Fourth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2023) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, April 3, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 297

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Pacific Immigrant Resources Society photo exhibition

and value of child care

K. Chen

Sikh Heritage Month

N. Letnick

Craig Evans

D. Routley

Cancer Society Daffodil Campaign

S. Bond

Cultural and religious diversity in Surrey

G. Begg

Nicola Valley Women’s Fair

J. Tegart

Oral Questions

Crime in communities and action on community

safety

T. Stone

Hon. M. Farnworth

Attacks by repeat offenders and handling of cases by

justice system

E. Sturko

Hon. N. Sharma

Mental health supports and counsellors in

schools

A. Olsen

Hon. R. Singh

Government action on affordable housing

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. R. Kahlon

Housing affordability and single-family

zoning

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. R. Kahlon

Government action on homelessness and homeless

navigation centres

T. Halford

Hon. R. Kahlon

Release of B.C. Housing audit report

P. Milobar

Hon. D. Eby

Tabling Documents

B.C. Electoral Boundaries Commission, final report, 2023

Petitions

J. Rustad

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 17 — Family Law Amendment Act, 2023

(continued)

Hon. N. Sharma

M. de Jong

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — Family Law Amendment Act, 2023

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests (continued)

M. Lee

Hon. B. Ralston

M. Bernier

L. Doerkson

Estimates: Other appropriations

Estimates: Ministry of Labour

Hon. H. Bains

G. Kyllo

A. Olsen

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Environment and Climate Change

Strategy (continued)

R. Merrifield

Hon. G. Heyman

T. Shypitka

Estimates: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon

Innovation

Hon. J. Osborne

T. Shypitka

R. Merrifield

M. Bernier

D. Davies

E. Ross

MONDAY, APRIL 3, 2023

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

J. Tegart: Well, hold your seats. Today there are four generations of Tegarts in

the House.

First, let me introduce my daughter Lisa Tegart and her partner,

Travis Beckett. Second, I’m thrilled to have my granddaughter Morgan

Tegart-Beckett in the House. Saving the best for last, please welcome my

great-grandson, Beckett Kellington, to the Legislature.

M. Dykeman: I am just thrilled today to welcome to the precinct my very dearest

friend, who also happens to be the chair of the Langley board of education

and works as one of my CAs, Candy Ashdown.

[1:35 p.m.]

It’s her first time visiting the Legislature here since I was sworn

in. I was wondering if the House could please join me in making her feel

very welcome today.

Hon. H. Bains: We have some very, very important guests up in the gallery from

Manufacturing Safety Alliance of British Columbia who are joining us today.

MSABC is the non-profit health and safety association of British Columbia’s

manufacturing sector.

Representing them today in the House are Lisa Mc­Guire, their

CEO; Wayne Arondus, chief operating officer; Jean Fong, communication and

marketing specialist; Peter Jackson, board member; Vince Sciamanna; their

incoming board chair; David Fagen, board member and he’s also executive

director, safety, health, environment and security and B.C. Ferries; and

Maureen Shaw, adviser, mental health and safety.

I’m really, really appreciative of the work and the dedication of the

MSA team, the work that they do in order to make our workplaces the safest

in the country.

So please join with me and give them a very warm welcome.

Hon. N. Cullen: Today I’d like to welcome a former colleague, and still a friend,

Wayne Stetski, to the House. Wayne served as mayor of Cranbrook as well as

the Member of Parliament for Kootenay Columbia. This is after a 30-year

public service working for Environment and Parks here in B.C. and Manitoba.

He is now president of the Elders Council for Parks and a longtime dedicated

British Columbian to protecting our environment, working with First

Nations.

Would the House please join me in making him feel welcome.

Hon. D. Coulter: I’d first like to also welcome the people from the Manufacturing

Safety Alliance of B.C. here today. Their offices are actually in my home

constituency.

I’d also like to welcome my two CAs. We know how important CAs are

back home in our communities. Today I have Adila Shaukat and Willow

Reichelt. This is Adila’s very first time to the Legislature.

So please make them feel welcome.

Hon. A. Kang: In the gallery today, I have a very special person who’s visiting us.

Her name is Peggy Hua, and she is my constituency assistant. Not only is she

my friend; she’s my baking buddy. She’s also a fellow music alumni from the

School of Music at UBC, and also a volunteer and organizer of the Vancouver

Taiwanese Film Festival.

Will the House please make her feel very

welcome.

Hon. R. Singh: In the gallery today, we have some important guests who are visiting

us from India. We have Jasbir Samar, who’s an eminent journalist with the

Punjabi Tribune Chandigarh. He’s visiting for the first time in

Can­ada, along with his wife, Baljit. Their son Shafqat is also here.

Shafqat is studying in Vancouver.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

PACIFIC IMMIGRANT RESOURCES

SOCIETY PHOTO EXHIBITION

AND VALUE OF CHILD CARE

K. Chen: Last week I had the opportunity to attend the opening ceremony for

Pacific Immigrant Resources Society’s Through the Lens: A Photographic

Exploration of Exclusion, Inclusion and Belonging in the Childcare

System. It was actually the first time I attended a child care event in

many months, even though, as many of you know, I used to talk about

child care 24-7.

I guess I was a little nervous to speak about child care again,

maybe because part of me felt embarrassed — embarrassed that I could not

even overcome my own struggles and challenges. But being at the event

with many other women — immigrants, newcomers, women who struggle with

trauma, single mothers and early childhood educators and professionals —

I realized our feelings are not alone. Through many beautiful and

meaningful photographs, drawings and artwork done by these women, it

highlighted how, under the colonial and patriarchal system, some are

struggling more than the others, even when facing similar challenges,

such as the child care chaos.

[1:40 p.m.]

Some families have been unfairly turned down for child care

opportunities due to their immigration or socioeconomic backgrounds.

Some neurodiverse children and those who require extra support are

unable to access child care or even receive adequate supports in

schools.

One mom shared that she has not been able to make friends here in

Canada for over a year. The other mom shared how it was a difficult

journey for her to obtain her EC credential due to the lack of Canadian

experience, despite being an educator herself in her home country. When

she finally obtained her EC credential, like many other immigrant women,

she was paid the lowest wages in the sector. But she will keep working

hard, hoping that her daughter won’t face the same barriers.

Yes, we all have to make tough life decisions at times. But as

politicians and government, it is critically important that we continue

to use our time in this institution to make life more equitable for all.

And investing in child care, public education and early learning is one

of the most effective ways and things we can do to create a more

equitable society.

If you have time during your busy schedule, I encourage you to

join this powerful exhibition at Anvil Centre in New Westminster before

May 2.

SIKH HERITAGE MONTH

N. Letnick: Some of my best friends are Sikhs, and it’s Sikh Heritage

Month.

Sikhs have been in British Columbia for more than 100 years and

have played a vital role in shaping the social, cultural and economic

fabric of our communities. Being home to the largest population of Sikhs

in all of Canada, B.C. first celebrated Sikh Heritage Month in 2018,

with the purpose of honouring the contribution and aspirations of all

Sikh Canadians and developing a greater understanding and appreciation

of a rich, unique and diverse heritage.

April marks the occasion of Vaisakhi, the celebration of the

spring harvest, the holiest celebration in Sikh faith, which also marks

the celebration of Khalsa by Sri Guru Gobind Singh.

As we celebrate Sikh Heritage Month, we must also recognize the

challenges of the Sikh community, the challenges they have faced and

continue to face, including discrimination and racism. It is our

responsibility to work towards a more inclusive and equitable society

where every individual is valued and respected for who they

are.

I encourage everyone to learn more about Sikh culture and

celebrate their accomplishments this Sikh Heritage Month. You can go for

a night of exploring the rich heritage of classical music in the Sikh

tradition at the Anvil Centre theatre, New Westminster. See a treasure

trove of local Sikh artists, including fine art, poetry, film and state

performances at the Surrey city hall. Join the Surrey Khalsa Day

Vaisakhi Parade, the largest in the world, on Saturday, April 22. Or

come to my home, Kelowna, and join us in our Vaisakhi Parade on April

Let’s celebrate together this wonderful culture.

CRAIG EVANS

D. Routley: On March 6, 2023, Nanaimo lost a champion, and many of us lost a

hero. On that day, it was not the end of a battle, but we lost Craig

Evans.

Craig Evans was a champion of food security and urban farming. He

worked at Vancouver Island University as a teacher, but he set an

example for all of us with his commitment to food for everyone and

healthy farming and young farmers in particular.

He was a founder of Nanaimo Foodshare Society. He worked every

year to bring food to schools in the area, child care centres, and

supported the B.C. Young Farmers.

This was not the end of a battle. As Craig said: “We only have so

many summers.” His partner, Jen Cody, has said to put your energy

“towards the community in some way that feels meaningful, important and

gives us joy” as tribute to Craig.

Craig said to one of his friends after his diagnosis with cancer:

“I booked summers all along that were full of joy, full of fulfilment,

full of purpose. I’m comfortable. I’m so comfortable…. No matter what,

there’s a finality to everything. Everything in the garden has its

season.” And Craig had a season like no other.

I was told by one of his friends that he had passed on the highway

a young bear that had been hit by a car. It had died, and he pulled

around to make sure that the bear didn’t need help. Craig picked up a

paw and looked at it and told his friend, quietly: “It has

fingerprints.”

[1:45 p.m.]

Thank you, Craig, for all that you gave to Nanaimo. As Jen said,

he was practical, curious but, most of all, kind. Thank you,

Craig.

CANCER SOCIETY DAFFODIL CAMPAIGN

S. Bond: One of the special things about the arrival of spring is

daffodils, not just in our gardens or around the legislative grounds but

the Canadian Cancer Society Daffodil Campaign every spring.

Every spring the Canadian Cancer Society Daffodil Campaign raises

funds to support and help people with cancer live longer, fuller lives.

The daffodil is one of the first flowers to bloom in spring. For those

living with cancer, it represents strength, resiliency, courage and

hope.

This year we are being asked to help hope bloom by supporting the

Daffodil Campaign. There are at least four ways we can make a

difference. You can make a personal donation, make a monthly donation,

host a fundraiser or leave a legacy with a planned gift in your

will.

As we speak, there are members in this chamber in various stages

of their cancer journey. All of us have much-loved family members,

friends and even work colleagues who are in the fight of their lives,

some starting that battle today.

Nearly half of all Canadians will face the devastating diagnosis

of cancer in their lifetime. That is why every spring, for more than six

decades, the Canadian Cancer Society has used the daffodil to encourage

all of us to do our part. Every donation to the Daffodil Campaign will

allow continued life-saving cancer research and provide funds for a

support system to ensure that no one has to face a cancer diagnosis

alone.

In the words of the Canadian Cancer Society: “Now is the time to

help hope bloom for people facing cancer with your donation today. Your

daffodil donation will help save and improve lives.”

