Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call second reading on Bill 33, Food Delivery Service Fee Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 33 — FOOD DELIVERY SERVICE FEE ACT

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

I’m pleased to present Bill 33, the Food Delivery Service Fee Act. Bill 33 will replace the temporary food delivery services order under the COVID-19 Related Measures Act.

The food delivery services order was enacted in December 2020. This was at a time when restaurants were seeing more and more of their business transitioning from in-person dining to takeout and delivery. Up until that point, restaurants were at the mercy of food delivery platforms, paying high service fees up to 30 percent, sometimes 40 percent, as they tried to survive.

[1:35 p.m.]

The food delivery services order put in place limits on how much a restaurant could be charged by the platforms. The limit, under this order, was capped at a total of 20 percent: 15 percent for the ordering and delivery service, and 5 percent associated with administrative costs.

As you all know, in recent times, the restaurant industry has faced unprecedented challenges — first the pandemic, and now supply chain and labour shortages. They’ve shown amazing resiliency to stay nimble and implement health and safety plans. I would like to take a moment to thank all the restaurant owners and staff across this province for following public health guidelines and doing their part in keeping our communities safe.

Bill 33 will offer restaurants continued stability, and this 20 percent cap on core services of ordering and delivering will always be an option for them. This bill also allows for delivery platforms to innovate and offer enhanced services to restaurants, as long as the base offer of 20 percent is always an available option. Delivery service is the new norm, and it’s expected to remain an important source of revenue for the restaurant industry.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Bill 33 will help restaurants continue to recover from the hardships of COVID-19. By enacting Bill 33, we will position restaurants to maintain their profitability and their ability to offer jobs to a diverse workforce across this province. The act will also continue the driver protections from the temporary order. This means a driver delivering for a food delivery platform subject to this act will not see their compensation reduced as a result of the fee cap being made permanent.

It is the policy of this government that all workers, regardless of official status with their employer, are protected and compensated fairly. Bill 33 allows for portions of the legislation to be enacted through regulation. By doing this, we’re ensuring that this act will be adaptable to changed business climates for restaurants in the future. This legislation is just one of the many actions that we’ve taken to support small businesses and restaurants over these unprecedented times.

We’re continuing our commitment to the restaurant industry to help them recover, to help them continue to grow and help them serve communities across this province. I hope members from all sides of this house will join me in supporting our restaurants as we celebrate this week, Small Business Week.

T. Stone: I appreciate the opportunity to rise and offer some comments on Bill 33, the Food Delivery Service Fee Act. I thank the minister for his opening comments there. I will say at the outset that our caucus is supportive of this legislation. We as a caucus made a very clear commitment to the restaurant sector, the hospitality sector, in relation to delivery fees in the last provincial election.

I’m also very proud of the work that my colleague from Surrey–White Rock did on this file. It was actually the member for Surrey–White Rock that brought forward a private member’s bill that was a very commonsense, focused, very practical solution to cap delivery fees. I think he really lit a fire under the government on this, which resulted in the government bringing forward the legislation that it did during the pandemic.

So hats-off to the MLA for Surrey–White Rock for his advocacy on behalf of not just his caucus colleagues but, I think, all British Columbians who own and operate or work for or supply a restaurant and others in the hospitality sector.

You will probably hear this theme through comments that other members will make in speaking to Bill 33. But it’s obviously no surprise that during the pandemic, there were, perhaps, few sectors that were impacted more significantly than restaurants and those in the hospitality business. In fact, we all can recount conversations and meetings and stories that we all had as legislators with restaurants in our local communities and others in the hospitality business who struggled, like others did in other sectors. But restaurants and hospitality sector businesses were impacted, in many cases, at a much deeper scale than other types of businesses were.

[1:40 p.m.]

Regrettably, there were many, many of these restaurants and hospitality sector businesses that didn’t make it, that unfortunately ended up having to close their doors, and they are not in existence anymore. Thankfully, the vast majority were able to survive, and it’s a testament to the resiliency of everyone in the restaurant and hospitality sector. It’s a testament to the work ethic, the focus, the entrepreneurial savvy that you see in people that own and operate and work for restaurants.

There was also a heartwarming aspect that we all saw and felt during the pandemic, in often very dark times during the pandemic, when, clearly, there was a strong, strong public desire to support their local restaurants. A lot of the impetus for moving forward with delivery caps was really instigated and was really accelerated through, I think, public pressure, public calls for these kinds of measures to be put in place.

There was a huge increase, obviously, in the use by the public of food delivery services, whether your Uber Eats or DoorDash or others. There was a huge interest and demand for food delivery. People wanted to support their local restaurants. They wanted to see these little local establishments make it through the pandemic, so they utilized these delivery companies and the services that they offer in order to support their restaurants.

As part of that, it was also made very clear by the public that there is an expectation that fees charged to restaurants for those delivery services be fair, that they be reasonable, that they be balanced between the profit interest of the delivery companies involved and the financial viability interests of the restaurants that were dependent on these delivery companies. Therein was the genesis for the delivery cap legislation during the pandemic. It’s a positive step that the government is moving forward to make this a permanent reality, moving forward.

As I said, over 11,000 jobs…. We’re still down about 11,400 jobs in the hospitality sector today from where we were before the pandemic hit.

I want to just touch on, in relation to this — again, along the theme of supporting small business — how important it is for measures like this as provided in Bill 33 to always try as hard as one can — especially when you’re in government and you have the levers of power and have the ability through policy and legislation and tax — to actually make decisions that really, truly can impact small businesses, restaurants and hospitality businesses in particular, in such a fundamental way.

That being said, a survey by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business this past September regrettably found that the B.C. government is the worst in Canada when it comes to understanding the needs of small businesses. And 88 percent of small businesses said that they felt that this government was ignoring their needs.

Additionally, this CFIB survey found the following top priorities for B.C. businesses. As businesses and their organizations always do, they propose solutions — they don’t just complain in a vacuum; they propose solutions as well — and 63 percent of these businesses surveyed want to see their overall tax burden reduced. Fee caps is one cost of doing business. So as I said, we are acknowledging a positive step here. It was, again, something that we proposed in a private member’s bill prior to the government taking action on it, so we support this.

[1:45 p.m.]

The overall tax burden of small business is too high. Small businesses, I think rightfully, have said over and over to this government that there needs to be some work done to determine where some tax relief can be provided in other areas. That would have a very positive impact on the viability of restaurants and hospitality sector businesses, as well as other small businesses.

Fifty-nine percent want to see the health care challenges in British Columbia resolved; 58 percent, very notably, want B.C’s. labour shortage to be addressed. When you dig a little deeper on that one, you realize that the looming and growing labour shortage, while it’s impacting virtually every sector in our economy, is perhaps more pronounced with small businesses in the hospitality and the restaurant sector than almost anywhere else.

Yet there doesn’t appear to be a cohesive, focused strategy on the part of this government to address the labour shortage that so many of these restaurants and hospitality sector businesses are facing. A strategy focused on that, a strategy focused on the overall costs, the cost burden that is on the shoulders of these businesses, would be greatly welcomed by businesses in this sector.

In closing, again, I want to acknowledge that we are supportive of this legislation. Certainly, there will be a range of more technical questions that we will canvass in committee stage on this bill, and we’ll have a very thoughtful, respectful exchange to that end. But as part of second reading, we do think this is a good step in the right direction. This will be of benefit to restaurants and others in the hospitality sector.

I should point out, as well, that in conversations with a number of the delivery companies, the general sense seems to be that a decent balance has been struck here. Did the delivery companies get everything they wanted in this legislation? No, they didn’t. Should they have gotten everything they wanted? No, they shouldn’t have.

Overall, I think there’s a reasonable balance that has been struck here in recognizing, first and foremost, the interests of the small businesses, the restaurants and those in the hospitality sector and the important need for government to focus on doing all it can to help with the long-term sustainability and viability of these small businesses, all the while recognizing that that approach does need to take into consideration other interests, most notably those of the delivery companies as well.

With that, I will look forward to an exchange in committee stage on a more detailed analysis, section by section. We’ll look forward to doing that, and I will now take my seat.

T. Halford: I want to echo the remarks from my colleague from Kamloops. This legislation, I think, is a good step. I think it’s important that we take a moment and realize how we got here.

The fact is that this has been an incredibly trying few years for the hospitality sector, specifically the restaurant sector. I say that with firsthand knowledge. I know there are other colleagues in the House, and I know the minister, who will share the sentiment.

Growing up, it was a restaurant owned by my mom that put food on our table. It was that restaurant that helped me pay for my hockey. It was that restaurant that when I became the delivery driver for her, helped me pay for my university. So it’s a sector I know well. I think it’s a sector in British Columbia that has a great legacy, but it’s also a sector that, as I’ve just stated a moment ago, has been hit incredibly hard. When you look at things….

[1:50 p.m.]

I had the opportunity…. I was elected in October of 2020, as many other colleagues that are here today. I will say this was an election promise, I think, made by both sides of the House. It was one that we understood at the time was important. We’d been hearing this from the sector itself numerous times, that this was a struggle. This is why I did bring in a private member’s bill in that fall session of 2020, because, to me, we needed to take action.

I will remind the House and those that are tuning in that one of the most important times, if not the most important time, for the restaurant sector is the holidays, is the month of December. For that, they have holiday parties to plan. They’re rented out.

Even though there was restrictions faced on people attending or gathering inside of restaurants, there was still an opportunity for restaurants to try and make up some of their losses through takeout. I know that in our family, we relied very heavily on some of the restaurants around us for our meals. Every single time I went in to pick up, we heard what a struggle it was, given the legislation that we’re talking about today.

Like I said, I think this is a good step in the right direction, and obviously, we’ll canvass this during committee. But I’ve always said, and I’ll say it again, it is never too late to do the right thing. I would have wished, though, that we had the opportunity — whether it’s somebody, a private member, from this side of the House or the other side of the House — to act with a little bit more urgency. We could have moved much quicker and provided relief quicker to the sector that I think we all acknowledge in all our communities could have used it at that time.

Again, I want to thank the Chair for the opportunity to speak, and I look forward to more discussion.

M. Dykeman: The stairs in this building continuously remind me that I’m not in as great shape as I could be. Oh boy.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 33, the permanent food delivery cap. This is a bill which I was excited to see come through. One of the challenges that we’ve been facing as a society is rising food costs, and that’s something that’s been seen around the world. As a farmer, I’ve noticed that when I go to the grocery store, you see such higher prices on just the staples.

I had this conversation the other day with my father. We were talking about the old $25 basket. I’m not sure how many people here…. I recognize that I’m looking at a few of my fellow members, and I think they would…. They’re in the same age group that would allow them to remember that. I’m not sure that I was ever alive when it was $25, but we would talk about that. For $25, you could get all the staples you needed for a week — bread, milk, butter, cheese. So $25 now I think gets you the reusable cloth bag and some Mr. Noodles maybe, if you’re lucky.

There are certain stores where you walk in and when you walk out, it’s impossible to walk out for $100. I’m not sure how that happens. When I go into a store and purchase three things, none of which were probably on my list, I walk out remembering that I had forgotten about something I previously went in there to buy, and it still comes to $150. That is one of the things that really mystifies me.

We’re sitting in a time where, all joking aside, we have really serious challenges with affordability facing the world, and food is specifically one of them. Like I said, as a farmer, we see the costs rising at our end, and then when they go to the store, we’re seeing that translated through. And it’s all of the costs that go along with that.

Through that, though, one of the things our government has recognized is that there’s a need to support the restaurants to ensure that the prices are affordable and that the delivery companies aren’t charging exorbitant fees.

During the pandemic, meal delivery service really blew up and became quite popular in Langley, and as a single mother, I can say that it is really convenient to be able to order food when I’m on my way home here from the Legislature and have it meet me at the same time as my family and be able to enjoy a sit-down meal.

[1:55 p.m.]

With that demand, often you see an increase in costs. So it changed the dining habits, and people really pivoted towards food delivery services as an additional way to support their customers.

When I go to local restaurants in Langley, I see restaurants serving those 50, 60 tables that are in there but also, at the same time, having the opportunity to diversify their income, to support the delivery model, which has, I think, in many ways — actually, I was contemplating this the other day — opened some really interesting accessibility options for people. You know, you’re at home for whatever is going on in your life, and you can’t go to a meal. You’ve got that option to have that food come to you, all cooked.

It opens up a wide array of different food choices. Growing up, it was pizza — get that delivered. And maybe Chinese food was another one that was often delivered. But now it’s any restaurant. You can get anything you want delivered to your house.

Our government first put in place a 15 percent temporary cap on food delivery fees, and we also introduced a 5 percent cap on additional fees, for a total cap of 20 percent. And that temporary cap is set to expire at the end of this year. So this legislation that’s being introduced is to ensure that this cap is permanent.

It will give restaurants some certainty, and that certainty will help them be able to understand their costs, going forward. And it protects them from being charged unfair fees. It also allows food delivery companies to innovate and provide tiered pricing models and be able to offer enhanced services, like marketing and web design and data analytics, outside of the fee cap.

It really is interesting. When I started working, my first industry I worked in was the food industry. It was a great job. In many ways, I really miss some of the aspects of it. I was very much into show jumping horses, and I was looking at building the farm out here. The food industry allowed me to work very flexible hours and in quite a social environment, which is actually not that dissimilar to politics. It allowed me to work different hours to support the interests and hobbies and career path I wanted to take.

One thing about the food industry is that it wasn’t a very innovative place. It was pretty predictable. Not much changed in that area. So seeing the rate of innovation that we’re seeing now with the opportunities that presented out of the pandemic is interesting: changing delivery models — something that I hadn’t seen, in the years I worked in there, change for a very long time — changing how the market is tapped into, how you market to your customers, the services you offer. The concept of apps being used so much related to the service industry is really an interesting thing, because like I said, it’s been a pretty stagnant market all those years.

One of the questions that, actually, I was asked is: why are certain business types excluded from the cap? The cap protects restaurants that were most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions and changed consumer behaviors. These businesses had to increase their reliance on food delivery companies and required protections from the high fees.

The primary function of the coffee shops and juice bars is not food preparation, so they do not rely on food orders in the same way as traditional restaurants, and therefore, they don’t require the same protection. Since food trucks have always been an outdoor-accessible thing — they have not relied on in-restaurant dining — they weren’t affected by pandemic restrictions or changed consumer behavior in the same way. Food trucks may also not have a fixed address, which determines eligibility under the restaurant count.

[2:00 p.m.]

Thinking about that with the food trucks — this is kind of a funny story — I was recently at the Fort Langley Cranberry Festival. They said that they had expanded it to look at things that people really…. It’s sort of based on demand, and it has changed year after year.

