of ensuring that there’s good and broader representation for public post-secondary institutions in this province. I’m really glad to see it. I know that this will bode well for Selkirk College in the Kootenays.

Our Minister of Agriculture, of course, was very eloquent, as it was said she would be, around this whole issue with the Milk Industry Act. It brings the Milk Industry Act into the 21st century, because it’s not just about milking cows in a barn anymore. This is about actually looking at what’s happening with other industries, as she talked about.

You know, we raise beef; we don’t raise dairy cattle. We don’t actually milk cows; we milk bulls, because we sell semen. It’s interesting, actually, that in B.C. there’s no processing. I’m going to point this out to the Minister of Agriculture. There is no processing for beef semen in B.C., but there’s actually processing for the dairy industry, which is something that has been an issue for beef breeders. We actually have to take our semen to Alberta to be processed. It’s an interesting thing that not many people know unless you’re in the beef business.

I think this is a great way of bringing the milk industry, the dairy industry, into the 21st century. It’s been an issue for a while that we’ve heard about. This is a great amendment to that legislation.

I was also happy to see the amendments to the Mental Health Act. Who better than a retired physician to sit on the review panel of the Mental Health Review Board?

[5:55 p.m.]

I think it’s really important that you have people with experience, people who are retired but have that wealth of experience they’d like to give back to the community. Ensuring that retired physicians can sit on the board I think bodes well for the people that are appearing before the board. Again, I think it’s a timely issue. Its time has come. It’s a good one.

Other members have spoken about the Public Guardian and Trustee Act. I think that’s a good one, because it’s so critically important for that role for when someone is in a position where the public guardian has to step in to help people. It’s really important to ensure that their financial interests are being respected and protected, because it’s only when there’s an issue of gravity that the public trustee actually steps in. So I’m very happy to see that.

I know that the Minister of Finance talked a lot about the changes to the Business Corporations Act, the Cooperative Association Act, the Credit Union Incorporation Act, the Financial Institutions Act and the Societies Act. I think it is important to reiterate that in small communities in rural B.C., it’s often hard to…. It’s easier to say…. I think it was the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head who talked about Bob down the street coming and taking care of your books. But I think it’s really important to….

N. Simons: Uncle Bob.

Hon. K. Conroy: Oh, it was Uncle Bob down the street. Sorry. I’ll do apologies to Uncle Bob. No disrespect.

I think it’s important that we have people that are professionals that are taking care of the books of all these organizations. It protects companies, and it’s important to know that you are in good standing. I know many people run non-profit societies with pride, as I used to do that myself.

I know that it’s really important to ensure that the books that you’re presenting for the organization — that they’re all done properly and that you’re showing that you are…. Because quite often, you’re using government dollars, and you want to make sure that you can show that those are being spent properly and appropriately and providing the services to the people in the community that your organization does that for. And it’s important to ensure that those people are qualified. With all due respect, it’s not your uncle from down the street. So this is good legislation to bring in.

I also was happy to see the Safety Standards Act. Some people might think it’s minor housekeeping, but I think it’s… I’m a former power engineer. I worked in the pulp mill. I know what it’s like to work around boilers.

I think that it’s really important that the people that are taking care of that machinery, refrigeration plants and elevators are people who have the necessary qualifications to ensure that it’s being done properly to ensure that the safety of the public is of the utmost consideration when you’re looking at this high-risk and technical equipment.

People might take it for granted. You get on an elevator. You just obviously assume that there’s going to be oversight. I know at one of the organizations I worked for, we looked into installing an elevator to make sure that our facilities were accessible. The process around it was rather stringent. One of the things was that you had to make sure your elevator was checked consistently. In some areas, there just isn’t that availability. So the fact that it’s being upgraded to say that you need to ensure that that’s there is really important.

We actually ended up putting in a stairlift as opposed to an elevator because that worked almost as well. We had to make sure that due diligence was put into place and that the safety was there to ensure…. You know, the public has to be kept safe at all times.

By doing a little due diligence up front, you can ensure that there are not going to be the issues that could come down the road, to make sure that the public has made those informed decisions about who to hire — that you’re hiring somebody that actually has the qualifications.

[6:00 p.m.]