As we wear our daffodil pins, let us always remember that we are a

symbol of our collective strength, representing renewal, inspiration

and, most of all, hope.

CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS DIVERSITY

SURREY

G. Begg: You cannot have community without unity. It’s right there in the

word.

There is unity in our community, and there is no better evidence

of that than the Iftar, the meal eaten by Muslims during the month of

Ramadan, immediately after sunset, and celebrated in the Surrey Arts

Centre last Thursday. Several hundred people of all faiths gathered

together in one place, adherents of Judaism, Islam, Christianity,

Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism celebrating with our Muslim sisters and

brothers simply by sharing a meal and quiet conversation in many

languages.

This is, indeed, a uniquely holy month, with Easter, Ramadan and

Vaisakhi all being observed and providing yet another way for us to

demonstrate the unity in our community. In the words of Pope Francis:

“In a world where various forms of modern tyranny seek to suppress

religious freedom or try to reduce it to a subculture with­out

right to a voice in the public square or to use religion as a pretext

for hatred and brutality, it is imperative for the followers of the

various religions to join their voices in calling for peace, tolerance

and respect for the dignity and rights of others.”

In Surrey, these virtues — peace, tolerance and respect — are

boldly and clearly on display. It was uplifting and very moving to be a

small part of this very large gathering. By celebrating diversity, we

dispel misconceptions about different cultures, religions and

ethnicities and promote new ways of thinking.

The science of genetics confirms that humans cannot be divided

into biologically distinct subcategories. This is validated by many

decades of research. In other words, race, in and of itself, is a social

construct with no biological base. Simply put, there is only one race,

and that is the human race.

I invite all members of this House to acknowledge Bilal Cheema and

Islamic Relief Canada for their leadership in bringing the community of

Surrey together and ensuring that unity remains in our

community.

[1:50 p.m.]

NICOLA VALLEY WOMEN’S FAIR

J. Tegart: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted a lot of things, including the

Nicola Valley Women’s Fair in Merritt. After a successful inaugural

event in 2019, the pandemic made it impossible for the fair to return

until recently.

It was my pleasure to attend the return of the women’s fair on

Saturday, March 18. I was just one of hundreds of women and other

community members there to welcome it back.

This year’s theme was “Women inspiring women,” and boy, do we have

a lot of inspiring women in Merritt and throughout

Fraser-Nicola.

We heard from business leaders like Brandy Gozda-Sekhon, the

president and operator of six McDonald’s restaurants, including the one

in Merritt. We engaged with a number of outstanding local organizations,

including the Nicola Valley Institute of Technology and the Nicola

Valley Community Arts Council.

There were 42 tables set up to provide information and resources.

There were also educational workshops for those in

attendance.

Importantly, the event also featured child care in an effort to

reduce barriers for women to participate. These are the things we need

to be thinking about when we consider how we might get more women

engaged in our communities.

The second Nicola Valley Women’s Fair was a resounding success. I

want to thank organizer Ellen Miller, Community Futures Nicola Valley

and all the helpers and volunteers who made it so.

I also want to thank the community of Merritt and area for its

strong support, ensuring that we can look forward to another fair in

Oral Questions

CRIME IN COMMUNITIES AND

ACTION ON COMMUNITY

SAFETY

T. Stone: There is a huge gap between the Premier’s rhetoric and

announcements and the terrible results of more violence across British

Columbia. Random attacks have become the new norm under this

soft-on-crime Premier and are clear evidence that what his government

says they’re doing is simply not working.

On Saturday morning, an innocent victim was slashed across the

throat with a knife while riding a bus in Surrey. The attacker first

threatened a complete stranger at a bus stop before boarding the bus. He

then stabbed the second victim with a kitchen knife in a brutal, random

and completely unprovoked attack that sent the victim to hospital with

critical, life-threatening injuries. According to the nurse, the only

reason he survived was because the knife was dull.

My question to the Premier is this. How much longer will people

have to be afraid to get on a bus because of this soft-on-crime

Premier’s catch-and-release policies and this Premier’s failure to keep

British Columbians safe in their communities?

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

As the member will know, this particular took place on Saturday.

It was a horrific crime. The police were there. They arrested the

individual, and they started to do their full investigation. At that

time, they were facing serious criminal charges here in British

Columbia.

During the course of their investigation, they became aware of

evidence of allegations of links to a terrorist organization. At that

particular point in time, the federal RCMP take over the investigation.

Federal Crown takes over the prosecution from provincial Crown. An

investigation currently, in regard to the rest of the situation, is

underway by both federal RCMP and federal Crown.

That’s the information that I can provide the member with at this

particular point in time on this very serious incident.

Mr. Speaker: House Leader, supplemental.

T. Stone: The reality today is that people in British Columbia aren’t safe

on a bus. They’re not safe to walk into a coffee shop. They’re not safe

to walk down streets in their communities. That’s all because of this

soft-on-crime Premier’s catch-and-release policies.

[1:55 p.m.]

Violent random attacks have actually never been worse in British

Columbia than they are right now. The Premier’s handpicked expert, Doug

LePard, says that British Columbia stands alone, with a 40 percent

decrease in the number of people in jail, because of government policy,

because of initiatives of this Premier, this soft-on-crime

Premier.

Now, the Premier promised results that people, he said, would

feel. They would be able to see. But every single day there’s another

horrifying story of violence, whether it be in Surrey or Langley or

Kamloops and communities across this province.

Chilliwack today is the scene of gang violence and shootings for

the third time in eight days. And now this random knife attack on the

bus in Surrey, which I mentioned, is being treated by the police as

terrorism, fuelling more public anxiety and insecurity.

The question is this. The Premier keeps saying he’s taking action

to keep people safe. With that in mind, and in response to this possible

terrorist attack, has the province elevated the risk assessment level,

and are additional patrols being deployed in the Lower Mainland to keep

British Columbians safe?

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

It is unfortunate the opposition is using language that, when they

know the facts of the particular incident that took place on Saturday,

does nothing to help the situation.

The reality is this. An attack took place. The police

investigated. They were there. They arrested the individual. During the

course of their investigation, they became aware of allegations of a

link to a terrorist organization. As I said, at that point, the federal

RCMP take over, as does the Crown.

Any increase…. My ministry is in touch with them at this

particular point in time. The issue of alerts and things like that has

not been an issue that the federal RCMP has said needs to be in place.

Rather, they are dealing with this situation and this

individual.

I would also note, though…. The member raised the issue of the

situation in Surrey and the ongoing gang vio­lence that we do have

in this province, violence which has been something that British

Columbia has had to deal with, as have all provinces. Ours,

particularly, is a unique situation in this province, in terms of those

involved, for quite some time.

I just want to reinforce the action that this government has

taken. For example, the witness security program, as I outlined the

other day, has resulted in 419 charges being laid, including 134 murder

charges, and the convictions of more than 32 accused. Those individuals

involved in gang crime would not have been brought to justice and they

would not be behind bars if it were not for the action of this

government and the implementation of this program.

Hon. Speaker, we continue to take this situation extremely

seriously. We will take additional measures and steps, as they are

needed, as we work with our partners in law enforcement and the federal

government to identify how we can reinforce the work that they’re

doing.

ATTACKS BY REPEAT OFFENDERS AND

HANDLING OF CASES BY

JUSTICE SYSTEM

E. Sturko: The reality is the things the member from the other side brings up

are, again, things that this government does after the fact, after

people have already become victims of crime.

People in my community of Surrey…. I’ve received many emails and

calls from people who feel terrified to ride the bus. They feel upset

because the reality is that random attacks are up and at a crisis level

in this province.

A prolific offender who brutally attacked a mother and her toddler

in a random Chinatown assault is now free in the community. Shakwan

David Kelly, responsible for five brutal random assaults, received time

served and a single day in jail for the four charges. Disturbingly,

provincial Crown counsel dropped the charge for the vicious attack on

the mother and toddler. This is the attack that the former NDP Attorney

General dismissed as anecdotal rhetoric.

Despite all of the Premier’s promises and rhetoric, why was the

charge stayed for the vicious, random attack on a mother and her toddler

in Chinatown?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I think everybody in this House agrees that people need to feel

safe in their communities. When we hear about traumatic incidents in our

communities, we stand with the victims, and we know we have to take

action.

That’s why this government has been advocating very strongly to

the federal government, in fact led the charge with the federal

government to make bail policy reform. We’re grateful for a commitment

to make those changes, particularly around repeat violent

offenders.

We’ll continue to advocate for that, but we’re not stopping. We’re

taking action, investing in programs in our province that will make this

better for communities, including a repeat violent offenders task force.

We are going to stand together and continue to take action with our

community partners to make this better.

Mr. Speaker: Surrey South, supplemental.

E. Sturko: The reality is changes in the federal policy which strengthened

the person’s presumption of innocence never precluded Crown prosecutors

from arguing that those who deserve to be held in custody, be held in

custody. It did not change. Frankly, this government is using it as a

smokescreen for their own failed actions.

The public has a right to know why a decision was made to stay the

charge against a prolific offender for an unprovoked attack against an

innocent mother and toddler. In every case involving prolific offenders,

the public deserves to know details, such as release conditions that the

Crown has agreed with.

Despite the Attorney General’s claims of closely monitoring cases

involving prolific offenders, the government has withheld the data

they’re tracking, preventing the public from seeing the results for

themselves. The public has completely lost trust in the justice system

under the soft-on-crime Premier.

Will the Premier reconsider his refusal to give the public the

data they’re tracking and release that information today?

Hon. N. Sharma: I’ll start by saying that the B.C. Prosecution Service is better

placed to answer questions regarding data but that we are investing in

programs and services. I’m really happy to report that recently the B.C.

Prosecution Service announced that the members for the repeat violent

offenders task force have been identified. They are currently receiving

training and transitioning to their new positions.

The hubs will operate in every region of B.C.: Nanaimo, Victoria,

Vancouver, Surrey, New Westminster, Abbotsford, Kamloops, Kelowna,

Cranbrook, Prince George, Williams Lake and Terrace. We’re investing in

the services that we know will help to make this issue better across

this province.

MENTAL HEALTH SUPPORTS

AND COUNSELLORS IN

SCHOOLS

A. Olsen: Our public schools have a ratio of one counsellor for every 693

students. That means that when a child needs help, it’s often not

available to them.

During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, research in Canada

showed increases in mental health referrals and hospitalizations, as

well as high rates of anxiety, self-harm, substance use and suicidal

ideation. It was those who were already most vulnerable that suffered

most.