One of the things that has struck me since the pandemic, and then going to this event this past weekend, is that when I arrived there, seven-eighths of the whole area of the Cranberry Festival was food trucks. There was a young boy running down the road, who said: “I’m so excited. I can’t believe it. Mom, look, my favourite thing is here.” He rounds the corner, he stops, he puts his hands on his face, and he says: “Mini doughnuts.”

Thinking through the pandemic, the food trucks actually offered a really neat way, as we were dealing with restrictions, for people to still get out and enjoy the things that they loved. I was really quite amused at looking at all the different ways that the food trucks created an entire activity for people to go to. In one of the very early ones, they had food trucks set up, and it created almost a drive-through maze with entertainment. It became this thing that people looked forward to.

I was having coffee with one of my friends recently, and they said: “I really hope that as we come out of the pandemic, we’re not going to part ways with the food truck events.” Really, if you think about it, is that anything you ever would have thought you’d have lived to hear, a couple of years ago? People were ecstatic about a food truck maze with entertainment. It really is interesting to see the things that have become sort of entertainment events for people since the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions have started to ease.

One of the things, too, that is obviously a concern with anything where you have a cap is how it will affect people that work in the area. One of the questions was: will delivery drivers see reduced compensation from this permanent cap? No, there is going to be added driver protections to the legislation, to ensure that driver compensation is not impacted by the fee cap and developing a new enforcement model, to be paired with this legislation, to ensure that companies abide by this.

That’s the thing about anything new. When we talk about innovation, you aren’t able to easily predict how something is going to evolve — like that the delivery service programs would be pushed to this level of popularity, with food delivery. That’s one of the things that came out of the challenges faced in the pandemic: there was added pressure and an added interest in people having the flexibility to have food delivery.

I have to say that I’m really quite a fan of having my coffee arrive at my office before I get there. It makes me a nicer person, and it makes the day go a lot smoother, if there’s coffee waiting there. And you’re still able to support a local business, which is such an important thing.

I always smile when I see how many of the local small businesses have been able to open up and reach new markets they’ve never seen before — which really helps support our Buy Local, Support Local — and local shops being able to expand their market when they maybe couldn’t expand their physical space. You know, it’s one of the challenges when you’re a small business. You have a small area; you really aren’t going to be able to access new seats. So you’re able to reach a new market through innovation, through apps where you have food delivery.

One of the other questions that somebody asked me was: “What action is the government taking to develop the strategy?” I just have to say that I’m sitting across from and looking at somebody who has put so much work into it, Parliamentary Secretary Walker, who led so much of this work and led consultations on the fee cap that’s now in place for food delivery services, meeting with food delivery companies, worker representatives and stakeholders from the restaurant and licensed sectors. It’s a critical part of the regulation to protect food delivery drivers by prohibiting companies from reducing drivers’ compensation to adjust to the fee cap.

[2:05 p.m.]

In the coming weeks, the parliamentary secretary will have a lot more to say about the new public engagement and gathering of information. There was a lot of work put in in there. I really appreciate the work that was put in by the parliamentary secretary in this area and all the consultations that took place in this area that the parliamentary secretary had undertaken, because it was a big job.

It was something, really. He led a lot of that strategy and work just to see us here today, in that area. I just wanted to say that it was really great to see that, because I know it’s an area that he appeared very passionate about. With that, it really has been a privilege to be able to stand here and speak in favor of this bill. Like I said at the beginning, we are facing high food costs, a changing demographic, a changing industry and evolving in innovation.

As a group, as a province, we have to be prepared for changes, and the folks that have worked so hard on this really have, in my opinion, come forward with a fantastic plan and an opportunity to protect the people that work in the sector, the restaurants and the local businesses while supporting innovation, so that it’s not stifled. I’m really excited to see opportunities for businesses to reach new markets and take the benefit of the opportunities that come from innovation, while also ensuring that those that could be negatively affected have some security around them.

I really appreciate the opportunity to speak to that today. With that, I’ll take my seat, hon. Speaker.

H. Yao: Thank you so much for allowing me to have the opportunity to speak. I want to add a supplement to a previous speaker’s comment — about December being the busiest month for restaurants — just to let him know that in Chinese culture and a lot of Asian cultures, February is also one of the busiest months for restaurants. Just food for thought.

Today, I’m just grateful to be able to stand up talking about a limit or food cap and making it permanent. For my family and me — especially my wife, because we now have two under two — cooking often isn’t an option. One thing we have noticed is that when we go through Uber, Fantuan or SkipTheDishes when we order food, some of the restaurants have actually started reducing the size — which I understand; that covers some expenses.

We also need to now look at different families when they’re dealing with deliveries — when they are not able to actually cook a meal for their family, when a family has been challenged or when a professional family is trying to take care of their family themselves.

We want to make sure that there’s a fair playing field for our delivery companies. When we’re talking about food deliveries, I think we also have to realize that those big, major companies aren’t really located in Vancouver. They aren’t located in British Columbia. There are big, international corporations that often draw their financial success into their respective jurisdictions.

I think one of the benefits behind this 20 percent permanent fee cap is to help our restaurant sector here, in our local community, to thrive. I think one of the key factors that has been pointed out by our minister in his bill is that only companies that serve 500 restaurants or more are subjected to this bill. Smaller delivery companies and maybe even localized delivery companies may be able to get away from this requirement.

I do want to say that when the pandemic hit in 2020, a lot of our restaurant friends struggled. There’s absolutely no doubt that food delivery was a lifeline that was thrown to them. But we also saw, at a moment of desperation, and we are still seeing — as many of our colleagues mentioned earlier, we are seeking cooperation — that some of our businesses are raising their delivery rate up to 30 percent.

We’re talking about restaurants that already have to pay overhead; they have to pay staff. They’re doing their best, doing what is right, by keeping their staffs working in the restaurant, cooking and preparing delivery meals and still sending them out. Some of them often function under a deficit. But at 30 percent–plus, sometimes, it could be — I can’t remember the analogy — the weight on the back of the camel that actually breaks the camel. We’re talking about restaurants’ struggles under the weight of COVID. We don’t want any additional burden.

[2:10 p.m.]

That is the thing that we do want to also emphasize. COVID-19 also demonstrated that there is the potential growth of delivery services. We’re looking at a gig sector. We’re talking about drivers. We’ve seen them delivering food, giving people rides and sometimes delivering groceries. I know T&T and many supermarkets got to participate in grocery delivery as well.

We’re looking at different people actually delivering purchases of products. Of course, we see different kinds of companies thriving in a — I guess I shouldn’t be saying post COVID; we’re still in COVID — post-recovery time frame.

We’re all trying our best to survive in this economy. I think it’s great when different sectors and different industries work together and complement one another to strengthen our economic success, but we have to make sure it’s done in a way that complements one another.

I think this fee cap…. Again, going back to square one, 20 percent…. The sector has demonstrated it to be a reasonable limit to set. It allows the delivery companies to continue to thrive but also our local businesses, local restaurants, small owners, which are owned by British Columbians — to continue to be able to deliver services, deliver food products, deliver cuisines to British Columbians.

I’m going to go back to square one. Me and my wife also like to order our meals at night — when my wife has spent the whole day looking after the kids or sometimes when I come back home exhausted or for whatever reason. To be honest, I don’t think my wife wants to trust my cooking, but that’s a completely different point.

We want to be able to come back and really find a way just to have a lovely meal together. We often reach out to delivery apps. We’re looking at, again, Uber. We’re talking about Fantuan. We’re talking about SkipTheDishes.

I think one of the key factors…. I’ve bought through many in the past. We do notice the portions getting smaller and smaller. Sometimes we have ordered extra portions just to balance it.

As my previous colleague spoke about very clearly, British Columbians are dealing with a lot of challenges in affordability. I think restaurants also want to build up their credibility. They also want to maintain a strong, healthy business and maintain strong trust between the customer and restaurant.

By allowing a fee cap to be maintained and not be able to grow unnecessarily…. In our restaurants, we can find the balance when it comes to food deliveries and in restaurant food products, to continue to serve British Columbians, serve our families and still allow families to be able to say: “You know what? I can’t afford dining out today. Maybe I can even afford a little delivery in today as well.”

I also want to emphasize the simple fact that going out…. I’m pretty sure that many British Columbians who are watching this right now, with families, understand. Once we have young kids, going out is almost like an operation. Everything is triple or quadruple the time frame that is required. Exhausted moms and dads and all grandparents, at the same time…. Sometimes we just really want to enjoy warm meals together, and by limiting this delivery cap, the option continues to be available.

It allows us to realize that it is something we can do to share our joy, to share our happiness and to share our appreciation for the services provided by our restaurant sector.

I think another thing, too, often is…. When my parents or her parents or family, cousins, uncles, aunts come together to help us look after the kids, help us look after the family, we also want to say thank you to them. We would like to have a big family dinner and have food delivered with a capped fee.

If you think about it, $200 worth of products for our family to share…. That’s $40, for 20 percent of that. If you’re talking about 30 percent plus, that’s $60 or $70. It will make a lot of families think twice before they’re willing to offer the opportunity to express their gratitude to the family, to their friends, over a meal.

Today I just want to take a moment to say thank you to our minister for bringing such a powerful bill. It sounds like it’s much appreciated by both sides of the aisle. It’s a bill that is much appreciated by our small business sector. Most of all, as British Columbia is recovering from the economic challenges of COVID-19, let’s keep our economy in B.C. Let’s focus on thriving, growing and allowing the prosperity of our local restaurants and local businesses. This cap, again, complements that strategy.

I cannot say much more, except I’m just very grateful that our minister came out with a strategy to keep British Columbia moving forward and to allow all British Columbians to prosper together.

[2:15 p.m.]

S. Chant: Thank you for this opportunity to speak on the Food Delivery Service Fee Act that has been brought to this House for review.

I recognize that COVID did not bring us a lot of good things. However, in my opinion, one of the good things that it did bring us is the expanded market that restaurants got from delivery of food and from the way that we got food delivered from a whole variety of places — that that never used to happen.

I can sit in one of my favourite spaces in my area, which is called Tommy’s. It’s a little tiny restaurant about the size of this seating area. Tommy’s is a haven for folks that ride bicycles on the North Shore Mountains, and it seats, I would say, 25 people at any given time.

However, now Tommy’s has stuff being made on the premises and going out by Uber Eats, by SkipTheDishes, by all those other service deliveries and is offering options to a much greater customer base than they ever did before. It’s making it so that they’re doing much better. Also, in my opinion, their food is really good and really healthy. So it is offering some very wide options to folks in our riding.

With this cap in place…. What it does is allow places like Tommy’s to know what it’s going to cost them to have their food delivered and for them to be able to plan that into their budgeting. Other things are not able to be planned in so much anymore. They used to be able to sort of say: “Okay. If we need to get a flat of” — let’s say — “cauliflower, it’s going to be X amount.” Well, it could be X plus Y next week. So those things have gotten out of control.

However, at this moment, putting this in place does allow them to have some idea and some ability to plan on what their costs are going to be, week over week, so that they can make things work.

Another place that’s in my area is the Wonderful Szechuan. Now, Wonderful Szechuan, before COVID, had a really good delivery system. You’d call them. They’d make up your meal. It would arrive. All was well.

However, when COVID hit, they couldn’t do that anymore. For whatever reasons, it did not work for their restaurant, so they actually tried working with delivery drivers, delivery systems, and it did not work for them. It just about broke them. They were very close to closing, so they just stopped. They just stopped having any delivery at all. We would go in and pick up from them.

They have managed to kind of scrape through. They are now back on. Once we brought in the delivery driver cap last year, they slowly, surely resumed it and are doing that again, and it’s working out very well for them again, because, once again, it allows them an expanded customer base.

I perceive that everybody who has a small business in the restaurant industry — and any small business, quite frankly — is there to not only survive but to thrive. In order for that to happen, everybody in the chain that they are working in financially has to be able to make some kind of income that isn’t enough…. The folks that are doing the service, the folks that are doing the cooking, the folks that are doing the delivering, etc., all need to make a decent wage so that they, too, can have a life.

However, if one of those is out of whack, then it impacts all the others in that chain. So this is an effort to make sure that that piece of the chain is kept within a reasonable level, so that the other parts of the food delivery process are able to also survive and thrive.

The other piece that is really important to me — and I’d like no comments back from my colleagues at a later date — is that I really like to have a meal at home with no prep work and no cleanup. My husband seconds the motion, because he is the culinary expert in our home and has been for many, many years. If we depended on me for a meal, I’d be somewhat slimmer than I am at this point, or a lot.

Interjections.

S. Chant: Shhh. Stop laughing.

[2:20 p.m.]

So for us to have a meal come in is lovely, to be able to have a meal and, as my colleague was pointing out, enjoy each other’s company — no prep, no cleanup — and to know when it’s going to arrive and know what it’s going to cost. Initially, when the food service delivery came out, again, the costs were questionable, depending on what delivery service you used. It was generally a surprise when it got to the door.

Now it’s manageable. We know what it’s going to cost. It’s going to cost more than it used to. However, it is something that we can plan for. It also allows us to eat at home and have an alcoholic beverage and not be driving. To us, that is also important. We like to have a glass of wine or, in my case, cider with supper or after supper, and this way we stay at home. We’re not driving. The food is delivered. All is well. We don’t have to sort of mix and match how we do things.

The other thing that is interesting here is that this applies right across the board. You heard my mention of Tommy’s, which is a little tiny place, maybe 20, 25 seats at the most. We have a Browns in our neighborhood, which seats, I’m going to say, 70 to 100 people at any given time. They, too, are doing food delivery, and they are subject to the same cap as everybody else. It goes right across the board, from the little, tiny places to the great big places, to the commercial places, such as Kentucky Fried Chicken, which also delivers using a delivery system — same cap.

It’s something that is able to be understood by the people that are using it. It makes sense to the people that are receiving. It makes sense to the people that are preparing the meals and sending them out. It is something, I think, that we have gotten from COVID that, in fact, is rather positive.

On that note, I think it’s time I stopped speaking. Thank you so much for the opportunity.

Hon. R. Kahlon: For the guests in the House today that are watching the debate, we are discussing a bill that puts a 20 percent cap on food delivery companies so that they can’t charge restaurants more than 20 percent per order. It’s something that we saw that was a real challenge through the pandemic. We’re now making it permanent to ensure that our restaurants can continue to survive, going forward, given that we’re in a new world, where food deliveries are more and more common.

I’ll start with a comment made by my colleague across the way about one of the things, one of the silver linings of the pandemic, which is that people, more so now than ever, understand the importance of supporting local, about buying local, supporting the local restaurants. We saw that throughout the pandemic in every community. I think there’s a good acknowledgment from every member, from every corner of this House, how important it is to support the local businesses in our communities.