Sometimes people consider themselves an expert on certain areas, and they might not necessarily have those qualifications. They’re just good at doing something and put themselves out there. In some small communities, people might assume that they have the qualifications needed to ensure that these pieces of machinery and this equipment is up to the standards it should be.

It’s really important that regulators have the ability to do their jobs effectively and ensure that the people that are being hired to do the work are the people that should be being hired. It’s not, you know, a small agency that has got this elevator, and they think this guy knows what he’s doing and hires him to do it, even though the person might not have the appropriate skills and regulation that they should have to make sure that they’re the ones that should be providing that level of oversight to the equipment and boilers and elevators in a community.

You can see, in communities where there hasn’t been due diligence, that there are times that safety is put at risk by people that work there. That’s something that we always have to be mindful of. Although it might be a housekeeping amendment to this legislation, it is, in fact, fairly serious that we ensure that the safety of the public is always foremost in mind when we’re making these changes, these amendments to the legislation.

I want to thank the Attorney General for due diligence and looking through different amendments to legislation to ensure…. You know, there are some things that get brought by thinking that they’ll be better for people and the industries and professions. But when you really look at it, it’s a matter of updating issues, of making sure that people can comply with these issues, and making sure that we bring things into the 21st century, as the Minister of Agriculture talked about. The whole issue around yogurt — why can’t people make yogurt? You can make it at home, so why not in a restaurant where you are serving it to people and doing it properly? We know what great restaurants we have in this province. They do their best to make sure that they’re going to bring things in that are safe.

These are great amendments, all of them, and I think that due diligence has been taken into consideration when ensuring that these amendments will benefit people down the long run.

I do want to mention the Offence Act and its using tele-information. It’s interesting, because I think we will probably need this more in rural B.C., where it’s more difficult to ensure that we have the professions in place to provide the services they need. When you need to have a police officer appear in person before a justice, when it could be so much easier to just submit a sworn statement using written telecommunication methods…. When you think about it, in rural B.C., where they might have to drive for miles and miles, hours and hours, to get to where they need to go, to go in person before a judge, this is much more efficient. It’s an efficient use of people’s time and allows people to make sure that it can happen, especially in rural B.C.

I think that is a good amendment. It makes the use of police and judicial resources much more efficient, and it kind of brings, again, the judicial people into the 21st century, which is what we need to do. We’ve been doing it with health care for a while now. The ability for telehealth is across the province, and it’s getting better, and people are really benefiting by that. So to bring it to the judicial system, I think, is another great way of making sure that we are bringing different legislation into the 21st century.

I want to again thank the different ministers for the different acts they’ve brought in through the Attorney General. I feel that these are all amendments that will benefit British Columbians for the long run, down the road.

I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak to these amendments.

[6:05 p.m.]

N. Simons: As we draw near to the end of a long second day of our return to Victoria, I have the pleasure of just speaking briefly to Bill 36, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendments Act — the kind of piece of legislation that’s just filled with a bunch of little treasures, as you can tell by the thrilled response to the speeches already given here.

The legislation is before us today and contemplates amendments to a number of different acts that have already been passed. That’s why they’re called amendments.

I’ve listened as my colleagues and ministry colleagues, as well, talked about the specific legislation that affects their ministries.

I think it’s very important to make sure that we keep our legislation up to date and allow it to evolve with changing technologies, as we see in this legislation, and evolve as other legislation may replace the need for, for example, as mentioned earlier, the conflict-of-interest rules and allow for the possibility of rural communities having people appointed to small college boards from those communities. As we know, that’s something that colleges and universities and post-secondary institutions in our rural communities have asked for.

To go over, briefly, the content of Bill 36, it includes eight amendments to existing legislation. The first is the College and Institute Act, the Royal Roads University Act and the University Act. The purpose of these amendments, as explained earlier, are entirely supportable. They allow for these institutions to appoint to their boards people who may have otherwise been seen as in a conflict.

Recognizing that conflict rules and regulations set out what that person is able to discuss and deliberate on and vote on, I think, recognizes that that piece of legislation is timely and probably more, in particular, related to smaller institutions and smaller communities where the availability of people to sit on boards may be somewhat different. I know that where I represent, we have two post-secondary institutions. They have their main campuses off away from our community. But other of my colleagues from the Interior, they may be just small communities with a lot of interested people, and the opportunity to serve on a board should be available to them as well.