Many students report having limited to no access to mental health

support at school. There just aren’t enough counsellors to meet the

needs of students. The ratio of counsellors to students in the teachers

collective agreement is one counsellor to every 700 students. It has

been that way for 20 years. The president of the B.C. School Counsellors

Association, Dave MacKenzie, said: “When you consider how schools,

society and the conversations about mental health have changed,

20-year-old ratios are a travesty and deserve attention from the

Minister of Education.”

My question is to the Minister of Education. When will this

government meet the needs of students and hire enough school counsellors

to cover the students’ needs in this province?

Hon. R. Singh: I really appreciate the member’s concern. I share similar concerns

about the mental well-being of our children.

As a government, we make it our priority. Since 2017, we have

hired nearly 300 teacher-psychologists and counsellors across the

province. We know how important mental health and well-being is. It also

helps in their learning as well. Along with that, we are working across

the ministries, whether it is with the Minister of Mental Health and

Addictions or with the Minister of Children and Family

Development.

[2:05 p.m.]

We are also trying to break the stigma around the issue of mental

health. We have the integrated child and youth teams, which are

operating right now in five school districts, and we have just announced

that that will be extended to seven more districts across the

province.

It is a very complex issue, no doubt, and I really agree with the

member opposite, especially with the challenges that we have faced in

the last few years, on how this issue has even aggravated. We take it as

a priority.

Recently, just this week, my colleague from Mental Health and

Addictions was in Squamish and opened a Foundry, which we know is also a

very key resource for our youth and our children.

We will continue to invest in the resources that are much

needed.

Mr. Speaker: House Leader, Third Party, supplemental.

A. Olsen: Our children need this support at school. It’s where they spend

many hours of their day through their youth growing up. Oftentimes the

the child gets the kind of support that they need immediately or whether

the problem continues to grow, unfortunately.

We know healthy kids and healthy lives, when you’re a youth, make

for healthy adults. Catching mental health care needs early prevents

lifelong illness and potential substance use disorders, and helps put

children on a path to lifelong wellness. We need to be investing in our

children’s mental health. We appreciate that the minister has added 300

new counsellors and psychologists, but from everything that I’m hearing

from our school system, it’s still far from enough.

I’ll ask the question to the Minister of Education. Will the

minister change the ratios so that there are enough counsellors and

psychologists to meet the needs of our students?

Hon. R. Singh: I really appreciate the question.

As I mentioned, it is our priority. We know how important the

mental health and the well-being of our children is. As a government, we

are investing in our education system and, especially, working with the

most vulnerable, most marginalized youth and students in our schools.

Since 2017 we have made it a priority, and we will continue to do

that.

We know we have done a lot since 2017, but also, we have been

filling the gaps. We know the gaps that were left out by the previous

government. We are trying to fill those gaps. We know that a lot has

been done, and we are committed to work even harder for this.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

AFFORDABLE

HOUSING

K. Kirkpatrick: Halfway through a ten-year housing plan announced in 2018, the NDP

has abandoned it and admitted defeat. The Premier is failing on housing

by every measure.

Interjections.

K. Kirkpatrick: Is it funny that we don’t have enough housing in this province? I

don’t think so.

There are unprecedented levels of homelessness and social

disorder. The HousingHub has turned into a col­ossal housing flub

and wasn’t even mentioned in today’s housing plan. B.C. continues to

have the highest rents in the country and the most unaffordable housing

in all of North America. B.C. Housing is so dysfunctional that four out

of five applications are sitting on desks there unapproved. The

Premier’s so-called housing refresh strategy has no credibility, while

B.C. housing remains a disaster, and the government continues to hide

its forensic audit.

After the Premier has utterly failed as Housing Minister, how can

he convince anyone to believe his new promises?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, many times in this House, we have recognized that housing

continues to be a challenge here in British Columbia.

Record numbers of people are coming to British Columbia for good

opportunities. We welcome them. We want them here; we need them here. We

hear from employers all the time: “We need more people. How can we find

more people?” They’re coming, but with that, and rising interest rates,

we’re seeing additional pressures on our housing market. That’s why the

plan that we brought in 2017 had significant improvements in our housing

stock.

[2:10 p.m.]

We saw that over 43,000 units have opened up because of the plan

that we laid out. We’re on track to meet our goals, but we know we need

more. We know we need more. And that’s why, today, we laid out the plan

to ensure that we can position British Columbia in an even better place

in the years ahead.

We know, as a government, that decades of underinvestment, decades

of lack of investment, in this province has led us to this problem. Some

would suggest that the solution to this challenge is to get out of the

way and do nothing. We’ve seen that formula. We’ve seen that formula in

this previous government for a long time. It didn’t work. It’s actually

the reason why we’re in this problem now. That’s why the actions we’re

taking….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members. Members.

Members, let’s hear the answer.

The minister will continue.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member across the way says taxes. She’s referring to the

speculation tax.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Kahlon: We know that the Leader of the Opposition doesn’t like the

speculation tax. He thinks it’s unfair for people who have multiple

homes to have to pay an additional tax. It’s clear who the Leader of the

Opposition works for. On our side of the House, we’re going to continue

to work for people, because we know this housing is vitally

important.

Mr. Speaker: Member for West Vancouver–Capilano, supplemental.

HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

AND SINGLE-FAMILY

ZONING

K. Kirkpatrick: I would like to remind the minister what I said in the initial

question is that British Columbia has the highest rents in the country

and has the most unaffordable housing in North America, and this is a

two-term government. Obviously, what is happening is not

working.

I would like to address the speculation. NDP MLAs own 102

properties. Since the last election, NDP MLAs have profited by almost

$8.5 million on real estate sales. Let’s talk about speculation and what

side of the House we’re looking at — $8.5 million, 102

properties.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, order please.

K. Kirkpatrick: Instead of trying to build his way out of a housing crisis, the

Premier is trying to spin his way out of it. But a flashy branding

exercise can’t change the fact that housing affordability is getting

worse. Even worse, the Premier’s housing plan lacks

transparency.

Take the Premier’s….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’ll follow the…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members.

K. Kirkpatrick: …Minister of Housing’s approach to speaking in the House

here.

Take the Premier’s promise to end single-family housing, for

example, with no information about how that would work. The government

couldn’t even answer basic questions like where would this

apply.

Here’s a basic question. In which communities will the Premier be

ending single-family zoning?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think it’s important to note, and I’m sure the members across

the way hear this as well, overwhelmingly, when I’m in my community and

communities around the province, I hear from seniors. I hear from

seniors talking about how they’re going to have their grandkids to be

able to grow up near them. I hear from young families who want to stay

in British Columbia. They want to have their kids grow up in the same

neighbourhood that they grew up in.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Kahlon: That’s been a challenge for people over the last two decades, a

lack of investments in British Columbia in housing.

Yeah, we’re proud of the changes that we’ve proposed as part of

the housing strategy. If the member was serious and wanted to be part of

the solution, she would look at her own community of West Vancouver and

say to her community: “Yes, we need to bring on more

housing.”

If the opposition is serious about housing, I say join us. I

welcome them on this side of the House.

We are going to allow for more units to be built on

single-dwelling homes. We know that these lots — they may have

single-family homes built on them, and that’s okay. Because at the end

of the day, as long as people want them and as long as people can afford

them, they’ll continue to be built. The market will decide. But we need

to allow more options on those sites. That’s why this is such a

fantastic policy that’s being applauded across the board from all

stakeholders.

[2:15 p.m.]

What we don’t know is besides them saying that we’re going to get

out of the way and do nothing, what do they offer? What are they

offering? We know when they were on this side of the House, they did

nothing on housing.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON HOMELESSNESS

AND HOMELESS

NAVIGATION CENTRES

T. Halford: While the Premier continues to conceal the forensic audit of the

dysfunctional B.C. Housing, the homeless crisis has never been

worse.

One example of the NDP’s broken promise is to establish homeless

navigation centres in Vancouver and Na­naimo, a promise made

nearly three years ago. I quote from the government release: “….a

non-profit partner will be selected this fall, and the navigation centre

is expected to be operational by spring 2021.”

We have a snap election. The now Premier becomes the Minister of

Housing, and the navigation centres get shelved.

My question is a direct one to the Premier. Why has he utterly

failed when it comes to delivering the homeless navigation centres that

that government promised to open in 2021?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I thank the member for the question. As I stated last week, we

committed to opening a navigation centre in Nanaimo. We have found two

sites. Both times, they’ve gone to council, and council has made a

decision that the sites are not appropriate for the navigation centre.

That’s a frustration for us to do all the work, find a site, go to

council, have it rejected, come back, find another site, go to…. It’s

frustrating. But we know it’s important work. We know that local

governments have an important role in this. We’re going to continue to

work with them to find that.

As for the one in Vancouver, if the members have a chance to read

our plan that we released with Mayor Ken Sim from Vancouver, part of

that is having a centre. That will be opening very shortly. That will

ensure that those that are looking for supports are able to go to one

place and not only find housing but also get the supports they need.

Again, we’re excited to see that space open up.

Not only that, but we have 330 units opening by the end of June

that will help support those that are looking for it. I’ll just say, on

the Downtown Eastside in particular, an important piece. There are

spaces available right now for those that are in encampments, and

particularly those on Hastings Street. It is not safe. We agree with

Mayor Sim. This is not a safe space for people.

We had a survey done by a not-for-profit, which interviewed 50

women. All 50 reported to be sexually assaulted. That is unacceptable.

We are urging those folks to take the shelter spaces. They’re available.

We have brought them online. On top of that, we have additional spaces

opening up in the coming weeks and months ahead.

Mr. Speaker: Surrey–White Rock, supplemental.

T. Halford: I give the minister a bit of advice here. I think he needs to work

on his relationship with the mayor of Nanaimo. Because he says: “Nanaimo

is desperate for a navigation centre…. We’ve been waiting a long time.”

This was a promise made in 2020.

Again, this minister gets up today and says, “Yeah, it may be a

priority today” — an absolute, utter failure when it comes to something

that this NDP has overpromised and underdelivered on. Again, when we

look at Nanaimo, here, it is very clear that this Premier, this minister

and these MLAs have completely failed their community.

Why did this Premier fail to deliver on something like homeless

navigation centres?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Clearly, they’ve run out of material for question period. They

keep asking the same question that I just gave an answer to a second

ago.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Let’s hear it, please.

Members.

The minister will continue.

Hon. R. Kahlon: As I’ve shared with the member now, and I did last week as well,

we found a site in Nanaimo for a navigation centre. It didn’t suit

council’s needs. We went away. We found another site. It didn’t meet the

needs of council. Now we’re working to find an additional site. That’s

the work we’ve been doing, not only there but in communities around the

province, working with local governments to make sure that the supports

we can find fit well with community.

But not only that. If you look back over the years, the

significant size of the encampments that Nanaimo had, the incredible

amount of work it took to get people out of those encampments and get

people into housing…. In Nanaimo alone, 1,437 units have come that we

have funded — 881 open, and 556 are funded that are going through the

process of being built right now.