I also heard from my colleague across the way, the member from Kamloops, about this bill striking the right balance. I believe it does. It puts a 20 percent cap on, but it allows businesses that want additional services to be able to buy additional services, giving the food delivery cap industry some flexibility to be able to create new products but, at the same time, ensuring that businesses have the core services capped at 20 percent.

Balance is something that we’ve struggled to do as a government. We have worked hard to find the balance. Everything we bring forward, we think of: how does this impact workers? How does this impact business? How does it impact the environment? How do we find a balanced approach on how we go forward?

Certainly, we know that this work started before the pandemic. The member across the way mentioned pressures and taxes. There was a time…. I believe it was Gordon Campbell who promised to reduce small business tax, and that never happened. In fact, it was supposed to happen. Everyone was expecting it to happen, and then it was changed. The decision was changed last minute. Of course, we have lowered the small business tax. We lowered the small business tax when we formed government.

Now, I’d also like to highlight a comment that was made around supports through the pandemic. We provided the highest per-capita supports for people and businesses through the pandemic. We were proud of the supports. Of course, we didn’t have the same shutdowns as other jurisdictions. In fact, Ian Tostenson, from the restaurant association, highlighted that we had the least amount of business closures.

[2:25 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Minister. I did believe I heard some unparliamentary language from this side of the House. I may have misheard it, but I would appreciate if folks tried to maintain some decorum in this House. Thank you.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I appreciate your intervention, hon. Speaker.

Again, back to the supports. I think all members in this House know how important those supports were. We chose to give grants to small businesses because we knew not every business is the same — every business will have unique needs — and we left it to businesses to decide where the dollars needed to be spent during the challenging times. Quite fortunate that we’re able to be in a position where we are today — where we are one of the leaders in the country in our economic recovery.

Of course, another point that was mentioned by one of the speakers was around the challenge of labour. We know that labour is going to be a challenge not only now but going forward. We’ll have a declining population in British Columbia by 2030. We know right now that we have more jobs in this province than we do people.

I have heard from some people saying: why do people not want to work? I think it’s important to correct the record. It’s not that people don’t want to work. In fact, we have 4.9 percent more employment now than we did prior to the pandemic. We have record numbers of people coming to British Columbia. Last year we broke the record: 100,000 net people coming to British Columbia, the highest since 1962, since we started collecting this data. The first two quarters of this year it’s 70,000 people, so on track to surpass even last year’s record.

Lastly, I’ll say that I really appreciate that there is an agreement in this House that sometimes intervention in the market is needed. There was a time when this debate would happen in this House, but it’s great to see that all political parties in the House now realize that sometimes you need to intervene in the market. That free enterprise piece that we used to hear about a lot is clearly not here anymore.

So I appreciate the support. I look forward to the debate as we move this forward.

Deputy Speaker: The question is second reading of Bill 33.

Motion approved.

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

Bill 33, Food Delivery Service Fee 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: I call committee, Bill 30.

Deputy Speaker: We’re just going to take a short recess as we prepare for the committee on Bill 30, the Cannabis Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 2022.

The House recessed at 2:28 p.m.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 30 — CANNABIS CONTROL AND
LICENSING AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 30; J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 2:31 p.m.

The Chair: We’re dealing with Bill 30, Cannabis Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 2022.

Would the minister like to introduce his staff?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Beside me, on my right, I have Mary Shaw, and Dylan Sherlock is with me.

With that, I’ll turn it over to my critic.

On clause 1.

M. Morris: Just prior to getting into all the different clauses of the bill, I guess an overarching question that I have that applies to the legislation generally is: is this legislation, this bill, considered to be laws of general application in British Columbia and enforceable on First Nations lands?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes.

M. Morris: In consideration of government’s position with respect to UNDRIP, I wonder if the minister can just relate the extent of consultation that his ministry has undertaken with respect to following the commitment to UNDRIP.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for their question. These amendments are technical amendments in nature and basically relate to the operational effectiveness of the CSU. They’re not wide-ranging in terms of policy changes.

We did have discussion with the First Nations Leadership Council. We’ve also used this as an opportunity to continue ongoing discussions in relation to the broader policy questions around cannabis.

[2:35 p.m.]

E. Ross: I sound like a broken record here, because we’ve been having this discussion about UNDRIP for the past four years at least, in terms of the commitments that were made by this government. Back then, the discussion was that not only would every bill be consulted with in terms of the legislation coming out of this building, but also, all the laws would be aligned with the principles of UNDRIP.

I didn’t think that was realistic at the time, and actually, it took a lot of debate in this house to actually get out of the Attorney General at the last minute to say that UNDRIP or DRIPA would be in accordance with section 35 of the constitution and all the pursuant case law. Now the government, when we asked this question on consultation in terms of these bills, whether they be amendments or not, or whether it be technical, the answer has changed, where….

Even at one time in this past year, I heard a minister say that this bill really had nothing to do with the nature of Aboriginal rights and title in terms of an infringement. So therefore, there was no consultation accommodation in terms of the bills. This is the opposite conversation that we had in this building when we were debating UNDRIP in the first place.

Not only that. I didn’t think it was realistic for the government to consult the true title holders in this province, which are 203 bands in B.C. who hold onto their rights and title on behalf of their community. In fact, it’s a community that owns the rights and title. It’s not the leaders.

So to hear again from the Solicitor General that there was no consultation as per the definition of UNDRIP, or even case law, for that matter, that was determined in the courts of B.C. and Canada…. But also, they went back to consulting with an advocacy group, with the leadership council. The leadership council does not represent communities, and they do not represent rights and title.

Is there any true consultation, as dictated by the courts of B.C. and Canada and actually confirmed by UNDRIP, that was passed in this legislation, proposed in the near future regarding this bill?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member’s question. I’d just like to point out that all nations were in fact notified of the bill, were given an opportunity to comment on the bill. There was active discussion — he’s right — with the First Nations Leadership Council. They have a working group on cannabis, in particular. Many representatives and nations are on that working group part of the FNLC membership who have an interest in the issue of cannabis.

[2:40 p.m.]

As I said, these particular amendments are technical. On the broader discussion, absolutely First Nations are and will be consulted on the broader cannabis issues.

E. Ross: Notification is not consultation. In fact, the process for consultation is defined very clearly in the court cases that actually dictate the duty and the honour of the Crown — specifically, the Haida court case versus B.C. of 2004. It’s got to be a deep consultation. It can’t be just notification, or it can’t be just a process for a First Nation to let off steam and then the government goes back to decide whatever they wanted to do in the first place.

Now, normally, I would agree with the Solicitor General in terms of the technical nature of this bill. But using the government’s own language when we’re debating UNDRIP, it was going to be taken to a higher level. We’re talking about a higher level than, say, what the court said about Chilcotin. Granted, the bill that was passed in this House is very vague. It’s very general. A lot of the principles in that bill have already been accomplished or are already in place for many First Nations.

But the issue here is the legal definition of “consultation.” The duty to consult was actually heightened by the government’s own conversation around what they would do once UNDRIP was passed, and we have not seen that commitment actually materialize here. All we’ve seen are the reasons why this government didn’t consult the true titleholders of B.C, which are 203 communities in B.C. The reasons we’re getting are because there was notification or “we consulted an advocacy group.”

I heard the Solicitor General say that there will be future consultations. I don’t mean to put words in the Solicitor General’s mouth, but there will be further consultations with the true rights and title holders of B.C., moving forward on Bill 30, I believe. Am I correct in saying that?

Hon. H. Bains: Hon. Chair, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. H. Bains: In the House, in the gallery, today is — I think many people in this House know — Randeep Singh Sarai. He’s an MP from Surrey Centre, and he’s been there for a number of terms. He came from a very strong New Democratic family, but along the way, he slipped, I must say. But it’s all good. Not one of you guys, not your types.

I just want to say that I owe a lot to the family of Randeep Singh Sarai — his mom and…. We call him, with respect: [Punjabi was spoken.] She’s a matriarch of our family, and his father is no longer with us.

This is the family that took me in and gave me the love that you don’t find in a lot of places, including your own family, and supported me, showed me the path, showed me the ways and helped me establish here in Canada. I think everything that I am, I owe to this family.

I just want to say that he is here with some other members of the family — Sarbjeet Kaur Sarai, his partner, his wife. Also visiting them from India are Balwinder Kaur and her daughter Kulkiran Sarai Samra from Minneapolis, United States, along with Kulkiran’s daughter, Samya.

I just want to say Randeep Sarai has done a good job for Surrey, and he’s here to show the family around.

Look, there’s a lot of productive work that goes on in this House, and I hope that you guys can follow us. There’s just so much of a progressive agenda that we have been dealing with, and there’s a lot to be learned here. I know that our government and your government have a pretty good relationship, because that’s how we make progress.

[2:45 p.m.]

So I just want to ask the House to please give them a warm, warm welcome and make it very, very special for their trip here.

M. Lee: I’d like to seek leave to join in that introduction just now.

Leave granted.

M. Lee: On behalf of the official opposition and Kevin Falcon, our leader, the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, I just want to join the Minister of Labour in welcoming Randeep and Sarbjeet and the rest of their family members here to the House, also to say that Randeep has a strong history with South Vancouver, apart from the community in Surrey. Certainly, as I came forward as a new MLA in 2017, I appreciated the friendship and the introductions into the community in so many different ways.

We have a real opportunity, of course, to bring together communities across Metro Vancouver, and Randeep and Sarbjeet have been very instrumental in doing so many of those efforts at such a challenging time. So we also look forward to continuing our work with the Member of Parliament, Randeep Sarai, and his other colleagues in the government caucus across British Columbia, particularly in Surrey in Vancouver.

Debate Continued

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for his question. In my comments — not related specifically to this particular bill, but rather to the broader policy questions, which take a lot more time to develop — all First Nations are going to be invited to take part in those discussions around those broad policy questions.

E. Ross: Consultation has been a word that’s been defined in the courts, and it does speak to the honour of the Crown, the duty of the Crown, to address it. This bill wouldn’t have been part of that discussion if it weren’t for UNDRIP and these promises that were made by this government to higher the bar in terms of that and in that regard.

There’s another facet to consultation — accommodation — and we haven’t talked about accommodation yet. But for a First Nation to participate in the consultation process, which this isn’t, by the way…. Notification is not consultation.

You’ve got to think about it. A band council could get 20, 30 letters a day, emails a day, asking for their input on something. They can’t actually address every single issue. That’s why the definition of consultation, the process for it, is so deep. It actually puts a lot of onus on the Crown to do their best to make sure a First Nation is fully understanding of the issue that the province is willing to undertake.

In that respect, when the government does go out and does propose to enact some sort of consultation process…. In the past, since 2004, government realized that 203 bands did not have the capacity to respond. So in this question, here, for something so vital to communities’ health — not only First Nations but non–First Nations, as well — will there be capacity funding or support in place for 203 bands to respond fully to Bill 30?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. What I can tell the members is…. While there is not specific capacity funding for this particular bill…. As I’ve said, this is related to very specific technical amendments. It’s not about broad policy changes. When it comes to those broad policy changes and the development of legislation, we have…. Capacity funding has often been put in place and, I fully expect, will be put in place in the future.

There’s a major piece of legislation, under my jurisdiction, that’s under development and that I have spoken about in the past: emergency management legislation. It is undergoing a full co-development process. Capacity funding is part and parcel of that, because it deals with those huge, broad policy area changes.

These are specific, very technical amendments designed to address some technical issues in how the legislation operates. It does not take away or add additional burdens in terms of First Nations issues around cannabis or, for that matter, non–First Nations around cannabis policy.

M. Lee: Just to further the questions from my colleague the member for Skeena, who’s canvassed well the nature of the consultation obligations and requirements here…. I appreciate the minister’s responses. Let me turn to something that was cited by at least several of the colleagues on the government bench, members speaking to this bill on second reading, the reference to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act action plan.

Could I ask the minister to comment on where this bill is situated in terms of meeting the specific action 4.47 in the action plan, which, of course, includes advancing a collaborative approach to cannabis-related governance and jurisdiction between First Nations and the province?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: In regards to the action plan that the member operates, there is a parallel process that is currently underway. Over the next six months, we will be having those conversations with First Nations who have an interest in this particular area as well as a broader discussion with First Nations on the broader policies around cannabis. I expect that to be taking place over the next six months.

M. Lee: I just need to take us back to comments made in this House by the government, members of this government on the bench on the government side. I appreciate the response from the minister. Good to hear timelines. I look forward to that process working forward. I will make another comment in a moment on a subsequent question.

Just focusing on what’s been said in this House on this bill, there were expectations raised that this is an important step towards dealing with that specific action item. There is certainly a recognition that currently there are concerns relating to unlicensed retail and production facilities operating on reserve. There are other issues I’m aware of, certainly, from the Assembly of First Nations for British Columbia.

Let me just bring the minister back to the comments by, for example, the member for Boundary-Similkameen and the member for North Coast around the expectations around what this bill is meaning to do.

Just so that we have a good clear understanding…. The minister refers to this as technical. We just want to have a clear understanding. In terms of the nature of this specific DRIPA action plan and what is going to be unfolding in this process…. Are there any considerations in the design of this bill that are dealing with the larger considerations with First Nations in the area of a more collaborative approach around governance and jurisdiction in the aspect of cannabis production and sale?

Hon. M. Farnworth: As I said, this bill…. The amendments are technical in nature, and they don’t make major changes in cannabis policy in the province of British Columbia.

M. Lee: Just so we’re clear, just because…. As the member for Skeena referred to earlier, with the adoption of UNDRIP, there have been raised expectations in this province amongst First Nation leaders as to what UNDRIP means.

To ask a specific and narrow question to the minister, is there any requirement or has there been any work done to harmonize this bill and the act we’re addressing today, the Cannabis Control and Licensing Act — to harmonize that act or this bill itself, to amend that act — in accordance with UNDRIP?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I would say that at this point, the answer to the member’s question is no. I’d say the alignment of laws is a longer-term project.

M. Lee: In view of his response, can the minister be clearer on what he means by a longer-term project?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The DRIPA action plan is the starting point of that longer-term process.

M. Lee: Of course, putting those two responses together, meaning this response and his previous response, would suggest that the first phase of that longer-term process is six months, dealing with the specific item in 4.47 of the DRIPA Action Plan.

I just want to refer, at this time, to a document that I’m sure the minister may have seen a copy of. It’s referred to as the cannabis toolkit for the B.C. Assembly of First Nations.

Just to confirm, have the minister and his team had an opportunity to receive that document?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It is something the secretariat has seen in the past, but it’s not something I have before me today.

M. Lee: I just wanted to ensure that…. Government has certainly been informed of the document. It seems like that’s the case.