The Milk Industry Act is the second of the amendments that I’d like to discuss. It allows for…. It’s funny. This is a red-tape reduction. I never thought I’d be talking about and celebrating red-tape reduction. When we celebrate Red Tape Reduction Day, let’s think that we’ve allowed restaurateurs to actually make yogurt.

I strongly support that. I strongly support the ability of chefs to use their skills to the maximum capacity, including the ability to transform dairy products into other magical foods. I’m pleased that this is part of this miscellaneous statute. It seems to be common sense. It updates, in fact, legislation that’s not just a little bit old but probably an act that was written a number of decades ago, which refers to dairy plants as the only place where products can be made into something else.

I’m not sure how many restaurants might have been sanctioned for making yogurt or paneer, but this allows for them to do so without fear of consequences from the long arm of authority. I’m pleased that the Attorney General has seen fit to include this in the legislation.

The third piece of amendment is to the Mental Health Act. What this particular amendment contemplates is the ability to appoint retired medical professionals to mental health review boards, which take place — I can’t remember exactly how many days — after someone is committed under the Mental Health Act. But they are allowed to have their case reviewed. The due process allowed to a person suffering from a mental illness allows for professionals to hear the case, for supporters to speak on behalf of the person who may have been committed, not in order to win or lose but in order for that person to have a proper and fair hearing.

[6:10 p.m.]

In some communities, it may be difficult to find people who have the time and the knowledge to be able to put towards a review board hearing. I think, probably like other jurisdictions, we allow, through this amendment, for retired professionals to use their expertise — to maintain, perhaps, their fluency in their particular medical health profession and sit on these boards and provide their expertise to a community. If we dig down, it probably addresses the need to ensure that people have access to due process. So it may be, in fact, addressing a problem that has existed and allowing for those who are interested in being part of those hearings to do so. Essentially, the amendments will provide a means for the Mental Health Review Board to recruit capable people to those boards and consistently appoint them to those boards.

The Public Guardian and Trustee Act amendment will clarify that the Public Guardian and Trustee may, as a corporation sole, become and act as a director of a client’s company. I’m not going to go into detail, because I don’t know the details.

The Offence Act is being amended so that tele-informations…. For people who don’t know, that’s when an enforcement officer is reporting, laying an information, on a statement, essentially the statement of a peace officer. They don’t make a charge, but they lay an information. When it’s impractical for that person to do so, because they have to actually go and find a justice of the peace…. I think it’s usually a justice of the peace. They may find difficulty in doing so, especially in rural or remote communities where access is limited. The numbers of people providing that service is not as great as in larger communities. It’s not just the scarcity of the justice, but the number of hours in which they’re available.

This authorizes the tele-informations, the sworn statements of peace officers, to be acceptable. So when it’s impractical for a peace officer to appear in person before a justice, they can submit a sworn statement, and that just seems like we’ve modernized things. It doesn’t say we should use a fax or anything else. We have modern communication techniques that can fairly well confirm that the person sending it is the person authorized to do so.

The Criminal Code allows for the swearing of tele-informations for criminal offences, and this amendment allows the same authority for offences under the Offence Act. They’re significant in many cases. They’re essential. They may not be at the criminal threshold. Of course, that is ultimately to improve our efficiency.

The Supreme Court Act will be amended. They clarify the chief justice’s administrative authority over masters, who handle pretrial applications, case management conferences, settlement discussions and similar matters. It also clarifies the role of registrars who handle disputes relating to costs, the amount of lawyers’ bills and the settlement of orders and similar matters. So essentially, it’s just making things better organized. The Supreme Court codifies long-established practices on salary, benefits, retirement and security of tenure.

I could go into the details of how you calculate a master’s salary, but I don’t think I will, because it looks too complicated. Suffice to say, the amendments are geared to streamlining process.

[6:15 p.m.]