[2:20 p.m.]

That is significant. In fact, that’s probably the amount of units

the previous government built around the province. We continue to make

these investments in Nanaimo, be­cause it’s important. But we’re

going to make these investments in communities throughout the

province.

RELEASE OF B.C. HOUSING AUDIT REPORT

P. Milobar: As we heard earlier today from this government, I think it’s as

close or charitable of a description as we can have with their new

housing numbers, as creative accounting was used today as they were

trying to justify and explain what their failures over the last six

years have been on the housing file. It’s no wonder that B.C. Housing is

under a forensic audit. We see how this government likes to play fast

and loose with numbers when it comes to housing.

Unfortunately, despite this government having the B.C. Housing

forensic audit for the better part of a month now, we’re no closer to

having that released. In fact, under

section 25 of the Freedom of

Information Act, the Premier has the power to release that, but instead

of releasing it, we’re waiting on the same agencies, which resulted in

this audit needing to be done, to go through that audit with a felt pen

and cross out anything and everything that might actually shine a light

on what’s going on at B.C. Housing.

Imagine what would have happened today if the Premier had had the

temerity to actually release that audit, full and unredacted, while they

were talking about housing, with all the provincial media there. Imagine

the transparency that that would have provided to the public about

what’s actually going on in housing in British Columbia. Instead,

organizations like Atira and B.C. Housing and others are going to be

busy with their sharpies over the next few weeks.

If this Premier was actually serious about transparency when it

comes to housing, that report would already be released.

Will the Premier take the power that he has, under

section 25 of

the Freedom of Information Act, and release today, unredacted, the B.C.

Housing forensic audit and make it available to Public Accounts for full

and proper scrutiny?

Hon. D. Eby: The member knows I’ve stood in this place a number of times and

made the commitment. I’ll make it again. We’ll release the report in

full to the extent that the law allows us to do that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. D. Eby: Now, when I became Premier, I committed to work on four priorities

for British Columbians: on public safety, on housing, on health care and

on a strong economy that works for everybody.

On public safety…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. D. Eby: ….in May, we will have 21 teams of prosecutors, new prosecutors,

probation officers, correction officers addressing chronic repeat

violent offenders. The Minister of Public Safety and the Attorney

General went to Ottawa, got a commitment from Ottawa, a strong

commitment to fix the federal bail rules.

On housing today, a plan that community organizations,

homebuilders — people who support affordable housing for people who work

hard, earn a decent living, can’t find a place to live…. They are

celebrating this. I’m going to read a Homes for Living YYJ quote. “First

look at the housing for people action plan — this is huge!” And that is

on top of us setting a record over the last five years — more housing

units delivered in British Columbia than in any five-year period ever in

the history of the province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. D. Eby: On health care, a new deal with family doctors so that British

Columbians get the family doctor they deserve; making sure that when

people go to hospital, they get the care they need by recognizing the

credentials of internationally trained nurses so that they can get to

work and help people in the hospital; and working closely with nurses to

make sure that our health care system works for everybody.

On a strong economy that works for British Columbians, almost $5

billion in major project investments now, since I became

Premier.

Hon. Speaker, I know that we’ve got a lot more work to

do.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Members will come to order.

Hon. D. Eby: I know the members don’t like it. I know the opposition doesn’t

like it.

But this team we’ve got here is delivering for British Columbians

every single day, and we’re not going to stop.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: I have the honour of tabling the Electoral Boundaries Commission’s

final report.

[2:25 p.m.]

Petitions

J. Rustad: It is my pleasure to present a portion of a petition asking for the

repeal of Bill 36, containing 290 signatures. We thought we would put this

forward for the Clerk’s office to be able to start processing.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 17, the Family

Law Amendment Act.

In committee room A, I call continued debate in Committee of Supply for

the Ministry of Forests. After that completes, the Ministry of Labour will

begin.

In committee room C, I call continued debate in Committee of Supply for

the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, and after that

completes, the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation will

begin.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 17 — FAMILY LAW

AMENDMENT ACT,

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 17, Family

Law Amendment Act, 2023; S. Chandra Herbert in the

chair.

The committee met at 2:26 p.m.

The Chair: We’ll just take a short recess to allow all the appropriate

parties to get into place.

The committee recessed from 2:27 p.m. to 2:32 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: All right, Members. I’d like to call this committee into

order. We’re looking at Bill 17, the Family Law Amendment Act,

Hon. N. Sharma: I want to please welcome to the House Darryl Hrenyk, legal

counsel, and Aurora Beraldin, legal counsel, both from justice services

branch of my ministry.

On clause 1 (continued) .

M. de Jong: In my zeal last day to get into the details of pets and companion

animals, I neglected to do something I always try to do on these bills,

and that’s quickly, in clause 1, canvass with the minister any

procedural aspects that have led to the development of the legislation

and the specific sections and its presentation here.

I don’t have many questions. In the earlier bill we discussed, I

asked about the request-for-legislation process and whether that had

been followed. I’ll ask the same question here: whether the amendments

to the Family Law Act that we’re dealing with are the product of a

request for legislation that was developed and subsequently approved and

submitted to leg. counsel.

I imagine, though I don’t know this, if that happened, it predates

this Attorney General’s arrival on the scene. But I’m more interested in

the process than I am in the individuals involved.

Hon. N. Sharma: The answer to that question is yes. We had an RFL process, as you

described, and we also had consultation after that. It predates my

time.

M. de Jong: Is the procedure as it once was? In the case of legislation,

Attorney General’s legislation, does it involve, with respect to the

RFL, the Attorney General of the day signing off on that document prior

to it being advanced?

Hon. N. Sharma: Yes.

[2:35 p.m.]

M. de Jong: A couple of questions on legislation of the sort, the general

issue here being the division of property, including, as we began to

discuss last day, property in a companion animal.

The minister used a word a moment ago — consultation. What type of

consultation was conducted with whom? Did that happen prior to the

finalization of the RFL or subsequent to the signing off of the

RFL?

Hon. N. Sharma: We had a very extensive consultation process that began prior to

the RFL. That involved a technical discussion paper for family law

practitioners, as well as a plain-language backgrounder summarizing

issues for the general public. That involved a plain-language survey

that the public was invited to fill out online.

We received 92 responses to the online survey and 16 individual

submissions from individuals or organizations that were obviously more

established institutions, places like Legal Aid B.C. and the Law Society

of B.C.

After that, we drafted the RFL. Then after the RFL, we had an

advisory group of experts who assisted in the development and drafting

after the RFL up to today.

M. de Jong: Thanks, that’s helpful.

The advisory group, I take it, would have been involved in some of

the more specific language. I’m not going to use the word “drafting,”

because leg. counsel would ultimately have responsibility for the

drafting. But I take it that the advisory group really devoted itself to

the nuts and bolts of what is before us.

So two questions. I don’t want the minister to read off a phone

book here, but if it’s a manageable-sized group, is she able to advise

who was on the advisory group? I’ll start there, and then I’ll come back

to the next question.

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: Just to clarify the first part of it, the group did actually

participate in development and drafting of the amendments. I’m going to

take the answer for whether or not we can list the names of the

individuals that were on there on notice, because I want to clarify that

we have their permission, under the agreements we have, before I list

them. It’s just to say they were practising lawyers and organizations

like Rise Women’s Legal Centre, the B.C. Society of Transition Houses

and CBABC representatives. Others were private lawyers, though, and I

can confirm that.

I also want to just add that one of the things that I wanted to

mention about our consultation was our Indigenous engagement. Public

consultation materials were sent to all individual First Nations, the

B.C. First Nations Leadership Council, the First Nations Justice Council

and the Métis Nation as well as other Indigenous organizations, such as

the Native Courtworker and Counselling Association of B.C., as well as

Indigenous family law lawyers.

M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, the Attorney has anticipated my next area of interest.

Let’s come back to the First Nations–Aboriginal component to this. I

think we’re still all learning about how, in the development of laws of

general application, that consultative process is evolving and how it’s

functioning.

Back to the working group, I understand that the Attorney is

trying to ascertain whether names can be released, and I’m interested in

that. I’m probably more interested in the agencies they represented. The

minister has mentioned the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. section, and,

presumably, the family law practitioners, but maybe she could indicate,

on the record here now, which organizations were part of the working

group.

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: Just to provide some further clarity on our consultation

processes, I’m learning it was very extensive.

The groups that I just read out and I’ll read again…. Rise Women’s

Legal Centre, B.C. Society of Transition Houses, West Coast LEAF, CBABC

as well as the First Nations organizations I read out before were all

consulted.

There was a different advisory group for

part 5 than

part 6.

With property division, it was

part 5. With

part 6, there was the

consultation conducted by the British Columbia Law Institute.

We had a group of advisory committee members just on the pension.

I do have the list of people, which, I’m told, is actually also public,

on the pension division report. That’s online. If you would like, I

could read those names right now: Colin Galinski; Stephen Cheng;

Stephanie Griffith; Gail Johnson; Margaret H. Mason, KC; Jacqueline

McQueen, KC; Cynthia Callahan-Maureen; Pierre-Luc Chénier; Darryl Hrenyk

— he’s right here; Hon. Peter Leask, KC; Beatrice McCutcheon; and

Michael Peters.

M. de Jong: I take it the list of names that the Attorney has just read out,

for the committee’s benefit, is related to the working group on the

part

6 amendments. The Attorney is indicating that that’s the

case.

It sounds like, from our brief exchange here, that two things

happened. I mean this as a question. I just want to make sure I’m

understanding this correctly.

There was a working group for the

part 5 property division

amendments and a working group for the

part 6 pension division

amendments. Then, in addition to that, there were some separate

consultations that took place. The minister has mentioned First Nations

organizations.

Do I have the construct correct, if I’m thinking in those

terms?

Hon. N. Sharma: Yes.

M. de Jong: I’m going to ask…. I don’t want to leave the impression with the

Attorney that I received a comment or complaint in this particular

instance, because I did not. I have in other instances.

The concern goes like this, from Aboriginal representatives, First

Nations, who say: “Yes, we got notice. Yes, we got an invitation to

comment, but we weren’t involved in the working group. It seemed to be a

separate thing.”

I think the concern — again, not having been expressed in this

particular circumstance but in others — is where a First Nation

representative or an Aboriginal person says: “Yes, we’re getting the

letter, the invitation, but we’re still left with the impression that

the real work is taking place somewhere else, which we’re not directly

involved with.”

I guess, in this case, that would lead to the question: was there

Aboriginal representation on either of the two working groups that the

Attorney has mentioned?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I’ll start by saying the First Nations–​specific engagement

is a separate process that, obviously, we take very

seriously.