I mentioned earlier…. I had the opportunity to attend, as an observer, meetings of the BCAFN. I know that the Minister of Jobs presented — I was present for that — as well as, of course, the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, on the day before I was there.

This document that I received a copy of includes a memorandum, let’s say, of the regulatory framework federally, provincially and in the territories of our country. It talks about some of the challenges, as articulated, which I believe speaks to, of course, the necessity of that specific action item that we’re referring to, 4.47.

Just recognizing, again, that we’re talking about the Cannabis Control and Licensing Act. As much as this may be a technical bill, as the minister has said, it is still the opportunity where…. To the member for Skeena’s point, when we’re talking about free, prior and informed consent, we’re talking about a process where there’s early consultation beyond just notification. We’ve had that discussion on this point here.

The point that I’d like to ask the minister is: what considerations have there been, at this time, in terms of the nature of the considerations and concerns raised by First Nations as to not being involved and consulted under the federal legislation regulating this industry and the opportunities that First Nations are looking for on their territories to move forward in a good way?

Looking at that opportunity in this act, does the minister see any gap here that’s not being addressed for First Nations at this time, in terms of any of these amendments that are being presented in this bill?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’d just like to ask the member to clarify his question a bit. I just want to make sure I’m understanding it correctly. Is the member asking if, in the process that led up to legalization at the federal level, in terms of how the federal legalization process unfolded, we are addressing some of those gaps with First Nations, either through this legislation or further discussion?

If the member could clarify, I’d appreciate that.

M. Lee: Certainly, I appreciate the sub-question that the minister has developed in response to the clarification. I would appreciate his input to answer that question.

But if given the opportunity to readdress the question, the concern that I see is this provincial government not progressing, let’s say, in this area in the midst of unlicensed operators on First Nations reserves, in the midst of First Nations that want to move forward in a meaningful way — like, for example, Williams Lake. That was cited by Boundary-Similkameen.

I’ve certainly had the opportunity to visit with Chief Willie Sellers with the local MLA, the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin. I appreciate what they’re building out there. But there is a mix in terms of this area that is certainly problematic, in the words of the Assembly of First Nations of British Columbia. So what I’m asking the minister is: were there gaps that were identified in the consultation process leading to the federal legislation, as the minister pointed to?

Were there gaps in the lead-up to the work done on this bill to amend the provincial legislation? This remains important work, as we all recognize, because of the specific item 4.47 in the DRIPA action plan. I’m asking the minister what gaps have been identified that still need to be addressed, recognizing the challenges that I’ve referred to as identified, for example, by the Assembly of First Nations for British Columbia.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question, and I thank the member for the clarification.

Absolutely, we recognize that there were issues when the federal government brought in the legislation around First Nations consultation. That is something that we had raised with the federal government. What I can tell you at this time is that the federal government is currently reviewing that federal legislation with a specific focus on addressing some of the issues that were raised by First Nations.

In terms of what we have been trying to do…. Understanding where things were with the overall legislation when we developed ours, that’s why we brought in the section 119 agreements, which were designed to be able to deal with some of the gaps and some of those issues. We have been working very closely with First Nations on that.

E. Ross: For those millions of people watching at home, we’re talking about Bill 30, Cannabis Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 2022. The Solicitor General has made some comments in answer to our questions around the duty to consult in regards to UNDRIP — and really, the impracticality of UNDRIP and the high-level promises that couldn’t be kept since its enactment and still can’t be kept.

[3:10 p.m.]

Now we’re starting to hear other reasonings why the true rights and title holders can’t be consulted — because it’s technical in nature or it’s not truly an infringement of rights and title, so therefore there is no duty to consult. That is not the conversation that was had here when they passed UNDRIP.

But we are discussing section 1 — specifically, section 11 of the Cannabis Control and Licensing Act. I’m not sure if First Nations…. This is the value of consultation, deep consultation: to make sure that an Aboriginal community truly understands what the government is doing in relation to what can affect a community — or a band, for that matter.

So section 11 is amended by adding the Civil Forfeiture Act. Basically what that means is giving the government the power, even though they’ve got to go through the courts, to seize assets so those that are breaking the law can’t benefit from their illegal activities or criminal activities.

My question to the Solicitor General is: how does this clause, by adding the Civil Forfeiture Act, align with UNDRIP?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I would say this. First off, this doesn’t create the ability to do civil forfeiture. That already exists. What it does is it creates the ability to share information, and that is what is taking place.

E. Ross: That’s the reason, in our questions, in terms of fulfilling the definition of “consultation,” not only in terms of the case law that’s been established but also in terms of the expectations that were set by this government in enacting UNDRIP…. In all my years of being a public servant, I’ve never come across a government talking to First Nations about their ability to go in and seize assets from a First Nation member that might be breaking the law.

This is not a technicality. This Civil Forfeiture Act is actually being added to the Cannabis Control and Licensing Amendment Act. For 203 bands in B.C., I think that a number of them would be surprised to hear that the government is actually including this in their plan to control and license cannabis in B.C.

Don’t get me wrong. This is a great bill. This is needed. I mean, we do have legalized cannabis in B.C. — we know that — but there is an element of illegal cannabis in B.C. I suspect that’s what the government is trying to get a handle on, and that’s a noble cause. It doesn’t matter if it’s First Nations or not. But it does come back to the idea of whether or not First Nations truly understand the extent of what the government is talking about and what I read into this, which is the ability for the government to seize assets from illegal activity.

Under UNDRIP, I feel that it’s the duty of government to inform First Nations of this proposed ability — not just notify of Bill 30 and ask for comment but actually explain to them exactly what it means in terms of the Civil Forfeiture Act. Mind you, in normal circumstances, it wouldn’t be necessary, but UNDRIP has raised that bar.

[3:15 p.m.]

So for that specific clause, are there plans of this government, under the promises of UNDRIP, to notify First Nations that there is the power of forfeiture, with Bill 30, being proposed in First Nations communities?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. One thing I would just say: this power already exists. It is already in place, and it applies to cannabis already. So it is not changing that. It doesn’t change that one bit. What it does is allows sharing of information. So it’s not the creation of a new power to go and seize assets. That is already in place.

I understand what the member is saying, and if this was saying, “For the first time, you are now able to do that,” I would say, yeah, that’s a significant change, but it’s not, in that that’s already in place and is already allowed to happen.

M. Morris: Further to the response that my colleague got on this, it says, under clause 1: “provides authority for information and records obtained under the Act to be disclosed for the purposes of administering or enforcing the Civil Forfeiture Act and the regulations under that Act.”

This leads me to believe that there was a gap in this legislation prior and that by providing and allowing the director to share this information with the civil forfeiture office, they can now take action under the Civil Forfeiture Act, on First Nations property, for an example. Is that right? I tend to think that that authority wasn’t there before this section was proposed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: If this information has been able to have been shared by the director of civil forfeiture asking for it, that’s already been in place. What this does is make it more efficient by allowing the director to be able to — I’m not sure what the correct phrase is — proffer the information, let the director of civil forfeiture know the information without having to wait to be asked for the information.

M. Morris: This enables, then, the director to be proactive in submitting information to civil forfeiture.

One other question with respect to clause 1 then. Once the section becomes law, will this allow the community safety unit to take action on assets from previous files up until the date this legislation is passed?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s already happening in terms of existing files. The director can already ask. It’s just, as I said, a technical thing that allows the director, the CSU, to be proactive as opposed to having to wait for civil forfeiture to ask for information.

[3:20 p.m.]

M. Morris: Has there been, to date, since the statute was brought into force in 2018, any civil forfeiture action taken on First Nations lands anywhere in the province?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Absolutely, there has been civil forfeiture, but specifically location-wise, I can’t answer that at this particular time.

M. Morris: Just for clarification, there has been civil forfeiture action taken on First Nations property in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There has been civil forfeiture taken in the province, but specifically and location-wise, I don’t have that information for the member, but I can endeavor to find out what I am able to for the member.

E. Ross: The Civil Forfeiture Act. It’s quite interesting when we talk about this in terms of UNDRIP, as well as consultation. Also, I’m glad that the minister is going to return to us some information regarding whether or not there’s been civil forfeiture on First Nations land. There are some laws that apply across B.C., regardless of where you’re located or who you are. Then there are some laws that don’t apply on reserve.

I was just questioning the Minister of Environment, because I was unclear on the laws of shooting a grizzly bear on reserve, something that was actually part of our culture and custom, to manage grizzly bear populations.

I was surprised to hear that the minister said that it was okay for us to shoot a grizzly bear on reserve as long as there was safety involved or something to that respect. I don’t remember the exact wording. When I was chief councillor, I was told that we were not allowed to shoot grizzly bears, and the penalty, at a minimum, would be the confiscation of our firearms, which did happen.

I understand that there’s some confusion about what the province can and can’t do and whether or not they’re welcome on First Nations land at all to begin with. In terms of Bill 30, 2022, and the Civil Forfeiture Act and the Cannabis Distribution Act, will these acts be implemented fully, across the board, including on First Nations land?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. In terms of when it comes to the laws of cannabis, obviously, we view them as laws of general application, but as the member points out, when it comes to the Civil Forfeiture Act, that I’m not in a position today to be able to, because it’s not before us.

In terms of how that works, specifically in the way that the member has posed that question — and he gave an example of himself being one earlier — I’m sure that we can find out, in particular, as it relates to that specific piece of legislation, the answer to the question that the member just asked.

E. Ross: Thank you for that answer. It seems like we don’t both know the answer. I was chief councillor for six years, and I still don’t know the answer.

[3:25 p.m.]

I had perceptions, based on what was told to me by government officials at the time, as were regulatory authorities…. But it seemed to me that there was a divide between federal jurisdiction and provincial jurisdiction. I agree with the Solicitor General that the laws of application…. I thought that, back in the day, I didn’t agree with it, jurisdictional-wise, but I understood it in terms of safety of the general population, the safety of society. And I see that’s what the government is trying to do here.

But we do have these technical, political issues in terms of whether or not the province can go onto reserve land and seize assets, let alone go onto reserve and then basically charge a band member under Bill 30.

So is the question of the province, under general laws of application or otherwise…? Are these issues being looked into and investigated while we’re actually talking about Bill 30 right now? Because it’s a huge question.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. What I can say is that this bill doesn’t create any new charges. But that broader question that the member raises is very much, you know, on our radar and part of the discussions that we have on the broader issue of cannabis policy in general and will continue to have with First Nations.

As the legalization process is still evolutionary, in the sense that we’ve had legalization, there have been amendments that have been made. There have been regulatory changes over time. The federal government is now doing its review of the original legalization framework.

Going from there, in terms of what we have learned through the legalization process, I expect there will be other changes. With those changes, I think the whole action plan, UNDRIP, and consultation are clearly crucial. But, specifically, as it relates to this, I think, as I said, these are very technical and don’t create any additional charges.

E. Ross: I seriously doubt many First Nations read the original Cannabis Control and Licensing Act, let alone whether or not they’ll have the time or the capacity to read the amendment we’re talking about here today.

Given that the government is actually adding the Civil Forfeiture Act and the Cannabis Distribution Act to the Cannabis Control and Licensing Act, is the government of the opinion that the Cannabis Control and Licensing Act and the Civil Forfeiture Act and the Cannabis Distribution Act will be enforceable on First Nations land once this is passed in this House?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. As I said earlier in our discussions, we view these as laws of general application that apply right across the province.

M. Morris: Just one more question then, on clause 1, that kind of came to my mind when my colleague from Skeena was speaking about the safety involved. There still seems to be a little ambiguity, in my mind.

I appreciate the minister’s last answer, but when we have assets, for example, that have been used that are liable under the Civil Forfeiture Act for seizure, and no action is taken, then this becomes a haven for organized crime. This heightens the safety of the people living in those First Nations communities, if the law isn’t equally applied across the province, in all jurisdictions. It doesn’t matter where you live.

I just need some certainty from the minister that that these laws will be applied equally across the province for everybody. It doesn’t matter whether you live in a First Nations community, a municipality, a regional district or throughout the province in some area.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: These laws are general application. They apply right across the province, and laws that we have on the books have been enforced and will be, in my view, enforced. That’s why we’re bringing these amendments forward — to assist in that.

E. Ross: Thank you to the minister for that answer, because I think we all have an interest in ensuring that cannabis is controlled and there is a legal licensing scheme to make sure that it’s all done legally. It’s mainly done to protect all of us as a society.

I do appreciate this. But I still have to go back to the process on how the province will go on to First Nations land to enforce Bill 30, the Cannabis Control and Licensing Amendment Act, but also go onto the First Nations land to enforce the Civil Forfeiture Act and how they’ll go onto First Nations land and enforce the Cannabis Distribution Act.

Now, in my experience, when there was a jurisdictional issue that had to be worked out with the province, that really meant a long process of negotiating with the province and Canada, in terms of allowing that access and having a three-party agreement with no veto power to any party. I’ll give you an example.

The First Nations commercial and industrial development agreement actually allowed not only for an LNG plant to be built on reserve land in our territory but also allowed B.C. to come onto reserve land and enforce B.C. regulations and federal regulations at the same time. It was done for efficiency, but it was also done in the spirit of reconciliation, long before reconciliation became a buzzword. That agreement still stands today. Even though Chevron has left town and that project is dead, that agreement still stands.

We also have some corporate partnerships that were done in the same manner, where we actually signed agreements with the bigger banks to guarantee mortgages on reserve, which you can’t do, because the rules around the Indian Act in terms of reserves are pretty strict. Based on my experience, one of those rules was the province is not welcome. It could get ugly if the province shows up uninvited and tries to do something like seize assets or tries to enforce the Cannabis Distribution Act.

[3:35 p.m.]

How will the government roll this out in terms of explaining to First Nations that the Cannabis Control and Licensing Act will now include the Civil Forfeiture Act and all that that entails for First Nations community and band members?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for his comments and questions, and I would just say this: it already does. This is not new. For First Nations, this is not new. That civil forfeiture is already in place. It already exists. So it is not new. It is nothing…. That is not new in terms of this legislation.

E. Ross: I’ve got to tell you that surprises me. So First Nations are well aware that the province can go onto First Nations land and seize assets that were actually the gains of illegal activity? Am I correct there that the province has the authority to do that right now?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The Civil Forfeiture Act is a separate piece of legislation that already applies. It’s already in existence. It already applies now. This legislation that’s before us does not change that. It does not change how it operates. It doesn’t change how it works in any way, shape or form. This legislation does not deal with that with that piece of legislation.

E. Ross: Yes. I understand that portion. I understand that. What I’m asking is: do First Nations understand that? I wasn’t aware of the authority of B.C. to go onto First Nations land and seize assets. I wasn’t aware of that. This goes back to why it’s so important to the government to fulfil their duty for deep consultation in terms of what they’re doing.