The Safety Standards Act, which my friend from the Kootenays spoke about, governs the high-risk technical equipment and people who use such equipment — electrical systems, boilers, refrigeration plants, elevators. The amendments are designed to address the gaps and then strengthen the existing safety oversight tools. It’s difficult to find any reason to consider that a problem.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I think it’s unanimously agreed here that we want to have not only very safe work spaces for the workers but for the public as well. The proposed amendments allow regulators to do their jobs more effectively and allow the public to make informed decisions about who to hire; and increase overall safety, both for the general public and workers.

That is, essentially, the meat of Bill 36, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. I was pleased to speak to its content.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the attention of the House.

Hon. J. Darcy: I rise to support Bill 36, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. I want to thank the various ministries and ministers and staff who have worked on this together with the Attorney General. I just want to highlight a few of the issues here.

Let me begin by saying that all of them are important. All of them are really about common sense. Presumably, none of these are controversial. Just beginning with the College and Institute Act and the amendments there, I think that it is certainly a goal of our government — I think it should be a goal of members on both sides of the House — that our college and university boards, just as our boards for other publicly funded institutions, should reflect the broadest possible diversity in our community, the broadest possible diversity in our society. The amendments to the College and Institute Act strive to do that.

It says that, essentially, it repeals some provisions that would now prevent certain staff and faculty from being eligible to serve on boards or institutions, in particular if they have any kind of role with negotiating and dispute adjudication roles. But these are issues that other public institutions and boards have dealt with — school districts, for instance. Teachers are able to sit on school district boards and serve as trustees. But, of course, they would recuse themselves if they were dealing with a collective bargaining or a labour relations issue that they had some direct connection with — health authorities, similarly.

I think it’s really important in the case of our colleges and institutes. Certainly, teaching staff at colleges and universities, support staff, people who work in other capacities at colleges and universities have a great deal to offer, because they have front-line experience. So having their voice, having their role, an enhanced role for some of those folks on our college and university boards, can only help to ensure that we really are meeting the needs, we’re really having voices there that can speak to the needs of the entire community, including the community of the college and university itself.

On the Milk Industry Act, there’s very little that I can add to what the Minister of Agriculture had to say on this topic. She spoke very, very eloquently earlier on the topic, as did my colleague, the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, on the issue of red-tape reduction.

This is, indeed, about red-tape reduction. We don’t need to declare a day or have a piece of legislation on red-tape reduction. It’s really about ensuring that we’re dealing with commonsense issues in a timely manner and eliminating what can be important barriers to ensuring, in this case, that we’re removing unnecessary regulatory burdens, as requested by the restaurant industry, without compromising food safety.

What this exemption authority will be used for is to develop a future regulation that would say, for instance, that dairy products in a restaurant could be used for another purpose — for desserts, for other kinds of things that would be produced in that restaurant — and, also, just to help to complement the wide, unique menu offerings made in a traditional style that can be made without a dairy plant licence. I certainly would support that.

On the Mental Health Act, I think we all know the challenges of ensuring that there are sufficient numbers of family doctors to meet the needs of British Columbians in communities right across the province. Certainly, we want to…. That’s something I know the Minister of Health is working very hard on.

[6:20 p.m.]

It is a real challenge, therefore, to find practising physicians who are able to serve on the Mental Health Review Board. It’s critically important to have health care professionals, and especially doctors, on these review panels and due process for people who have been brought involuntarily into care under the Mental Health Act. Due process is very, very important for those patients. It’s critically important that their reviews take place in a timely manner in order to really fully respect their rights under the Mental Health Act.

What this amendment would do is essentially bring legislation into line with current and appropriate practice and allow the Mental Health Review Board to recruit consistent and capable retired family doctors to resolve cases for citizens in a timely manner.

I could speak to all of the other very important issues in this bill, but those are really the principal ones that I wanted to highlight. All of them, I believe, are non-controversial, common sense and should be supported by members on both sides of this House.

Hon. D. Eby: I thank all of my colleagues on all sides of the House, all three parties, for their comments in relation to this bill. I look forward to engaging with some of the questions raised by the opposition during the committee stage. I know my colleagues from different ministries do as well. There are a number of different ministries that collaborated, obviously, in putting this together.

And I think we all look forward to eating restaurant-made yogurt and other dairy products and paneer in the event that this bill passes the House.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 36, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2018, 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. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:22 p.m.