That went to all individual First Nations, the B.C. First Nations

Leadership Council, the justice council and the Métis Nation directly

for that. We did invite two Indigenous family lawyers to participate in

the working group, particularly for

part 5.

This is a phased process. So we’ll be updating different parts of

the Family Law Act in different phases. The response was that these

particular phases — the three things that we’re changing here with

companion animals, property division and pensions — were not a priority

for their participation. So they declined to participate in the actual

advisory group. We suspect that for other phases of this act, that

answer might change.

M. de Jong: Sorry, I was unclear on who “they” is.

Hon. N. Sharma: That was the specific Indigenous family law lawyers that were

invited to participate on the advisory group.

M. de Jong: Sorry, I may be asking these questions clumsily.

The Attorney has referred to two members, Aboriginal lawyers from

the family bar, who were invited to participate on one or both of the

working groups that she has identified for the committee.

Is it the Attorney’s information from the committee that, in both

instances, they declined to participate?

Hon. N. Sharma: It’s correct. It was two Indigenous family law lawyers that I was

referring to.

They are participating in the phase 2 component, at that level, in

the working group but had indicated, with the three particular

amendments in this phase 1 related to companion animals, property and

pensions…. They weren’t priority items for them to

participate.

M. de Jong: They were invited in their personal capacity, as opposed to as a

representative of any particular group.

Hon. N. Sharma: Yes, they were participating in their own capacity. I think that

was your question.

[2:55 p.m.]

M. de Jong: Then with respect to the other consultative efforts that were made

vis-à-vis Aboriginal organizations, First Nations, Indigenous

organizations, in this case…. How does that work practically? At what

point…?

The Attorney has mentioned…. For example, all First Nations were

notified. The Métis Nation of B.C. was notified. The First Nations

Leadership Council was notified. So what does that mean? Were they

provided with…? Well, I guess I should ask: what would they have been

provided with to comment upon and in what form?

We’re talking about awfully technical areas of the law that, to an

average person, would be difficult to convey. One can make it more

understandable by making it more general, but then you kind of lose the

point about what the significance of the proposed changes

are.

What is sent out and when in the exercise?

Hon. N. Sharma: Okay. Here is kind of a list of more details of the process. This

would have been prior to the RFL.

All First Nations did receive all consultation materials. That

meant the technical materials I talked about earlier, the plain-language

documents, including the backgrounders, and the survey that was

available to the public. That is the list of all the materials that were

provided to all First Nations.

[3:00 p.m.]

M. de Jong: So fair to say that the documentation that would have been

available to the general public prior to the finalization of the RFL

would have been sent either electronically — probably electronically,

these days — to the First Nations, to the Métis Nation B.C., to the

leadership Council. They would have received directly the public package

that was otherwise available. Is that correct?

Hon. N. Sharma: Yes.

M. de Jong: At some point, the government decides…. On the strength of

whatever it hears from the various peo­ple and through that

period, it decides to finalize an RFL. The Attorney of the day signs off

on it. Does that trigger any additional engagement with the First Nation

groups that the Attorney has mentioned and that I’ve

repeated?

All to say, at a certain point, we, by necessity, move from a more

general expression of intent, plain language…. Government is looking at

property division aspects of the Family Law Act and is considering

amendments to that act. Eventually, that evolves into something more

specific — instructions contained in the RFL. Does that trigger, then, a

second round of engagement with the Indigenous organizations and First

Nations?

Hon. N. Sharma: Because of the phased nature of the amendments that we’re

approaching the Family Law Act in — and this is just phase 1 — I think

you can view it as kind of an ongoing engagement. So it’s hard to draw a

line.

I’ll just give you an example of how that’s showing up,

particularly for First Nations. When we did our first round of

consultation — I mentioned that we sent those materials out — one First

Nation identified that they would like us to look at the cultural

significance of property upon division as a factor. Because that

triggered a new aspect that could be particular to First Nations, we

then sent out engagement letters back to all First Nations to ask them

what they thought about provisions that would relate to the cultural

significance of property on division, just to say that it’s an ongoing

engagement process.

[3:05 p.m.]

Plus, we have interest in the second phase of some of the aspects

that are coming up, like…. I think it’s child custody and other aspects

of the Family Law Act. We’re constantly communicating with different

things with relation to this, and we did offer to all First Nations a

copy of the draft bill.

M. de Jong: All right. Well, that’s helpful, because the notion of cultural

elements to property division in communities or cultures that are, in

some cases, matriarchal versus patriarchal…. I don’t purport to be

anything close to an expert on what the legal significance of that could

be in the context of property division, except I’m alive to the possible

relevance or significance.

The reason I wanted to explore this, as I said at the outset, was

that I think we’re all still trying to secure a better understanding of

what the operationalization of UNDRIP really entails in terms of the

development and passage of legislation in this chamber, particularly, I

think, when it’s legislation that we can all see as having to understand

has a direct impact or a specific impact on Aboriginal people,

Indigenous people and First Nations.

The broader question relates to laws of general application that

may have a unique type of impact. The challenge for any group is: they

get a general invitation to provide feedback on the general issue. Then,

over time, through the processes that exist within government that the

Attorney has described, things get refined to the point where we get an

RFL, and then we get draft legislation.

I was interested in the last thing the Attorney said, which is

that at a certain point, all First Nations in B.C., Métis Nation B.C.,

the First Nations Leadership Council were offered a draft copy of the

legislation prior to its introduction in the House.

That’s interesting, because that’s about as specific a disclosure

as one could make about pending legislation, which is to show the draft

bill. When did that happen, in this context? Is that kind of standard

operating procedure now for legislation that comes before the

House?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: The process that we undertake when it comes to legislative

drafting and the work that we do on the legislation with First Nations

is to engage early, regularly and often. That’s the ideal process. What

I can say is that through that process, some First Nations are going to

be interested in engaging with us in the process for that particular

matter, and some aren’t. It’s just that there’s diversity across the

province.

For example, for this one, the Tsawwassen First Nation has

existing confidentiality agreements we work through together. We did

disclose the draft legislation to them, and they reviewed it. Other

First Nations didn’t take us up on that offer. So it’s really a

different experience depending on the importance of the issue to that

nation. I suspect with this phase 2, it will also be different in terms

of what comes from that.

M. de Jong: Well, two things that flow…. I think it imminently logical and

sensible that, depending on the issue, different First Nations and

Aboriginal groups will have a different level of interest, a different

ability to devote themselves, depending on their capacity and what’s

going on in their community.

The reason I pursued this: I thought I heard the Attorney say a

few moments ago that in this instance, draft copies of the bill had been

forwarded to all First Nations. What I think she just said is that in

this case, actually, she mentioned one First Nation, the Tsawwassen.

Again, I’m just trying to get an idea of that. Which was it? Was it a

smaller group? Or did a draft copy of the bill go to

everyone?

Hon. N. Sharma: Thanks for allowing me to clarify this. What I said was the draft

was offered. What that means is that different…. There was an offer for

them to engage in the process, up to viewing a draft and working with us

on it. Only some had taken us up on it. I gave the example of

Tsawwassen. Hopefully, that clarifies it.

M. de Jong: Something else the Attorney mentioned was that it was easier to

advance that work with the Tsawwassen First Nation because of existing

confidentiality agreements. Is that a prerequisite to sharing a draft

bill with a First Nation or Indigenous organization — the conclusion of

a confidentiality agreement?

Hon. N. Sharma: Yes.

M. de Jong: What does that allow? More being curious about this in other

contexts, not just the Aboriginal context. I’ll ask the question,

recognizing that there are some other phases to this project coming up

that may be of more interest to people than the two or three areas that

we’re dealing with here today in this legislation.

When a First Nation signs a confidentiality agreement, presumably

they are interested in examining the contents of a draft law that is

slated for consideration here. They’re probably also interested in

getting some feedback from their community and people within their

community. How do they do that? Are they able to share the contents of

the draft bill with members of the community? Or are they restricted by

what they can discuss?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: Of course, it depends on the contents of the confidentiality

agreement. Many confidentiality agreements that we have with First

Nations allow for the type of community disclosure that the member asked

about.

M. de Jong: In a situation where the draft bill is sent out, would that occur

after the bill has been reviewed by the government legislative review

committee and has been finalized for introduction?

Hon. N. Sharma: Just by example…. I think it helps to illustrate it. If you, under

a confidentiality agreement, provide the draft legislation to the other

side, the way that they’re generally constructed — it depends on each

scenario, I guess — the people that have signed the confidentiality

agreement can read the draft legislation in its whole. Then they can

talk about the issues with their community, which they may have to

consult on.

I’ll just give you an example. We talked about the cultural

property. This is an example where a First Nation has identified an

issue that they would like to discuss further. They’ve asked for us to

give them time to take that issue back to their community and talk about

it. How does it show up in their families, especially when families

break down, to give us advice on it?

It’s really kind of a back-and-forth with the communities, but the

issues are what we want to hear from when it comes to communities — how

they show up and what they think needs to be implemented into the

legislation.

M. de Jong: I realize that this is getting a little bit myopic in terms of the

procedure, but it’s a good chance — on a piece of legislation where, I

think, it doesn’t sound like it provoked a lot of controversial feedback

— a good context within which to better understand how this

works.

I asked about LRC because — it may be different now — there was a

time when for the legislative review committee, after the request for

legislation had gone to legislative counsel and the drafting work had

been done, the draft bill would come back to the minister — in this

case, the Attorney General. It would then undertake a final review

through the legislative review counsel.

My question was whether…. I’ll use the term “First Nations,” but I

mean that broader group of Indigenous groups that may have interest. If

a First Nation indicates they have interest in seeing the draft

legislation before it’s tabled in the House, would they see the draft

legislation after it has been reviewed by leg. review

counsel?

Hon. N. Sharma: It would be before that.

M. de Jong: It is not unheard of that upon closer re­view…. I imagine

the government has a legislative review committee that comprises other

ministers and private members within the government. I don’t know who’s

on it. It’s conceivable, and it has certainly been my experience, that

the reason for that body to exist is to contemplate changes or to

examine and determine whether there are any provisions of the bill that

do not enjoy the support of that group or that need to be changed. If

that happens, does that provoke a need…?

[3:20 p.m.]

If a change occurs through the legislative review committee

process, does that trigger, in the government’s mind, an obligation to

alert an interested and involved First Nation and resubmit what would

then be an amended piece of legislation?

Hon. N. Sharma: I’m speaking very hypothetically here because it didn’t happen in

this scenario. I don’t know of an example of when this

happened.

Let’s say that the LRC did make a substantive change to a piece of

legislation that we deemed substantive enough. Then, I guess, the proper

process would be to seek permission from that cabinet committee to go

back to those groups and talk about it, and potentially another LRC

meeting. You might have to delay the process until you’ve talked with

them.

But this is all hypothetical, and it definitely did not happen in

this case.