I know the Civil Forfeiture Act has been around for quite a while. I know that. What I’m asking, though, is: do First Nations…? Are they aware that the province can come onto their land and seize assets and — if I might inject this — it doesn’t have to have the permission of the band council?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member’s question, and I’m not trying to obfuscate or to duck. But I think the best thing I can say, first off, is this legislation doesn’t deal with that and, in particular, that question. But what I am happy to do for the member is to get him a briefing on the Civil Forfeiture Act and how it relates to the questions that he has been asking in regards to the Civil Forfeiture Act and First Nations reserve land.

I’d be happy to get that set up for you.

E. Ross: You know what? You could add to the mix the consultation questions I’ve been asking, especially around the province’s ability to go onto First Nations land and enforce what we’re talking about here in this bill as well as in the Civil Forfeiture Act and the Cannabis Distribution Act. Ultimately, First Nations are probably going to have the same questions I have when the province comes knocking on the door saying: “Hey, we’re going to seize your assets” or “You’re under investigation.”

I’d love to see that information come forward but also the plan not only to notify First Nations of this bill and its intentions but also the consultation plan that is promised under UNDRIP.

M. Morris: Just so I have it clear. I thought I had it clear in my mind, but it’s a little bit obfuscated now, to use the minister’s words.

[3:40 p.m.]

I was under the impression that this particular bill and the Cannabis Control and Licensing Act is a law of general application and the community safety unit and the police can go on First Nations reserves and enforce this piece of legislation at any time with respect to whatever the provisions are that they’re going in there.

In addition to that, the Civil Forfeiture Act is also an enforceable act of general application. The police or the folks associated with that can go on First Nations reserves and seize and do anything that is within the power of this particular bill — the Cannabis Control and Licensing Act or the Civil Forfeiture Act.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question, and I just want to be really clear. Yes, the bill before us today…. The cannabis laws are laws of general application. The Civil Forfeiture Act isn’t here, and I’m just trying to be helpful in terms of the question that the member asked on how it works. I’ve said that I’m happy to get a briefing for him on that, related to those questions. We will follow through on that commitment.

Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

On clause 5.

M. Morris: I just require a little clarification on clause 5. It’s technical, as the minister has reflected on earlier. It says that an electronic device means “a device by which a person may electronically send, receive, download, view or access information or records.” I’m just wondering: is this an inclusive enough definition?

If you see a memory stick sitting on the table and it’s not attached to anything, by itself, it’s not capable of doing anything — or some other device that has information on it, but it has to be inserted or used in conjunction with a computer or some other device in order to get that information off of it. I’m just concerned that this definition might be questionable when it comes to a search warrant.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. Two things. We have drawn on existing definitions of electronic devices to go into this.

Just for an example, a laptop may be turned off, and it is not doing anything, but all you have to do is plug it in, and it becomes active. Likewise, the example of the memory stick would be the same. It would be like… Okay, yeah. It’s sitting there, and it is not doing anything, so it is not usable, but you plug it in, and yes, it is. That’s why we are confident in the definition as it is here in the legislation.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

[3:45 p.m.]

M. Morris: Just a question in reading section 89, which this clause pertains to. Reading it, it implies that the director has to be present on every search. Am I wrong, or can he delegate that power to somebody? How does that work?

Hon. M. Farnworth: He/she can delegate that power.

E. Ross: In terms of section 89, clause 6…. It’s a great clause, especially when you’re talking about an electronic device that can actually lead to charges being laid. But just a clarification on section (a.3): “request that any person provide a password, or otherwise facilitate access, to an electronic device if the director has reasonable grounds to believe that (i) the electronic device contains, or can provide access to, records….”

I heard this problem coming from the RCMP when they were trying to control illicit drugs. We’re talking not about cannabis, but we’re talking about crystal meth and fentanyl. One of the problems that the RCMP had was that they didn’t have the authority to access the phones, let alone the passwords.

So in section 8.3, are we talking about a person that refuses to give the password so that the director can then go to a professional person that can then unlock that phone or laptop? Is that what we’re talking about?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll answer the question because this section actually deals with the specific of where I think the member is going on this.

This particular part that the member is referencing deals with making a request. I am asking the individual to supply a password, so that request is being made. If that request is denied, then the director can still seize the electronic device, but they have to get authorization from a judge to be able to access it — you know, the privacy considerations that go along that. So that’s how this is intended to work.

E. Ross: Yeah, just reading this…. For those folks at home, we’re not looking at the full act. We’re just looking at the amendment, so it’s hard to have the context without the full act in front of us. But is it worth it to mention that in this act — to say that there are legal technicalities that will have to be implemented before the authorities can actually access the information? It seems too simplistic. It looks like a solution when really, it isn’t, when a person says: “No, I don’t grant you the authority to look into my phone and my laptop.”

But really, I think what the government’s saying is that you do have existing powers, but it’s going to take a little bit longer. Even just for explanatory purposes, would it be worth it to mention some of the next steps that the government would have to undertake to actually make sure that this clause is fully implemented?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the comments of the member, and I know that section 11 does address, I think in some way, the concerns the member raised. But I do thank him for raising it and allowing us to put it on the record so, as he said, the people watching at home get a better sense of the context.

Clauses 6 to 9 inclusive approved.

On clause 10.

M. Morris: Just again, some clarification on this particular clause. It’s amending the authority for a prescribed form of search warrant. I’m just wondering whether the warrant is now going to be issued pursuant to section 21 of the Offence Act? Or is there a new form of warrant that’s being considered and that will be prescribed?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It will be a new form, which is why it will be prescribed.

M. Morris: Interesting. It’ll be prescribed. I’m curious as to what conditions existed with the old format, or with the format under section 21 of the Offence Act, that is leading towards prescribing a new form of warrant. Has the issue surfaced with respect to First Nations or municipalities or something? Generally, search warrants have a prescribed form, and they’ve been tried and tested in courts of law many, many times. So I’m curious about what this new prescribed form is about and why.

Hon. M. Farnworth: We’re doing it because — let me make sure I get this right — this does not, the current….

It is not an Offence Act warrant, and it’s not otherwise prescribed. That’s why we’re having to do a prescribed form.

M. Morris: If I understand this, there’s no other way for a search warrant to be issued to enter premises to search for illegal cannabis, for records or for anything pertaining to the Cannabis Control and Licensing Act, so we need a new method of entering and searching for these things?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Currently, you can get a warrant, but there’s no specific form for this. What this is going to do is to clarify it and make it so that judges know what to expect when one comes to them.

Clauses 10 and 11 approved.

On clause 12.

M. Morris: I find this an interesting clause. Is this authorizing the director to purchase cannabis from a suspected illegal source? Or is it to provide the director attending a licensed retailer who may be selling suspected cannabis…?

[3:55 p.m.]

It’s a little unclear in my mind as to what this section is addressing.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. This is one of those areas where…. Since the legalization of cannabis, since enforcement has taken place, we are seeing a shift in how the illegal market is operating, and there is a shift away from the bricks-and-mortar stores to more online sales. Right now enforcement does not have the ability to buy online cannabis, because it’s illegal online cannabis.

This will allow that to take place, will allow them to start to have a much more in-depth investigation, will allow them to build that case in terms of where the supply is coming from and who is selling the supply, and will allow for a much more effective enforcement operation. It is dealing with a gap that exists in the ability to enforce on illegal cannabis by being able to buy online.

M. Morris: I appreciate that. Of course, as we emerge into this new world of legal cannabis, it’s going to present all kinds of issues for us to deal with.

Would this be applicable to online sales, then, anywhere — like if it happens anywhere in Canada? What about down in the States? Is this just applicable to B.C.? How does it apply across the nation?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s a general authority, because right now, in many cases, you don’t know where it’s coming from. This will allow enforcement to do stronger, more effective investigations. It’s something they’ve asked for, and we think that it will be of significant help.

M. Morris: Thank you for that. I guess just a little bit more clarification on the act itself, on this particular bill. This relates a lot to the community safety unit, but it’s not precluding other police agencies from enforcing the Cannabis Control and Licensing Act as well?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. Police already have the authority to do that. What this does is that it allows CSU, allows the director, to be able to do that. That’s another important way of being able to do enforcement.

Clause 12 approved.

On clause 13.

M. Morris: Clause 13 establishes, in the act, certain grounds for reconsideration of a compliance order. There are a couple of amendments here. It says: “…by striking out ‘may be based on only one’ and substituting ‘may be based only on one.’” And (a.1) is: “a failure to observe the rules of procedural fairness.” Is that procedural fairness by the director or the general manager? Who is this pointing at? Is it the applicant or the person that is being adjudicated?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This is about the director violating the rules of procedural fairness.

M. Morris: So it’s up to the applicant to raise the issue of procedural fairness to the director. Or this is subsequent to a reconsideration of an order, I understand. So is it the person that is asking for that reconsideration that identifies what procedural fairness rule has been broken here?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, hon. Chair.

[4:00 p.m.]

M. Morris: The other part of this that I find interesting is that it’s “an error of law other than an error of law respecting any constitutional question, including, but not limited to, a constitutional question that requires notice to be given under section 8 of the Constitutional Question Act,” so an error of law other than a constitutional question.

Has the director been confronted with constitutional arguments that he or she has ruled on? Are those constitutional questions, if they’ve already been heard by a level of court — and that constitutional question, there’s some jurisprudence to support a decision by the director on that — does this rule that out?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question, and the answer is yes, that is correct. What we have been seeing is applicants asking the director to rule on the constitutionality of the question that they’re raising, and they don’t have that authority.

What this section is doing is making it clear that they don’t have that authority. That authority, obviously, when it comes to the constitution, rests with the courts.

M. Morris: So the director has been faced with the situation where he’s been asked constitutional questions, to make a determination on that, up to this point?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer is yes, and he has determined that he does not have that authority.

M. Morris: As a result of those constitutional questions, has the director set the process in motion to follow through on under section 8 of the Constitutional Question Act?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, that’s for the applicants to raise those with the courts directly.

E. Ross: In relation to section 13, when we’re talking about the constitution, maybe section 35 has already been considered in the existing legislation, or is it being proposed now to explore that in full? Or will the government be waiting for that question to be challenged, to the government, in respect of Bill 30?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. This section makes it clear that the director does not, as he said…. This does not authorize him to make a ruling in terms of the constitution. That is something up to the courts, and that’s where the applicant would take it, regardless of the section of the constitution.

M. Morris: What has the constitutional question been to this point?

Hon. M. Farnworth: They’ve been primarily around the medicinal cannabis issue. Those are the ones that have that have been raised.

[4:05 p.m.]

M. Morris: The constitutional question on medicinal cannabis, what is the constitutional question around medicinal cannabis? The federal legislation is quite clear on that. I’m just wondering what the question is that a director can’t answer at this particular time, and is it frequent enough that it, perhaps, needs some intervention, on behalf of the ministry, for that question, under section 8 of the Constitutional Question Act — or have this thing go through a judicial process rather than an administrative process? Is that option available?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think what it comes down to is that regardless of the merits or non-merits of a constitutional question case, the director is not the appropriate person to make that decision. That is something that is for the courts.

M. Morris: I certainly understand that process, having been an adjudicator for a number of years before I got into politics.

I guess the other question I have…. We’ve had a lot of discussion around First Nations issues. I know there’s been a bit of reticence, on behalf of the community safety unit, to go and do some enforcement work within First Nations communities.

Have there been any constitutional questions surface as a result of any First Nations enforcement attempts, I guess, or activities?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Not to our knowledge.

M. Morris: I wouldn’t mind finding that out, if it’s possible to canvass the community safety unit.

To date, have there been any decisions made by the director that have been halted as a result of a constitutional question?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No.

M. Morris: Thank you for that. The director has made the decision to do whatever the case might be. I will get into clause 14 and the monetary penalties and stuff down the road here.

I guess I’m just curious as to the inclusion of this in this particular clause when we know that the director…. Dealing with administrative issues on constitutional matters has to be referred to a court of competent jurisdiction or through the Constitutional Question Act. I’m just curious as to why this particular clause was included in this legislation.

Hon. M. Farnworth: For clarity. It does come up. It has come up with applicants on a regular basis. The director has said that they do not have the authority, and this clause makes it clear that they do not have that authority.

[4:10 p.m.]

M. Morris: So it’s come up on numerous occasions by applicants dealing with the medicinal cannabis issue or other aspects under this current legislation?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, it is primarily medicinal. It has been used.

The fact that there’s a lack of clarity makes it easier for someone to delay, delay and delay and draw out the administrative adjudicative process by constantly trying to raise a constitutional issue, for example. So what this makes clear is that the director does not have that authority. So an applicant, if they want to pursue that, is going to have to go through a court.

M. Morris: If I’ve got this right, then…. If the applicant is not happy with the director’s consideration or response or determination, then the applicant’s next step is to take it to court.

In the interim, then, whatever decision that the director has made stands. There’s a separate action, then, that would take place through section 8 of the Constitutional Question Act or…. How does that process work?

Hon. M. Farnworth: They have avenues to pursue those things. What this makes clear is that the director does not have the authority to rule on constitutional questions. If they don’t like that, they can ask a judge to do a review of the director’s decision. They don’t have the authority. This specific section makes it clear that they don’t have that authority.

M. Morris: This gets into…. The constitutional question, depending on what it may be…. A lot of those constitutional questions, just about all of them, need to be addressed by a court. A lot of times the courts have….

A judicial review is not the avenue to address a constitutional issue. It needs to be assessed on its own, on its own merits, on the evidence that’s presented. So subject to the individual who is being adjudicated by the director and the decision of the director….

It can’t go on in infinity. If that individual is not happy with that particular decision…. A judicial review doesn’t answer a constitutional question. It’ll just confirm that the director doesn’t have the authority or the jurisdiction to hear a constitutional matter.

[4:15 p.m.]

What happens next? Does it just sit in limbo, or does the director’s decision stand?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The director’s decision would stand. If the applicant decided they wanted to pursue it through a court…. If they think there’s a constitutional question, they could pursue it through the court system. The reality is the director’s decision would stand until that constitutional question was ruled on and found to be correct.

M. Morris: I look at the impetus behind including this in this particular section, when everybody knows that the director doesn’t have the authority to deal with constitutional questions. I go back to the original discussions that we had, when we started on clause 1, with respect to First Nations and the ability to enforce this law of general application on First Nations reserves throughout British Columbia.

Is the minister aware of any conflict between trying to implement UNDRIP and the document that my colleague from Vancouver was talking about earlier — about the First Nations cannabis law that they’re talking about? Is the minister concerned about any conflict between trying to bring UNDRIP to bear on this particular section and section 35 of the constitution?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No.

M. Morris: The constitutionality of this particular section, any argument that might be presented…. They can go to court. They can figure things out. Will the director’s decision stand till the end of time unless the judge comes back and says that the constitutional question was answered and it needs to be reconsidered?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer is yes.

I’d just point out to the member that we have similar sections to this in other provincial legislation that relate to this kind of a situation.

E. Ross: The constitutional question is big in First Nation communities and with the First Nation leadership.

I, myself, thought that section 35 was the answer to everything, meaning that my inherent rights included everything from law-making to self-determination. That’s not what section 35 promises. Section 35, under the constitution, basically just recognizes that Aboriginal rights and title exist. That’s it. That’s all it says. There’s no definition.

The definition comes from case law. Over 250 court cases actually came out with the principles that everybody has to abide by, including government. A lot of those court cases were won, but a lot of them were lost by First Nations. It did set out a roadmap for how our two societies are supposed to cohabit this land.

The Solicitor General said it himself. The laws of application that apply to all of us will be enforced on First Nations land. But the constitutional question will always be brought up when a First Nation wants to implement something like a cannabis facility that grows or acquires or sells cannabis.

It will always go back to section 35. I know that’s not the answer. Section 35 is not the answer. I think the answer would have been in the general laws of application. That’s a great answer. It keeps us all safe. I think there’s probably existing case law that speaks to that already.

[4:20 p.m.]

The uncertain question is still UNDRIP, even in relation to the general laws of application. UNDRIP talks about the ability for First Nations to make their own laws, but it doesn’t talk about in what manner. Is it an oral law that they just came up with in relation to cannabis or forfeiture? Is it a council law? Is it a law that was set up by hereditary chiefs?

It’s all going to flow from the constitutional question of Section 35 of the constitution. That’s where it’s going to come from. It’s going to take a long time to understand the answer. It would have been answerable five years ago. It would have been clear cut. The government would have had strong ground, and they would have been confident going to court in terms of their ability and their jurisdiction to enforce these types of laws. But now, with UNDRIP, that’s all up in the air.

Does the province have a type of mandate or a type of principled approach to what will happen when a First Nation questions their ability to grow, acquire or sell cannabis outside of the law that’s being proposed by B.C?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for his question. In fact, he raises, I think, some very legitimate and complex questions that governments are dealing with and courts are dealing with.

But the point I’d make is that the purpose of this section is to make it clear that the director does not have the authorization to make those decisions. That’s what this section is all about. That’s for — for want of a better term — higher pay grades. That’s for judges and courts to decide. It’s not for the director to decide. This just clarifies that that is, in fact, the case.

E. Ross: Then let me put it this way: the constitutional question is there. It will exist. It will come up, but the director does not have the authority to make decisions that will allow it to go to a higher level. But in saying that, whether you’re talking about the constitution or whether you’re talking about the pursuant case law, you’re also talking about UNDRIP.

In that constitutional question, does the director have the authority to implement UNDRIP as approved by this House? Does the director have the authority to implement UNDRIP principles when considering Bill 30 and section 13?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The director exercises the authority given to them or that they have through the legislation. DRIPA is part and parcel of the overall value system, if you like, that helps to inform that work.

[4:25 p.m.]

Those are the only powers that the director gets to use. The constitutional questions — no. That’s for the courts to do.

E. Ross: It’ll be a mixed bag of questions, concerns, coming from First Nation leaders, who will ultimately come up against this legislation and will understand at some point that they do not have the inherent right to grow, acquire and sell cannabis on their lands — not even under that constitutional question that I’m sure is going to be asked at some point when their assets get seized or there’s an investigation into their lands.

How then…? I mean, everybody under the provincial government will be bound by legislation. I understand that. DRIPA is legislation. I’m just trying to find out where that…. Does that run parallel to the rights and title case law that the previous Attorney General promised that DRIPA would be implemented under? Is it parallel to the constitution, to section 35, or is it underneath it?

I understand that the courts will look at the constitutional question just as a constitutional question. They’ll look at the rights and title case law principles that were laid out to define section 35, but they’ll have to cover new ground when they’re trying to figure out exactly what DRIPA means in the context of something as serious as growing, acquiring and selling cannabis.

Under DRIPA: “Indigenous peoples have full enjoyment of their rights to self-determination and self-government, including developing, maintaining and implementing their own institutions, laws governing bodies and political, economic and social structures related to Indigenous communities.”

My question is: does the government have a mandate or set of principles related to the constitution that will basically inform First Nations of their rights and responsibilities in comparison to the rights and responsibilities of the B.C. government when enforcing a bill such as Bill 30?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member, and I would make this point. I think the questions that he raises are important, but they are far above and beyond the scope of this particular piece of legislation.

I think what he’s raising refers to earlier, around that parallel process of the broader policy discussions that take place through the DRIPA action plan as it relates to the broader issue of cannabis, for example.

M. Lee: Just coming back to the earlier discussion with the member for Prince George–Mackenzie and the member for Skeena here, we’ve established that in the response from the minister, this bill is confirmed to be a general application law. That still leaves us with the situation where, in the words of the minister, a parallel process continues to deal with that DRIPA action item, specifically dealing with looking at collaboration with First Nations and respective governance and jurisdiction under 4.47.

Recognizing that we have reached this part of the bill at this juncture, and our previous discussion at the beginning of this committee stage on this bill — keeping those points together — what is the step that’s been taken forward by government in presenting this bill to this House to further the process with First Nations in the area of 4.47 of the DRIPA action plan?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: We’re on this section of the bill, dealing with the authority of the director dealing with constitutional questions. That’s the section that is before us.

So if the member would frame his question in the context of why we are clarifying the director does not rule on constitutional questions that would be really helpful in the clause-by-clause section on this particular debate, because that’s where we are right now.

M. Lee: We’re talking about constitutional questions here. So if there’s a challenge to the director about the general application — which includes, certainly, jurisdiction — that is specifically pertinent to the DRIPA action plan item 4.47, because, as I read out that language, previously, it talks about advancing “a collaborative approach to cannabis-related governance and jurisdiction between First Nations and the Province.”

The only reason why I’m coming back to this is there was an expectation raised at the second reading debate on this bill that this is an important step with First Nations. I’m asking: what is that important step if it’s not constitutional in nature?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I think the issue around the second reading debate…. As the member knows, second reading debate is a broad-based discussion, not just on the specifics of the bill but the issue in general. I think that’s what the member is referring to when he looks and talks about some of the questions or some of the comments raised during that second reading debate.

The issue here that we are dealing with…. And the member raises constitutional questions. The director is often, at times, confronted with, in terms of the applicant appearing for the adjudication, to raise a constitutional question. The director has said: “I do not have that authority to make that ruling on a constitutional question.” This section clarifies it that that is, in fact, the case.

On the broader discussion around cannabis and First Nations, there is significant work that is underway with the First Nations Leadership Council, a working group on that. I’ve mentioned the parallel process that is underway, and that’s where many of those issues are addressed.

I think we need to recognize the difference between second reading debate — which can be broad and general encompassing, not just on the specifics, but also on the philosophy and what’s happening on the issue in general — as opposed to the very specifics that are taking place in committee stage debate.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response from the minister. The concern, of course, is that with this bill and this proposed amendment, we seem to be, from this government, skirting the issue here that’s fundamental to how First Nations can move forward.

I appreciate, again, there’s a parallel process. But if the minister is asking me and inviting me to give an example, I mentioned earlier the comments from his colleague, the member for Boundary-Similkameen, who said on second reading: “In our Declaration Act action plan, we made a commitment to: ‘Advance a collaborative approach to cannabis-related governance and jurisdictions between First Nations and the province….’ This is really the impetus for me to stand up and speak to this, as I see this” — presumably, he’s talking about this bill — “as a step in the right direction on that front, helping us help those nations and bands that want to operate in a safe way to do that effectively.”

[4:35 p.m.]

So my suggestion to the minister, of course, is…. The questions that we’ve been asking in this committee stage, in part, are addressing how First Nations and communities operate in a safe and effective way in the course of this legislation.

The clarity around the jurisdictional issues that are referred to in the DRIPA action plan are important. How UNDRIP is utilized…. The minister, in response to the member for Skeena, just referred to UNDRIP as a value system. If that is the way the government sees that, then what values are government interpreting and utilizing behind this bill and this amendment at this time, when we know that there are questions, questions that are being raised by First Nations, in terms of the jurisdiction, coming out of UNDRIP, for self-governance?

The principle the member for Skeena read out is a principle that’s there in UNDRIP. That jurisdictional question is still a live issue for this government, which this provision seems to just skim over.

My question to the minister: at this time, when I talked earlier about gaps in the legislative framework, is the minister not anticipating that this provision will not be sufficient to provide sufficient clarity to First Nations operating on reserve either in a regulated or unregulated way?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, I am not concerned, because what this does is clarify that the director does not make constitutional decisions. That is a matter for the courts.

The Chair: Of course, we’re here on clause 13, which establishes in the act certain grounds for reconsideration of a compliance order, just to be clear on what we’re discussing right now.

M. Lee: This is the problem. I think this is the challenge with this government. It is leaving matters to the courts. That is not the spirit of UNDRIP. I would point that out to the minister. I know that in my discussions with First Nation leaders, as the expectations were raised by passing UNDRIP in this House, it’s not just a matter of leaving this to the courts. This is the point.

So I would just register that concern with the minister. That is the concern I’m trying to address here. My expectation would be that the concern over this provision and the answer in response to the questions we’ve been raising seems to leave a fairly wide gap with First Nation leaders in this province as to how this regime, this legislative framework, applies through the lens of UNDRIP to their nations and their territories.

Clause 13 approved.

On clause 14.

M. Morris: Again, this is putting into legislation that the director has no jurisdiction to determine monetary penalties or reconsider compliance orders if there’s a constitutional question raised.

I guess it goes back to our original discussion on clause 1, with respect to laws of general application and enforcement in First Nations communities and whatnot. There’s been a lack of enforcement action on First Nations lands across the province here.

[4:40 p.m.]

So if an individual is subject to a monetary penalty under this particular clause and no argument has been made — he’s been found guilty by the director, and he’s been assessed a monetary penalty under that — and an individual now comes up with a constitutional question, saying, “You can’t do this, because it’s my right to do whatever,” what redress is available?

Not redress, I guess. What avenues are available to the director to take to enforce that particular action under this legislation, and does this constitutional question prevent the director from enforcing that administrative decision?

Hon. M. Farnworth: What it means, hon. Member, and I thank you for the question, is that the director can make a ruling, in terms of what the amount and the value is, and they have the same options to collect as under any other administrative penalty under the act.

M. Morris: So if I understand correctly, the director has various avenues to collect whatever monetary penalties are owed the government. But if the applicant that has asked for reconsideration poses a constitutional question, this is going to be available to everybody that’s watching. It will pretty much stymie the community safety unit and the director if everybody says, at the time that they ask for reconsideration: “Oh, I have a constitutional question here, and therefore, I’m going to take it to court. I’m going to do this. I’m going to do that.”

Is the director going to just carry on, enforce the order and do whatever is necessary to collect that money off of the individual that’s asked for the reconsideration? What will happen if everybody goes in this direction here that’s going to make the system unworkable?

Hon. M. Farnworth: They can do that right now. But what this change does is it makes it clear that the director does not make that ruling on the constitutional matters. It means that they can go ahead and continue to make the decision on: “You owe 3 million bucks because that’s how much the value is.” That will go into the collections processes that are available under the act. So it’s not going to stop that.

M. Morris: So it goes into the collection process under the act. It goes to a collection agency, whoever might be contracted to do that particular job. But it still doesn’t answer the constitutional question, and that constitutional question will be lingering out there. I think what may happen down the road is that this may compound down the road. I go back….

[4:45 p.m.]

I’m going to go back to our original discussion on UNDRIP and First Nations rights and those kinds of questions that might surface under this particular legislation. I know the minister said that there is significant work being done with the First Nations Leadership Council on cannabis currently, right now, by government. Has the question of the rights of First Nations to sell and grow cannabis on First Nations land arisen? Has it been a subject that has surfaced in the discussions with the government?

This is a constitutional question, and this will pretty much stall any efforts to enforce cannabis laws on First Nations lands in the province. Has any question around Aboriginal rights to sell or grow cannabis surfaced during the discussions with the First Nations Leadership Council or any other First Nations?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The question the member raises is…. Yes, those issues have been raised. They’ve been raised right since the very beginning of the legalization discussion at the federal level. It was, in fact, one of the criticisms of the federal legislation — that that consultation did not take place at that time. That’s one of the issues in terms of the review that is underway. That is very much a focus on that.

That being said, what we’re trying to do is to ensure and to streamline as much as possible and make it as efficient as possible that when those decisions are made by the director and are challenged — that we’re able to remove some of those roadblocks that stymie some of the enforcement taking place or drag it out by making it clear that the director does not have that authority to rule on constitutional questions.

At the same time, it makes it clear that the director, when they make their adjudication…. I mean, there is fair and due process and an administrative process and all of those things. The penalty process can continue, and those collection enforcement options that are available to them are still there in place and being used.

M. Morris: I appreciate the minister’s answer on this. It’s still a little murky in my mind, and I suppose it would be probably murky for the director, as well, when he’s looking at enforcing on First Nations lands through the Okanagan or wherever it might be.

The question that I put to the minister is: what is the province’s position on First Nations selling and growing cannabis on First Nations lands in British Columbia, with respect to this particular statute?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The cannabis legislation that we have in this province is law of general application.

[4:50 p.m.]

These are technical amendments to that. It is the expectation of government that they are followed and abided by. That’s the expectation.

M. Morris: If I understand the minister correctly, then, First Nations do not have the right to sell cannabis without being legally licensed, under this cannabis legislation, or to grow cannabis contrary to the federal laws with respect to growing and supplying cannabis.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Our expectation is that the growing and production of cannabis and the retail of cannabis take place within the framework of the laws of this province and the laws of Canada.

At the same time, we also know that there are areas where nations want to be able to exercise some authority, and the DRIPA process allows those discussions to take place. We’ve indicated that those discussions are taking place over the next number of months.

M. Morris: Discussion has taken place. This leads me into the area where…. It appears that there are discussions between the government and the First Nations Leadership Council, or other First Nations groups within the province here, with respect to providing First Nations the ability to sell and, perhaps, grow cannabis on First Nations reserves.

Is it government’s intent to recognize this as an Aboriginal right for them to do that? How would they sell and distribute cannabis on First Nations lands in compliance with the legislation as it appears today?

The Chair: If I might, Member, we are on clause 14.