M. de Jong: Again, I’m just trying to ascertain how these evolving

consultative processes now work.

Is it a question of permission from the LRC? It strikes me that

the mandate for the LRC is to sign off for the government on whether or

not the legislation accomplishes the stated purpose and to check the

drafting. If the LRC determines that’s not the case, I guess that’s

their mandate. If it triggers a substantive change, as the Attorney has

pointed out, whether or not that triggers additional consultation with

interested First Nations is, I guess, for the minister and the

government to determine. I’m curious to know. It sounds like that’s her

view: that it would. But I’m curious to know that.

Hon. N. Sharma: I feel that we’re straying a little bit from the clause and the

legislation. But I will say that there is a process for if the LRC does

make changes for it to come back to the LRC again. I’ll leave it at

that.

M. de Jong: Sorry. I should try to be clear on what my very limited interest

in this is. I understand the role — I think I do — of LRC and the fact

that a bill can sometimes make multiple trips to LRC to presumably try

to improve the product to a point where the government is comfortable

introducing it.

My only interest in this is…. We’ve had a bit of a conversation

about the level of engagement and the proces­ses followed with

First Nations and Indigenous peoples. All I’m trying to ascertain is….

There is this body, really close to when a bill is being tabled — at

least, that was my experience — that can say, “No. We want changes,” or:

“We are asking the minister to make changes before we approve it for

tabling.”

If that happens…. My experience is that if it’s a substantive

change, it usually relates to one or two sections, or clauses as we now

refer to them. There are often typographical mistakes that I would not

characterize as substantive.

[3:25 p.m.]

But if the LRC says, “No. We think there’s a substantive provision

that we need a significant change to,” and it changes the impact of that

particular

section of the bill, or the bill in its entirety, does that

provoke an additional round of consultation with First

Nations?

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Hon. N. Sharma: The question posed by the member is so hypothetical that without a

specific example, it’s hard to answer. It would depend on how

substantive the provision was, whether or not the previous discussions

with First Nations led the decision-makers to believe that it was

substantive in terms of their opinion. Then there is a process for

things to go back to LRC if needed.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

M. de Jong: We had a bit of a conversation about this last day, and I don’t

know that we have to have much longer of a conversation except to,

perhaps, confirm the relevance of whether or not an animal is a

companion animal or an animal that is kept as part of a business or kept

for agricultural purposes.

The example I gave was the herder dog, which, in many cases, plays

a role both as a family pet and as a working part of a farm. As I

recall, the Attorney made the valid point that if it were asked to rule,

it would be for the adjudicator to make that determination based on the

evidence.

I think I agree with that, but the significance is this: if the

determination is that it is a companion animal, as I understand it, the

option still exists for the parties themselves to come to an agreement

where they would share the pet. If the determination is that it is an

animal that is a part of a business or kept for agricultural purposes,

it is property and the court can make an order but not an order to share

custody, an order that it goes to one party or the other.

So there is significance in terms of that determination. Have I

summarized the way the amendments are intended to function, or the

results of the impact of the amendments?

Hon. N. Sharma: I guess the one thing I would add off the top is that even if it

is an agricultural animal or a companion animal, of course, it’s up to

the parties. Prior to that, they can come to an agreement on how to

determine where, let’s say, that herder dog — to use the example the

member provided — goes.

[3:30 p.m.]

Then I think the member described it correctly. If it was before a

decision-maker as to whether it was a companion animal or not and if it

is determined that it’s a companion animal, then of course it’s the

decision-making power, laid out in the amendments, that the judge would

use as guidance. If it’s not, it becomes property for agricultural

purposes and divided like property, as in normal cases.

M. de Jong: When we get to, I think, clause 7 of the bill, we get into the

considerations as to what a court will take into account with respect to

a companion animal. By the way, I did not mean to ignore subsection (

a) of the section, which also refers to guide dogs. I think there’s

obviously a logical reason why a guide dog would be attached to,

presumably, a specific member of the family.

I think the last question I have on this section, then, is if an

animal is not a companion animal…. Let’s assume it’s not a guide dog but

it is one of the other two types of animals contemplated and part of a

business or kept for agricultural purposes. The Attorney has just

mentioned that if the matter comes before an adjudicator, it’s dealt

with as other property and different than a companion animal. In that

case, what goes into the consideration or the determination by an

adjudicator as to who gets that either business animal or agricultural

animal?

Hon. N. Sharma: We start with once it becomes a family asset, so property that’s

not excluded under family law, it’s presumed 50-50 division under

section 95 of the Family Law Act. It sets out the factors that, in this

case, a Supreme Court judge would determine the companion animals. Of

course, we’ve allowed Provincial Court to hear those.

That includes things from the duration of the relationship between

the spouses, any other agreement or the contribution to that potential

asset. There’s a catch-all of any other factors the court might consider

in terms of dividing that property.

M. de Jong: In the case, though, of an agricultural animal in circumstances

where one of the parties at dissolution of the relationship is remaining

on the agricultural property, presumably, that would be a relevant

consideration.

[3:35 p.m.]

If one of the parties is remaining on the farm, so to speak, that

the animal has been accustomed to living on, that would be a

consideration for determining which party retains ownership of the

agricultural animal.

Hon. N. Sharma: I guess, presumably, but it would depend on the facts in that

case. For example, the other party might allege different attachment to

the property, and it’s within the factors that are laid out in

section

95, like I mentioned.

Also, you might have a scenario where there’s a division of the

value of those agricultural lands and/or the assets that are included,

like the animals. So even though the person staying on the agricultural

land retains the property, stays there, the division of the value might

go 50…. Fifty percent of that might go to the…. I guess I would just say

it depends on the facts of the case.

M. de Jong: Yes, that undoubtedly is the case. I think, practically, this

doesn’t arise when we are talking about the herd or the flock, which

sort of by definition has a commercial component to it. It gets valued,

and orders are made or agreements are made on that basis.

My particular interest, having introduced the concept of the

companion animal, is when it is…. The better example, in many parts of

British Columbia, is the two or three horses that maybe provide some

agricultural function but also there may be a family attachment. Again,

the determination of whether they’re property or a companion animal

becomes very important.

I don’t know that we’re going to resolve this conclusively in this

discussion except perhaps to go back to somewhere I think the Attorney

went on the first day, which is to advise parties of the wisdom of

trying to negotiate a settlement as opposed to relying upon an

adjudicator whose ruling might not satisfy either.

I think, subject to any comments the Attorney has, that might be

it on clause 2.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

M. de Jong: Sandwiched in between commentary and statutory provisions dealing

with companion animals is this delightful clause that deals with some

concepts that can be a little bit confusing for the average person and

even for those who are supposed to be trained in the operation of the

law. Clauses 3 and 4 talk about the presumption of advancement, the

presumption of resulting trust and all in the context of excluded

property.

Why don’t we start by…? In the briefing that we had, I alerted the

Attorney’s office that the best way I can think of to have this

conversation is that when I invite the Attorney, as I will in a moment,

to describe for the committee what the old common law presumption of

advancement is, the presumption of resulting trust, is to present it in

the context of the kind of example that arises from time to time and, in

fact, arises, I’m told, frequently enough that it has generated some

confusing jurisprudence that has given rise to the need for these

provisions.

Let’s see if we can come up with an example that allows us to talk

about this in a way that makes some sense.

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I just want to thank the member for allowing us to talk about

these changes in detail.

I’ll start by saying that the team, when they went and consulted

with experts in this area…. Really the conclusion was that this is one

of the most controversial and most litigated aspects of property

division in our courts. The goal of this

section is to bring clarity to

the law in two main ways. I’m going to start by just reading, for the

interests of people, what the two presumptions mean and then give

examples, as the member requested.

The presumption of advancement is a common-law principle. It

stands for a proposition that if a husband transfers property to his

wife during the relationship, the transfer is considered a gift, unless

there’s sufficient contradictory evidence. So when a presumption of

advancement is applied and a transfer is treated a gift, it changes the

character of the property to family property. And on that basis, it

becomes a family asset in division of the Family Law Act.

I’ll just give an example of how this would show up. For example,

a spouse receives an inheritance from somebody in their family and puts

it into a joint bank account — so without thinking about it, puts it

into a joint bank account and doesn’t think that that becomes the

property of the family instead of excluded property, as it’s an

inheritance from their family. What the proposed changes in clause 3

would do is make sure that it’s very clearly still excluded property

despite the scenario of putting it in a joint bank account.

Then just to talk a little bit about the other — that’s subsection

(2) in the amendment — presumption of a resulting trust. It kind of

stands for the opposite of presumption of advancement. The transfer

creates a trust-like relationship, such as that the beneficial owner of

the property remains with the transfer. It’s another common-law

principle that’s in the law, and I think it’s good if I can give an

example of that.

This would be an example where a spouse owns property prior to the

relationship, gets married but, for what­ever reason during the

relationship, adds the other spouse’s name to the title of the

property.

[3:45 p.m.]

What this change will make clearer is that that property would

stay excluded property, even though there’s a transfer of title. It also

makes it clear that, despite that change, the court can decide, through

the regular provisions of the Family Law Act, that there may be

significant unfairness in not dividing that excluded property. So if

there’s a reason for unfairness, it still could be divided. But it makes

it clear that those presumptions don’t apply.

M. de Jong: Let’s start with the second example first. Let’s take the case of

a couple that get married. Let’s say they’re in their mid-40s, only

because I want to suggest an example where one of the spouses has had

sufficient time to acquire some asset, a piece of property. They get

married. We’ll use the example where the husband comes into the marriage

with this pre-existing piece of property. Two years into the marriage he

decides to place his now wife on title for that property.

In that case, the presumptions, I take it, operate for the purpose

of division in a certain way that would see that property divided as a

family asset. The presumption would operate for that to happen. This is

designed to make it clear to a court that they must look at other

factors. The two common-law presumptions no longer apply, so it doesn’t

automatically follow that that piece of property becomes a family asset

to the benefit of the wife, in that case, for division. Have I

summarized that example correctly?

Hon. N. Sharma: Yes, to the member’s statement, except for one, I think, important

clarification, which is that despite the presumptions having been

removed from consideration, it would remain excluded

property.

The act gives the decision-maker the ability to otherwise divide

excluded property for fairness reasons.

M. de Jong: Right, and that is an important distinction. Let’s follow through

on the example, and I’ll add a few details to it that I think occur,

sometimes with a measure of regularity.

I’m going to use husband-wife for the purpose of my example. I’m

also going to use an example that is a bit stereotypical of perhaps

another age. These things, happily, may be changing. But here’s the

example. A man and woman get married and become husband and wife. The

husband has a pre-existing piece of property that becomes the

matrimonial home and subsequently places the wife on title.

[3:50 p.m.]