M. Morris: I understand that, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

The Chair: It establishes that the director does not have jurisdiction over constitutional questions when considering whether to impose a monetary penalty or reconsidering a compliance order. If the member might draw his questions more closely to the clause under discussion, I’d appreciate it.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I want to make two comments. First off, this bill is not a…. This is a bill that applies right across the province. I know the member is focused on First Nations issues, and that is fine.

At the same time, it also applies everywhere else in the province — to non–First Nations and non-Indigenous people, as well, engaged in cannabis. So I think it’s important that that is on the record. Our expectation is that it is done through…. This is, right now, the law of the province.

First Nations — many of them are now expressing a real interest in section 119, for example, as a way to enter and to be in the legal cannabis market. The agreements that we have signed are now very much…. First Nations are saying: “Hey, this works for us.” We want to continue to encourage that. At the same time, we know that there’s…. We’re doing discussions in the context of DRIPA.

Cannabis is an evolving…. Rules and regulations are evolving and will continue to evolve, particularly as we see the federal government, for example, doing the review that they’re undertaking.

I come back to…. These are technical amendments designed to deal with some specific issues. I think that they will be effective, at the same time, recognizing that down the road, as cannabis continues to evolve, there will, no doubt, be other amendments and regulations that apply to the Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike.

M. Morris: The reason I’ve been focusing on the First Nations aspect more than the rest is because the majority of the complaints that I hear about and that have surfaced in the province are on First Nations lands. The reluctance of the community safety unit to engage in enforcement activities on First Nations lands in the province is problematic.

[4:55 p.m.]

It appears that there are two standards that are being used in the application of the Cannabis Control and Licensing Act with respect to First Nations and some of the other communities that we have.

First Nations communities are at risk of the illegal activities that take place as a result of illegal cannabis sales. It’s a breeding ground for organized crime to infiltrate and to disrupt the safety of the citizens in these communities. That’s my concern over this.

The other concern that I have was surfaced by my colleague from Vancouver, with a document he produced that indicated that First Nations were working with the government on establishing a First Nations law for cannabis. This is the time to address it. It’s a constitutional question. I asked the question before. What’s the province’s position on the constitutional question of Aboriginal rights to sell and produce cannabis on First Nations reserves in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member’s question. I appreciate the member’s interest in this.

We’ve laid out that DRIPA is not a single event. It is a long process and discussions. First Nations will bring their views on things, and government will have their views. They will have those discussions. This bill does not deal with that. This bill deals with technical amendments. That’s what’s before this House today.

What I can tell you is that the issues the member raises, we take those concerns seriously as well. That’s why these amendments are designed to assist in exactly that kind of enforcement. I fully expect that over time there will be other initiatives, amendments, policy directives, regulations that come forward.

Clause 14 approved.

On clause 15.

The Chair: Oh sorry, Member. We’ll go back. We’re on clause 15.

It might help, Member, if…. As we go through, just let me know what’s coming up. We start to speed up in numbers, and then I miss you, and I don’t want to do that. If you’ve got something coming up, when we’re going through a couple of numbers, please let me know, and I won’t go quite so fast. Thank you, Member.

M. Morris: Clause 15 requires a hearing to be “in writing, unless the director determines that an oral hearing is necessary.” It also says that “In a hearing under this division, no person may be cross-examined.” I’m curious about that, particularly if a constitutional question might be part of this.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

It’s a hearing on the record. To what extent is the director, when he holds his hearing in writing or on the record — what records is the director going to be referencing in his reconsideration during a hearing of this type?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This is not about constitutional questions. This is about: “We have documents that show you made this much money from this illegal cannabis. We have evidence. Here’s the cannabis. If you have any evidence to the contrary to show that that is legal, then show it.” That’s what it’s about.

[5:00 p.m.]

M. Morris: I see subsection (4) under clause 15 talks about subsection (2) and (3) applying “to all hearings commenced before, on or after the date that the section comes into force.” How many files might be waiting in queue now for this particular amendment to take place?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We don’t have the exact number. It changes from week to week. But I will get the member the latest figures that we have.

Clauses 15 to 17 inclusive approved.

On clause 18.

M. Morris: Again, a constitutional question. If a general manager receives an application under section 105, that a constitutional question is used as the basis for a return of the cannabis, I’m assuming that the general manager can proceed with a decision under subsection (2)?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Your assumption is correct, Member.

M. Morris: Thank you for that. If the director doesn’t return the cannabis or whatever is subject of the seizure, the only alternative would be, if there is a constitutional question, for the applicant to go to court and ask the constitutional question.

What happens to the cannabis or the equipment or whatever might be seized at that time? Is it held indefinitely? Is there a period of time that it’s held? How does that work with relation to any other action being taken by the applicant?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: The cannabis could be destroyed. If, let’s say, there was a court case that followed and the cannabis was found to be legal, then there are compensatory avenues. But that has not happened.

M. Morris: 105.2(1) refers to: “the general manager and director may each make rules respecting the practices and procedures to be followed in considering applications under section 105.”

Can the minister provide an example of why both these positions are making rules and why this section is being added?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. There are three circumstances in which seizures could take place.

One is the general manager. If they found a retail store was selling illegally, for example, illegal cannabis, to the director, which is what we have the most. Then, if RCMP police also made a seizure. So those are the three circumstances.

M. Morris: Subsection 105.3(5) talks about “if equipment that has been seized is related to a prosecution of an offence under this Act, the director is not required to make a decision on an application under this section until the proceedings are complete.”

Is that any statute for appeal? Anything that takes place after that? So they could actually have this equipment — some of it could be quite large — in their possession for a long time.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer would be yes.

M. Morris: Subsection (7) says: “An application to a court in relation to a constitutional question does not prevent the director from making a decision on an application under this section.”

If the director is going to seize the cannabis or the equipment, or whatever the case is, and the application has gone to a court, it could be tied up in the court process for a fairly lengthy period of time. Again, the director holds that equipment in their possession until such time as that constitutional question might be answered.

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, it’s the opposite. He’s not prevented from making a decision regarding the equipment.

M. Morris: Right. He’s not prevented from making a decision on the application, so he’ll dispose of the equipment, or whatever his decision is determined to be, notwithstanding the constitutional questions going forward. Okay.

Under (8), it says: “Subject to subsection (9), the director may make rules respecting the practices and procedures to be followed in considering applications under this section.” And (9): “The director must consider applications under this section on the basis of written representations only.”

Is there any opportunity for other interested parties to intervene at this particular stage?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: This is about the director being able to establish their own procedures. It is not about other third parties now coming and being involved.

Clauses 18 to 20 inclusive approved.

On clause 21.

M. Morris: Clause 21 adds regulation-making power respecting fees payable by a person who requests an oral hearing in relation to the imposition of reconsideration of monetary penalties.

I’m just wondering: what would be considered areas where fees would be levied under this kind of a situation?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s a fee that recognizes that oral hearings can be time-consuming or may require a particular way of getting it set up. It gives the director the ability to put a fee that will potentially cover the cost of the oral hearing.

M. Morris: A pretty broad response. I guess I’m curious. Will the individual be responsible for covering the costs of a venue, of attending government representatives, of the community safety unit, of the police or whoever might be involved in this? What costs would the individual requesting the review be faced with?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The process of costing out the fee…. The work on that has not yet started, but it will.

Clauses 21 and 22 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank members for their questions.

We’ve come to that stage of the bill where I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:14 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 30 — CANNABIS CONTROL AND
LICENSING AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

Bill 30, Cannabis Control and Licensing Amendment Act, 2022, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 32, Gaming Control Act, in my name.

I would also, at this point, ask for a five-minute recess, having been sitting for a few hours.

Mr. Speaker: The House will be in recess for a short period of time.

The House recessed at 5:15 p.m.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 32 — GAMING CONTROL ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B); J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 5:22 p.m.

The Chair: We’re dealing with Bill 32, Gaming Control Act. I’ll recognize the minister, who will introduce his staff.

Hon. M. Farnworth: With me is Sam MacLeod, my assistant deputy minister in charge of gaming; Jillian Hazel, the executive director; and Rachel Cheng, also director.

With that, we can start.

On clause 1.

M. Morris: Before we get rolling on this, I just have to commend the writers of this legislation. You know, comparing the old act that is being replaced by this particular bill to this one, there is a lot of clarity to this. The way it’s laid out is a lot more beneficial to an enforcement person going through this. It’s laid out quite well.

So my hat’s off to the drafters of this particular bill. A lot of work went into it. A lot of the old stuff was brought over into here, but it’s been rearranged in a more chronological order, I guess, if you want to put it that way.

Interjection.

M. Morris: User-friendly, yeah. No, I appreciate that.

I have a few questions that we’ll go through here, particularly with respect to some of the newer things as a result of this. But I think, overall, this legislation encapsulates what the Cullen commission identified and what my old colleague and friend Dr. Peter German described in his reports as well.

The first one is under definitions, part 1. It talks about associated persons includes…. It’s a pretty broad description. A lot of discretion for the general manager because it’s in the general manager’s opinion. I applaud this. From an enforcement perspective, I think it’s pretty good. Based on my many years as a criminal investigator, oftentimes, there are several layers between the front and the person behind all of that. So I just wanted to make that comment.

[5:25 p.m.]

I guess it also leads to a question: Does the minister have any concerns with respect to the size and the capabilities of the investigative team required to follow through on all of these in-depth investigations and whatnot within the B.C. Lottery Corp.?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question, and I also thank him for his remarks regarding the user-friendliness of the legislation. I appreciate that.

We are confident that they have the ability and the resources they need. In fact, in many ways, it will be operating on a cost recovery basis. In terms of what’s required, they will be able to get.

Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

On clause 6.

M. Morris: Just a quick question. Clause 6 is: “The British Columbia Lottery Corp. is continued as a corporation….” The question is: what about the gaming policy and enforcement branch? Is that being dissolved? Is that no longer part of the process?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It will cease to exist after the act comes into force, and then the IGCO will come into play.

The Chair: Shall clause 6…?

Sorry. Minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Because of the size of this particular piece of legislation and the number of clauses, it might be useful if the member were to say: “This clause and this clause. These are the clauses I want to ask questions on.” That way we can move through, I think, sort of expeditiously.

Clause 6 approved.

On clause 7.

M. Morris: Looking at subclause 7(1): “The lottery corporation is, for all….” It’s basically the same as the old…. The thing that’s missing from here, though, is that the Lottery Corp. may acquire and dispose of real and personal property. I’m just wondering why that particular subsection was kept out of this section.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That’s captured under section 8, when the person has a natural authority.

Clause 7 approved.

On clause 8.

M. Morris: So clause 8 is: “Subject to this Act and the regulations, the lottery corporation has the capacity and powers of a natural person of full capacity.”

I’m also wondering whether that was made to facilitate the provisions of section 161.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer is no.

Clauses 8 to 12 inclusive approved.

On clause 13.

[5:30 p.m.]

M. Morris: Under the old act, the general manager of the gaming policy enforcement branch included the requirements to make the minister’s directives available for public inspection.

Is there any reason why this requirement wasn’t carried over into the new act under section 13?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member’s question. So yes, it is made public. It is just in updated language. So instead of necessarily being physically there, it can be or will be online.

Clauses 13 to 17 inclusive approved.

On clause 18.

M. Morris: The Lottery Corp. makes rules respecting the operation and participation of the provincial gaming schemes and addresses the manner of selecting and verifying prizes, conditions and qualifications; requirements for handling money and money equivalents; requirements for accepting, holding and disbursing funds provided by the participants. Currently, are any rules in place yet pertaining to this particular section?

I’m assuming that these are in response to the Cullen commission’s concerns over source of funds and some of those other issues that are there. So has the Lottery Corp. done any work already with respect to this, or are they waiting for passing this legislation before any rules affecting these issues are presented?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, they currently do have rules in place.

M. Morris: The next question: was there any consideration into making these rules part of the prescribed regulations under this act instead of rules under the general manager?

Hon. M. Farnworth: These are BCLC’s rules. They are not the general manager’s rules.

M. Morris: Okay. Well, the same question applies, then. They’re BCLC rules, but was there any consideration to include them in the prescribed regulations under the act rather than rules sitting with BCLC?

Hon. M. Farnworth: These are rules for play. They’re not regulatory requirement rules. So these are rules for players on how they play.

Clauses 18 to 20 inclusive approved.

On clause 21.

M. Morris: Again, this is another part that’s new. “The lottery corporation must maintain a training program for (a) registered gaming workers, and (b) individuals prescribed by the general manager. (2) The lottery corporation must comply with the regulations of the general manager respecting the training program. (3) The courses offered in the training program may be delivered by the lottery corporation or a person authorized….”

[5:35 p.m.]

Is there training currently going on within the B.C. Lottery Corp.? Have they fully implemented this training program ahead of implementing this particular statute?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes.

M. Morris: Who is delivering the training program? Is it BCLC themselves, or do the various individual gaming centres have their own training people following a BCLC training syllabus, I guess?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

There is a standard training program. In some cases, BCLC delivers that training program. In other cases, it will be delivered by a third party.

Clauses 21 to 26 inclusive approved.

On clause 27.

M. Morris: Financial administration. I guess I look at subsection (4). It says: “Unless the Auditor General is appointed in accordance with the Auditor General Act as the auditor of the lottery corporation, the lottery corporation must appoint an auditor to audit the accounts of the lottery corporation.”

The Auditor General Act requires prior consent of the committee. What would trigger this? How does the minister see this taking place? The committee of the Legislative Assembly, the Finance Committee, directs the Auditor General to do this. What would trigger that?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Obviously, there’d be an annual audit that’s done by an outside agency. If the Auditor General decides to audit, then the Auditor General goes in and decides to audit.

M. Morris: Yeah. Just a follow-up to that. My understanding, under the Auditor General Act, is…. The Auditor General, with the prior consent of the committee, which I’m assuming is the Finance Committee, may agree to be appointed for a term specified by the committee as the auditor of an organization other than a government organization or trust fund.

Would this be triggered by the Lottery Corp.? Is it triggered by a concern that the Finance Committee might have? Is it triggered by the Auditor General going to the Finance Committee and saying: “We better have a look at this organization”?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I just want to clarify part of the question. The Auditor General has the ability to go in and audit, and then an annual audit can be done by an outside agency. So is the member asking, then, how the Auditor General would become, let’s say, the auditor of record on the annual basis for the Lottery Corp.?

M. Morris: Yeah. I just referred to the act. I didn’t bring it with me. I’ve got my chicken scratch down here.

The concern that surfaced for me was that the Auditor General, with the prior consent of the committee, may agree to be appointed for a term specified by the committee as the auditor of an organization other than a government organization or trust fund.