These presumptions could operate in a certain way to ensure that

remains excluded property at the time of division, except the Attorney

has pointed out, and we don’t want to leave the impression that we’re

passing something here where 25 years down the road, that woman is now

out of luck, because there are other provisions of the Family Law

Act.

In fact, other provisions, amendments to those provisions

contained in this act, ensure in that case, even though the piece of

property that became the matrimonial home was owned by the husband for

some period of time prior to the marriage, the couple comes together.

They live there for an extended period of time, maybe raise their kids

there. The wife, by virtue of other provisions of the act that would be

adjudicated if necessary, does not leave that relationship without any

entitlement whatsoever to share in that excluded asset.

Having the Attorney confirm that and, perhaps, add some colour to

my example would be, I think, important.

Hon. N. Sharma: Just for clarity, with the passing of this, there’d be no

presumption that applies to any of the factors. But, as the member

mentioned, yes, there’s the idea that if there’s significant unfairness,

a judge could make an order to divide excluded property.

I’ll just give some examples based on what the member raised. For

example, let’s say the marriage that was mentioned previously was ten

years in duration, and the spouse — in this case, the wife, in your

scenario — had made contributions to the maintenance and preservation of

the house or significant contributions. That may be a factor that the

judge considers in dividing the excluded property or making an order to

that.

Another example would be if there is an agreement. Or, let’s say,

in that long relationship, there really aren’t any other assets to

divide, right? Then, in that circumstance, a judge may determine that

for reasons of fairness, the excluded property needs to be subject to

some form of division between the spouses.

M. de Jong: An important point that the Attorney has made. We might expand on

it in the subsequent section. The determination around possible division

is not based exclusively on contribution to the maintenance of this

asset. It can take into account other factors, like the overall

financial circumstances confronting the couple. Is that

correct?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: Yes. One thing to add is that in the scenario that you provided

about a property that becomes a matrimonial property, for clarity’s

sake, the increase in value of that property over the span of that

relationship is subject to division as a family asset. It would be the

value up to coming in. That’s one more factor.

M. de Jong: Is there a part of the ongoing evolution of the law around

property division, the old trilogy cases and the courts developing the

notion of the resulting trust to take into account? As I recall,

historically, the injustice, generally, of the woman who came into the

relationship, provided her, over many years, support for the family and

contribution to the well-being of the family, only to discover, at age

70, that she wasn’t entitled to share any of the accumulated assets that

might be available because the main asset, the property, was brought in

by her partner.

The Attorney referred to the litigation and the confusion that has

existed around this. It might be…. In commending these provisions to the

committee and, ultimately, the House, it is, I think, important that we

have some appreciation for the nature of that confusion. I shouldn’t

call it judicial confusion. Different courts have interpreted provisions

differently, which has made it very challenging to provide advice to

people at times of dissolution.

What can the Attorney…? What would she say to the committee about

how this provides a level of certainty that improves upon the

uncertainty that presently exists?

Hon. N. Sharma: I’ll start by saying that in our extensive consultation, this was

the number one issue that all the groups had said required

clarity.

My team did a very careful and purposeful analysis of the case law

when it comes to the division of this type of property and the

application of presumptions. Based on an overview of that analysis, what

they found was that there was a huge level of inconsistencies. Some

courts were applying the presumption. Some weren’t. Some were avoiding

the common-law principles entirely and looking at a factual analysis of

the intention of the parties, which is a huge undertaking when it’s a

long relationship. That would result in very long, lengthy

decisions.

[4:00 p.m.]

With respect to, as the member quite rightly talked about, the

purpose of these common-law presumptions and where they came from, it

was also something…. We had support from Rise legal clinic, which deals

with women, in particular, when it comes to family law and breakdowns,

and the B.C. Society of Transition Houses. They also agreed that this

type of law could use clarity, also, to protect women that are going

through this process.

We’re really hopeful that with these amendments…. It will draw a

line around what’s excluded property, what the reasons are for a

division of that property and what’s family property.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

M. de Jong: I think clause 4 is somewhat of a…. It’s not just a restatement.

It is intended to add something.

This notion…. If a property is excluded property and not a family

asset, it doesn’t become a family asset because one spouse has

transferred some kind of an interest to the spouse. That seems

consistent with the discussion that we’ve just had.

Why is it necessary, in addition to the provisions of what will be

the amended 81.1(1) and (2)? What does that add? Why is that provision,

which is in clause 4, essential to complete the circle on

this?

Hon. N. Sharma: This was in direct response to the case law analysis that my team

did when it came to where this was showing up. Really, it’s a certainty

clause. It’s to help make sure that there’s no doubt, when it comes to

excluded property, that that category is part of it.

M. de Jong: The analysis, then, that a court would undertake is, firstly, to

determine whether an asset was excluded property. Then if one of the

parties alleged, “Yes, but a gift was made, a transfer was made, of a

beneficial interest or a legal interest,” the court would say: “Well,

that may be well and good, but that does not convert the excluded

property, in and of itself, into a family asset.” Is that the intended

effect of this?

Hon. N. Sharma: Yes.

M. de Jong: Then to follow that further, if the party alleging an interest in

that excluded property…. They do what, at that point, as part of that

litigation?

Hon. N. Sharma: Then it would be up to the party to make the arguments, if there

are any, about why that property, with the character of it being

excluded property, needs to be divided, for reasons of

unfairness.

M. de Jong: They would do that taking into a account, amongst other things,

the provisions that we are going to come to in clause 6 of this

bill.

Hon. N. Sharma: That’s correct. They would take into account the clauses, which I

think we’ll talk about, under clause 6.

[4:05 p.m.]

M. de Jong: The competing jurisprudence around this, at least in the time I

had to do some legal research, seems not to have been decisively ruled

upon by the Supreme Court of Canada, which doesn’t often — well, it

does, actually, occasionally — get into property division matters in a

family and matrimonial case. But the competing jurisprudence on this

seems to have existed within B.C. within the context of our family asset

and property division laws.

We’re not worried about, or are we, how this fits into the context

of a recent Supreme Court of Canada pronouncement on these

provisions.

Hon. N. Sharma: Just to start by saying that I think the member is correct. There

hasn’t been a Supreme Court of Canada decision on this. This is

definitely squarely a B.C. issue. Other provinces have adjusted their

property division legislation to do similar things to these

presumptions. This brings clarity to the law in B.C. when it comes to

this.

Clause 4 approved.

On clause 5.

M. de Jong: We’re back to Fluffy and the family pet, the companion

animal.

I was curious. I’m going to anticipate that the answer the

Attorney is going to give us is the desire to make clear or restate. I

was interested to see, with respect to agreements that parties can come

to, that it was felt necessary to include these provisions, but I take

it that is the case. There’s nothing now preventing parties from

entering into an agreement to decide who gets the family pet. Is that

correct?

Hon. N. Sharma: That’s correct.

M. de Jong: The rationale for being explicit…. I can think of all kinds of

unique forms of property.

Has there been a bunch of litigation about this that has prompted

the inclusion of these provisions?

Hon. N. Sharma: I’ll start by saying anecdotally…. Certainly, the experts we

brought into this process have noted that there has been an increase in,

I guess, pet custody disputes. What’s happening is taking up court

time.

The goals of the overall clarity and amendments to this

legislation are, first, to encourage out-of-court settlement when it

comes to these matters so we can reduce the amount of court time spent

on adjudicating these matters — hence the amendments to the

section that

you see before you — and then, also, to provide a process for people if

they can’t come to that agreement at the Provincial Court.

[4:10 p.m.]

M. de Jong: Of course, the existing

section 92 makes a provision for the

parties to come to agreements around the division of properties and

debt. This will add some subsections that relate specifically to a

companion animal. Some of this is, I guess, fairly straightforward. If

you’re sharing possession of a pet, I guess you’re alternating where the

pet is going to live, assuming the parties are no longer living

together. To jointly own a companion animal, is there something beyond

the actual settlement agreement that confers ownership, or is that

it?

Hon. N. Sharma: Thanks for the question. We can’t think of anything beyond

agreement to the question that would indicate ownership. But I think

it’s instructive to talk about the difference between (

e) and (

f) in

practical terms. I think that the member is really good about bringing

up practical examples for people.

Jointly own would be that they both maintain ownership of that

pet. Fluffy, for example, is still owned by both parties. The agreement

is based on that. Shared possession, on the other hand, would be a

scenario where one party might be the owner but possession is shared so

that the time with that animal is shared through that

agreement.

M. de Jong: My colleague from Prince George has reminded me of where there

might be a relevance beyond, just on the surface, the difference between

joint ownership, shared possession and exclusive ownership.

The law is now going to contemplate something called a companion

animal. It is going to contemplate the principle of ownership or joint

ownership of that companion animal. Let’s say Fluffy is an unpredictable

pit bull who decides to take a chomp out of someone walking by the

house. Does joint ownership in this context imply joint liability for

the behaviour of that companion animal?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I’ll start by saying that the changes to this or the additions to

this

section don’t change the law or things that were already happening

when it comes to the agreements.

In answer to the member’s questions, potentially there’s a joint

liability scenario, but it’s a matter of tort law and what could be

ascertained from the facts of each case. For example, if it’s a shared

possession scenario, but the ownership wasn’t somebody else, but the

person that had the shared possession was walking the dog when the

incident happened, there may be a form of liability on that person for

failing to take certain acts to prevent the harm. So it’s really a

fact…. That would be a fact-driven analysis, but yes,

potentially.

M. de Jong: I think the Attorney has described accurately the considerations.

But fair to say to someone who, as part of a settlement/separation

agreement, enshrines the principle of joint ownership of a companion

animal, they may be importing the notion of joint liability as well,

depending on the circumstances.

Hon. N. Sharma: I would answer that by saying potentially and ask the person to

seek legal advice before signing the agreement.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

M. de Jong: I’ll ask the general question first. This is intended, I think, to

expand the range of considerations that a court can bring to determining

a division of excluded property. How is this different? How will this be

different from the state of the law and what the court can take into

consideration today?

Hon. N. Sharma: We were having a discussion earlier about the reasons for the

presumptions in the case law and that oftentimes they were used in

scenarios where courts were trying to bring fairness to asset division

in situations where there were not.

So the intention of both sides of it is to remove the presumptions

and on this side of it, under this section, to enshrine and enhance the

protections when it comes to unfairness. The subsections (ii) and (iii)

that you see in these amendments are really getting exactly at that. The

Supreme Court can make a determination respecting significant unfairness

and address the division of that excluded property to address

that.

[4:20 p.m.]

M. de Jong: In what will become the new

section 96 in the act as amended,

let’s deal with sub (

a) and sub (b), which exist in the current

provisions — division of excluded property. What has changed with

respect to sub (

a) and sub (b)?