I’m just wondering whether it’s the Finance Committee that asks the Auditor General to audit BCLC, or whether it’s a request directly from BCLC to the Auditor.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, the Finance Committee could say: “Hey, we want the Auditor General to be the auditor of record.” There are processes in place that would allow that to happen.

Clauses 27 to 30 inclusive approved.

On clause 31.

M. Morris: This part deals with the designation of a general manager. The Lieutenant-Government makes an order-in-council appointment. The general manager holds office for a five-year term, and “…may be re-designated, once, for a further term of up to 5 years.”

I’m just wondering what made the minister land on this five-year term and the five-year extension.

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are a number of reasons. One, the investigations office has a similar term. Two, the ten years is similar to a number of the independent officers of the Legislature. Many of them do five years and then review, and you can do five years. Also, what happens is it means you have the ability…. The individual overlaps the terms of governments as well. That’s why the number of the ten years total was arrived at.

Clauses 31 to 33 inclusive approved.

On clause 34.

M. Morris: Section 34: “…purposes of exercising a power or performing a duty of the general manager under this Act, the general manager may collect information from any of the following: (a) the lottery corporation; (b) an applicant for a licence or for registration as a registrant; (c) a licensee or registrant; d) an associated person.”

I looked at the definition of “associated person” and talked about it earlier. What tools does the Lottery Corp. have, or the general manager have, to collect information from an associated person if they’re down that list? If they’re buried somewhere out there in the gangs and they’re hidden from view, what process would the general manager undertake and the investigators undertake in order to get that information?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: If the general manager is not able to get any of this information that is requested, then they well may not get the licence.

M. Morris: That was my next question. Obviously, the person or the applicant, whoever was holding that licence…. If the general manager is not getting the information that he receives, that just cancels that whole process. Okay.

Clauses 34 and 35 approved.

On clause 36.

M. Morris: Sub (2)…. Under 36, “Inquiries, research and reports”: “The general manager may make inquiries and conduct research respecting…the conduct, management,” etc., etc. But sub (2) says: “The general manager may report to the public in an independent manner on inquiries made or research conducted under this section.”

Just a little clarification on what that independent manner is. He can do that without the permission of the general manager. Is there a prescribed form that he needs to follow?

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

Basically, what it means is that if the general manager has done inquiries or conducted research and feels that there is an issue that he or she needs to make public, they can do so without having to ask my permission to make it public.

M. Morris: No, I appreciate that. Oftentimes, perhaps, some of those investigations or the research might reveal…. It might have some sensitive information in it. Is that vetted, and a vetted copy is made public? Or is that particular report not made public at all?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

This section is very much dealing, primarily, with research. It’s not necessarily about investigations. It’s about doing research into issues that may be coming up. Let’s say it’s problem gambling or things of that nature. That’s kind of the expectation here.

Clauses 36 to 43 inclusive approved.

On clause 44.

M. Morris: “Prohibition against unauthorized sale of a lottery tickets to any person.” “A person other than the lottery corporation must not do any of the following except as authorized… (a) sell or offer to sell a lottery ticket; (b) purchase a lottery ticket for resale.” I guess the question I have, and I’ve heard some indication of this in the past…. Does the Lottery Corp. currently have authorized sales outside of Canada?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No.

M. Morris: Under this section, just another question that arose when I was reading through this. If any lottery tickets are claimed outside of Canada, does the Lottery Corp. determine source and origin of the ticket prior to paying it out?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes.

Clauses 44 and 45 approved.

On clause 46.

M. Morris: Approval of lottery schemes — pretty general, I guess, or basic. But does this section authorize the general manager to approve a new facility that operates a lottery in a class already approved?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No.

M. Morris: Then this addresses a current facility wanting to expand their offering? Is this what this section is about?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This is not about the facility. This is about the scheme, and by scheme, it could be like the slot machine or the game. That’s what it’s referring to.

M. Morris: Okay, so it’s reserved for a facility that’s already licensed, but they’re going to expand their offerings within that facility. Do I read that correctly?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It relates to the technical components of the different aspects within the facility, so like the bits and pieces that make up a machine, for example.

M. Morris: My apologies to the minister. I was reading from the wrong set of notes on this particular one. We will look at 47. Under 47, it talks about….

The Chair: Excuse me, Member. We’ll pass 46 first.

Clause 46 approved.

On clause 47

M. Morris: Under 47, it says, “The lottery corporation must not make any of the following changes to a lottery scheme without first obtaining the general manager’s written approval under section 48,” and (a) is: “a change to the rules of play that modifies the odds of winning the lottery scheme; (b) a change to the rules of play that modifies how a winner of a lottery scheme is determined; (c) a change in the type, make, model or version of the gaming supplies used in the operation of the lottery scheme.”

Is there a criteria that the Lottery Corp. or the general manager has that allows him to…? I’m sure we can’t say that we’re going to get the odds so that the lottery corporation makes all kinds of money. But is there some written criteria somewhere or some metric somewhere that the general manager can access that guides him in his decision under this particular section?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are international technical standards regarding types of games. There are standards that we will have inside the province, and the general manager understands those. The Lottery Corp. can’t come along and say: “Oh, we suddenly want to start changing things.” There are rules and standards in place.

[5:55 p.m.]

Just as an aside, it’s not like the Lottery Corp. can come in and say: “Oh! You know the jackpot this week? You may think it’s $7 million, but we’ve decided it’s $3.5 million.” Like, you can’t do that.

M. Morris: These regulations that Lottery Corp. follows with respect to 47…. Is it a federal law? Is there some kind of a legal standard here that they must follow, and if they don’t, then they are in violation of whatever this standard is?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yeah. There are technical international standards that are in place, and that’s what we follow.

Clauses 47 to 49 inclusive approved.

On clause 50.

M. Morris: So 50 gives the general manager the authority to suspend or rescind the approval if there are any violations under the previous two sections that we just talked about here. So I’m wondering: would any of the 2(a) or (b) items in here…? So “(a) the lottery scheme to which the approval relates is no longer fair and safe” or “(b) the gaming supplies used in the operation of the lottery scheme are no longer fair, reliable, secure or safe.”

Would this not be getting into the offence area as well? So he’ll rescind the licences and whatnot, but if it’s got to this particular point — I’m sure that the investigations where the investigators would be looking at this — there could be some offence repercussions here under the act?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This section mainly is related to machines that are malfunctioning, for example — things of that nature.

Clause 50 and 51 approved.

On clause 52.

M. Morris: Measures to prevent and detect unlawful activities. “The lottery corporation and operators of provincial gaming schemes must comply with the regulations of the general manager respecting the prevention and detection of unlawful activities.”

Would this requirement mirror the rules that are outlined under Section 18 and the duty for operators and registered gaming workers to comply with those rules?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Section 18 is around players and how they play. So, for example, somebody is card counting. That would be section 18. This is more about regulated individuals.

[6:00 p.m.]

This is about the prevention of illegal activity. Money laundering, organized crime and that kind of thing. So 52 is separate. It’s not the same as 18.

M. Morris: Are there currently regulations in place, which will be adopted under this particular section, once this legislation is passed, that clarify these things?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We will be developing regulations that will clarify this section.

Clause 52 approved.

On clause 53.

M. Morris: I’ll get it straight in my head one of these days, once this is passed and we see how things shake out.

Just a comment more than a question on this. It appears…. We’ve got regulations, per section 12. We’ve got rules made by the Lottery Corp. under section 18. We’ve got the minister’s directives to the general manager, section 35. Now we’ve got section 52, which refers to regulations by the GM.

I think all the bases are covered pretty good here. Again, it’s very complex but very complete here.

Clause 53 approved.

On clause 54.

M. Morris: Source of funds. This was a big issue that the Cullen inquiry looked at. He had some specific recommendations from that.

What information will the general manager’s form…? “A source of funds declaration must be (a) in the form and made in the manner required by the general manager, and (b) accompanied by the records prescribed by the general manager.”

Perhaps the minister can just relate what that looks like.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That’s done now. It’s done by identification of the individual source of where the money comes from. Is it a bank draft, for example? That’s the kind of information that is taken and required in terms of understanding where money is coming from.

M. Morris: I appreciate that. Pretty complex in order to cover all the bases there.

How will this information be kept and stored? Is it available to the people that require that information, who make those decisions in the different gaming centres that we have? These individuals might be going from one to the other. How is it available to the people that really need that information?

Hon. M. Farnworth: B.C. Lottery Corp. has the iTrak system, where the information is fed into. The appropriate people, who are authorized to access it, are able to do so.

Clause 54 approved.

On clause 55.

M. Morris: Just trying to read my chicken scratch. It was done late at night here.

This requires a report on an offence to the general manager immediately. What steps would the general manager take once he or she has been notified?

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I just wonder if the member is…. We’re on section 55, the prohibition against presenting false or misleading identification of records.

M. Morris: I was cross-referencing section 55, a “person must not provide false or misleading information in a source of funds declaration” — it has got a variety of things there — with section 167, the duty to report the commission of an offence to the general manager.

Looking at that, I’m wondering how quickly that is transmitted to the general manager and what kinds of action would be taken in real time.

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

The information could be very quickly…. It could also be some time after the fact if there has been an investigation. There are inspectors in there who noticed something. An investigation takes place, and then information will be passed on. The expectation is that, once you know, then it gets passed on very quickly.

M. Morris: My concern, when I was reading this, was just the ability…. Particularly in larger population centres where we might have one or more gaming centres available, where the individual might have provided false information in one location, scurried over to the next place and provided the same thing over there, maybe not getting caught….

Probably the information management system that you referred to earlier…. Would it be capable of catching that kind of activity?

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

Information does go into the system. At the same time, there are investigators, especially in the Lower Mainland, given the proximity of different facilities. Those investigators do go from facility to facility. They’re not just stationed at any single facility. There’s the ability there to…. If there is an issue at one and you become familiar, you can go: “Oh, okay. What’s going on here?” So there are a number of ways in which these things can be tracked.

Clause 55 approved.

On clause 56.

M. Morris: This is: “The lottery corporation, operators of provincial gaming schemes and gaming event licensees must comply with the regulations of the general manager respecting the detection, mitigation and prevention of problem gambling.”

I’m wondering what provisions are in place now to comply with section 56.

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Currently there are general manager public interest standards that are in place, which will be going to be put into regulation. Then we have the VSE program as well. Those standards are now put into regulation.

M. Morris: I’m good with 57.

Clause 56 approved.

On clause 57.

M. Morris: Sorry about that. Like I said, it’s been a long day here.

How does the Lottery Corp. currently enforce this program? I know there’s been a lot of discussion around this. I’m just curious about how you’re approaching the enforcement of it now.

Hon. M. Farnworth: There are a number of mechanisms, from monitored cameras to the security in the facilities, who, obviously, become very familiar with people who are there on a regular basis. At the same time, they’re looking to moving to and implementing electronic monitoring as well. So there are a number of mechanisms that are in place.

Clause 57 approved.

On clause 58.

M. Morris: Looking through the duties in relation to self-excluded individuals…. “The lottery corporation must take reasonable steps to prevent a self-excluded individual from participating in an online gaming scheme contrary to an agreement….” I’m wondering: what’s an example of reasonable steps, on how they do this, to prevent somebody from participating contrary to this particular section?

There are a lot of people out there who have a serious addiction issue with gambling and who will do a lot of things to try and circumvent that. Can they take themselves off of this self-exclusion list and just carry on gambling without this section applying to them?

Hon. M. Farnworth: When you’re on the VSE program…. There are timelines that you’re on for. The minimum timeline that you can be on for is six months, and you don’t get to change that.

Clauses 58 and 59 approved.

On clause 60.

[6:15 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: I just want to get some clarification on provincial gaming facilities and online gaming schemes and whether or not provincial gaming facilities include not-for-profit or online gaming in general.

Hon. M. Farnworth: So not-for-profits, no. But this deals with BCLC licensed facilities.

T. Shypitka: Just further to that, then, I’m just wondering if there’s anywhere in this act that prohibits not-for-profits participating in what was brought in play during COVID for online gaming. I’m talking about online bingo.

I know, as a Rotarian, we’ve had some great success with online bingo. That seems to be, hopefully, not affected by this act. I’m just wondering if there’s clarification from the minister that could let me know that those not-for-profits can still continue on with their online bingos.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The general manager can authorize some online activities, but they have to be in compliance with the Criminal Code.

T. Shypitka: Well, what I’m getting at is that there are obviously these online bingos and these not-for-profits that are benefiting. When we went through COVID, nobody really asked for that, but we found out some hybrid solutions to keep these not-for-profits going. Through that there has been some great success with our Rotary clubs bringing some much-needed revenue. I know some of those indirect revenues go to places like the Ukraine society and bringing people from overseas into our communities and facilitating those needs. A lot of that is due to some of this hybrid or evolutionary-type gaming that we’ve seen through COVID, and we’d hate to see that be up-ended in any way, shape or form.

Of course, they have to make their way through the Criminal Code. These are already being done legally. I’m just asking the question — if this act will prohibit that operation from going any farther.

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, it doesn’t, but I want to stress that it has to be in compliance with the Criminal Code.

T. Shypitka: Okay, thank you. I’ll be good there.

Clause 60 approved.

On clause 61.

M. Morris: I’m pretty much done my clause-by-clause review of this particular statute. Again, I commend the folks that wrote it up and put it in such clarity.

Moving forward here, a lot of it has just been rearranged from the old statute into this statute and whatnot, so I’m good to go right to the final clause on this, unless I have another colleague that is…?

Clauses 61 and 62 approved.

On clause 63.

M. Lee: I just wanted to follow on the questioning on this division, which relates to online gaming schemes. I appreciate the minister’s responses earlier. The language, of course, in section 63 refers to unlawful activity.

Just to ask the minister to comment — recognizing, and I’m aware of this, as well, in terms of some of these online gaming platforms that not-for-profits have been able to do during the pandemic to support good community initiatives in their local regions — has there been consideration of those online gaming schemes in terms of compliance with the Criminal Code? Is that the concern that the minister is raising in terms of unlawful activity?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this section, online gaming is defined as BCLC’s platform.

Clauses 63 to 78 inclusive approved.

On clause 79.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the amendment in my name, clause 79(2), by adding the underlined text as shown.

[CLAUSE 79 (2), by adding the underlined text as shown:

(2) If the general manager makes a change under this section, the general manager must give notice of the change to each of the affected registrants.]

Amendment approved.

Clause 79 as amended approved.

Clauses 80 to 237 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the committee rise, report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:25 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 32 — GAMING CONTROL ACT

Bill 32, Gaming Control Act, reported complete with amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as a reported?

Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, now.

Leave granted.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move third reading.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 32 — GAMING CONTROL ACT

Bill 32, Gaming Control Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:26 p.m.