I recognize that in the amendment, sub 96(b)(ii) and (iii)

represent new additions. But substantively, the considerations that the

court can take into account today in sub (

a) and sub (b) — how, if at

all, have they changed?

Hon. N. Sharma: From the perspective of just reading it, it looks like the whole

section 96 has been repealed and replaced, but I can go through which

ones have changed, as per the member’s question.

Section 96 (

a) is the same. There would be no changes.

Section (

b) is the same except for the addition of factors. The two new subsections

are subsection (ii) and subsection (iii).

M. de Jong: Let’s deal first with subsection (ii) in sub (

b) and ask the

Attorney to explain the challenge or the problem that has revealed

itself that this seeks to correct.

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: Before I give the comment on the specific section, I want to

situate it within its subclause.

At this point in the analysis, the court has turned their mind to

the factor of “significantly unfair.” So there’s an unfairness aspect,

and they also are asked to consider the duration of the relationship. In

that scenario, subsection (ii) is meant to introduce a factual analysis

of whether or not there was an agreement between the spouses that

actually intended for that property to be divided.

So it stays as excluded property under this section, but it allows

the judge to make an order to divide the property if there is evidence

of an agreement between the parties that there be some kind of a shared

ownership.

M. de Jong: Is the agreement, where the subsection says “the terms of any

agreement between the spouses,” it says, “other than an agreement

described in

section 93 (1),” which I take it is a standard…. Well, it

would be a property division or agreement or a separation agreement that

includes other terms. So we’re talking about an agreement other than a

property division or separation agreement. Is that correct?

Hon. N. Sharma: That’s correct. It’s not the formal, signed separation agreement,

for example, like the member brought up. But it could be other forms of

evidence of agreement.

M. de Jong: Right. Okay, but let’s be a little bit more specific. The court

must then find another agreement. It will do so if there is evidence,

but the court must find that there has been another form of agreement.

The Attorney is saying that could be an oral agreement, or that could be

a written agreement. Can the court imply an agreement from…? Can it be

an implied agreement, or must there be an actual agreement?

Hon. N. Sharma: Again, it starts in this category of…. There’s a level of

significant unfairness. That’s a factor to start with. Then I think the

member is correct that it could be any form of agreement that the court

feels satisfies that idea of agreement. If we were going to go back to

the example we talked about earlier, the inheritance example, where it

was transferred to a joint account….

[4:30 p.m.]

Let’s say there is significant unfairness in that relationship, so

we’re already in the subcategory, and there’s evidence of emails back

and forth saying: “I’m giving this to you. I want to share this.”

There’s proof that there is this kind of agreement back and forth of

that being meant to be a shared asset in the relationship, and it could

take any form.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

M. de Jong: Let’s take another example just to suss out a little bit what the

Attorney believes constitutes an agreement for the purpose of the

court’s consideration. A matrimonial couple…. We’ll stick with the

husband and wife for the purpose of our conversation. But, of course,

other couples are captured by these provisions as well.

One of the parties — let’s make it the wife this time — comes into

the relationship having, sometime before the marriage takes place,

obtained the family’s cabin at the lake. Over the course of the

relationship…. Let’s call it…. Not sure what a moderately lengthy

relationship today is. But let’s say between five and ten

years.

On several occasions during gatherings there, the wife repeats

something to the effect of: “This is our special spot, and it will

always belong to the two of us.”

Is that an agreement?

Hon. N. Sharma: I’m really reluctant to give an answer either way on that

scenario. I will say that it’s up to a competent…. We have many

competent decision-makers in B.C. that would look at the factual basis

of all of the scenario involved and the couple described and would make

a determination based on that.

M. de Jong: Maybe the fairer question is: could that be an agreement? If it

could be, then it is intended to have a new-found relevance by virtue

of…. If it is found to be an agreement, it has a new-found relevance,

pursuant to the provisions of sub (2).

Hon. N. Sharma: So the exact words of the terms of any agreement between…. That

section there is taken from

section 95. Based on that idea, there would

be a rich amount of case law when it comes to the different factors that

would set out what constitutes an agreement.

I would say, based on that scenario, somebody should do legal

research to see what are examples of how agreements are showing up and

if that would constitute a good case for an agreement based on

that.

M. de Jong: But fair to say that all of that jurisprudence and how that

assists in determining whether or not an agreement exists takes on a new

relevance as it relates to determinations around excluded property

because of this amendment. Is that a fair comment?

Hon. N. Sharma: I think that’s a fair comment.

[4:35 p.m.]

M. de Jong: Then finally on this section, down to sub (3) where we have an

example of where a court has determined that there is significant

unfairness and has made that determination. An example of how the court

can now use this provision to cure that unfairness.

Hon. N. Sharma: This will help to provide clarity and relief in very particular

situations and pretty broad situations. For example, if there are not

enough family assets to divide, so it becomes unfair to one or both of

the parties, a court could make an order to divide part or all of the

excluded property amongst the spouses.

This is a new addition to the law here that’s profound, in terms

of its addition to the whole ability for the court to make things

fairer. We believe, I think, that one of the reasons presumptions were

coming up in case law was because of the need for tools to do this

within the family law, especially in the instance where there were no

family assets.

M. de Jong: Maybe the easiest way for the Attorney to illustrate the inequity

that this provision is intended to cure is for her to describe for the

committee one of those situations where an inequity resulted and how

this provision is intended to prevent that from being

repeated.

The Chair: Member.

Hon. N. Sharma: For example, in a scenario where one spouse….

The Chair: Minister, sorry.

Hon. N. Sharma: That’s okay. I didn’t even catch what you said.

So in an example where one spouse owned a property, brought it

into the relationship…. They weren’t a spouse yet. They got married.

Let’s say they were together for ten years, a significant amount of

time. All of the, let’s say, assets and the property were excluded,

because they were held by one of the spouses before the

marriage.

The other spouse that doesn’t hold that excluded property

contributed significantly to the career of the other spouse, but at the

end of their relationship, there was not what a court would deem

sufficient amount in the family assets to divide in order to remedy the

unfairness of that — I guess, the balance between the value of the

excluded property and the family assets.

[4:40 p.m.]

What this provision would allow a decision-maker to do is to take

a look at those scenarios, and

section 95 lays them out, and make an

order to remedy that unfairness by dividing some of the excluded

property up.

M. de Jong: Our examples thus far have tended to focus on mostly real

property. But are these provisions…? Will they operate in a way that

could include a judicial reference to, for example, a pre-existing

business interest?

Hon. N. Sharma: Yes. I think, although we have been talking just about real

estate, it is a broad intention. So anything that would fit a category

of excluded property.

M. de Jong: In that kind of a scenario, the court, if asked to adjudicate

this, would look at the family assets, look at the overall circumstances

of the relationship and its dissolution, at first make the determination

that simply dividing up what is available as the family assets would

result in unfairness to one of the parties and would then be entitled to

examine these other excluded assets, including a business interest or

other type of asset.

Maybe it’s the last line I’m having trouble with, just properly

understanding in the subsection: “…to which the significant unfairness

cannot be addressed by an unequal division of family property or family

debt, or both.” Having now read it again…. This is where the court seeks

to address the issue of fairness by saying, “I am going to divide the

family assets 25-75,” or something other than 50-50. But even that is

insufficient to address what the court has determined to be an

unfairness or to close that unfairness gap. Is that how that is intended

to be read?

Hon. N. Sharma: Yes.

M. de Jong: I wonder if it might be a good moment to take a short

break.

The Chair: I like the suggestion, Member. We will take a

five-to-ten-minute recess. The sooner we’re back, the sooner we get

to work.

The committee recessed from 4:43 p.m. to 4:52 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: I’d like to call this committee back into session. We are

looking at Bill 17, the Family Law Amendment Act, 2023. When we

finished, we were on clause 6.

Clause 6 approved.

On clause 7.

M. de Jong: Probably the last provision that I will need to…. I thought it was

the last provision that was relevant directly to pets and companion

animals.

There is, in clause 7 — which will amend

section 97 and which

incorporates the notion of the “companion animal,” in what will become

(4.1) — a list of things that the court can take into account. There is

a catch-all at the end of that, sub (h), that refers to “any other

circumstances the court considers relevant.”

Someone who read this — I’m not sure how many people have — a pet

lover, said to me: “Well, what about the pet?” It’s a pretty exhaustive

list, but why didn’t the drafters include some reference? Why didn’t the

drafters include some reference, or direct the judge, to take into

account where she or he thought the pet might be happiest?

I take it that it’s a purposeful decision not to incorporate some

notion of the best interests of the pet, though I’m sure the Attorney

will say a judge under subsection (

h) could probably, if the

circumstances permitted, say: “On balance, I think the pet would be

happier here as opposed to there.”

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: Thanks for the question.

I’ll start by saying that embedded in each of these factors, I

would argue, is a consideration of the best…. For example, (

b) is “the

extent to which each spouse cared for the companion animal.” So there’s

a level of relationship there. The history of family violence or the

risk of family violence or a spouse’s cruelty towards the animal is

about, I would argue, that as well. The relationship of the children to

the pet and meeting the basic needs of the companion animal….

Then, rightly so, I think the member mentioned that the final

subsection allows the court to take other interests into

account.

M. de Jong: My last point on this is…. Again, in a case where, probably in a

more rural setting….

A relationship has come to an end, and the parties are going their

separate ways. One of the parties has decided to move into a more urban

setting, and one of the parties is going to remain on what was the

family farm. There’s probably, all things being equal, a fairly

compelling case that suggests the companion animal, which is used to

wandering the vast and rolling acreages of the family farm, the

dissolution of the relationship notwithstanding, is probably going to

enjoy a continued existence in that setting.

There is nothing in these provisions that I read that suggests a

court couldn’t at least factor that into a determination. Is that

correct?

Hon. N. Sharma: I would say that (

h) would be, obviously, a factor that would be

more fact-driven.

For example, if that was a major fact in a scenario that was

raised by the member, I would imagine the court would consider that. I

would also argue that subsection (

g) provides the court to weigh that a

little bit, in terms of “the basic needs of the companion

animal.”

M. de Jong: For an average person reading the section…. I’m not sure how many

will. Happily, many won’t need to ever in their lives. If they do and

they read what will become (4.2), they will be struck by the fact that

there is an explicit prohibition here on a court declaring joint

ownership or shared possession of a companion animal.

I know, because of the briefing we had, that there is a rationale

for that, but it’s probably an important enough point for the Attorney

to put on the record for the committee.

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: Thanks for asking the question. There are a few reasons why the

section is written like it is. The first reason would be that we’re

trying to drive agreement between the spouses when it comes to that

companion animal. Under the law, companion animals are still considered

property, so the court’s ability on that is to make a final

determination when it comes to division of property, unlike custody or

other matters that can vary over time.

I think there’s also a significant need to not only drive

agreement on one side but also manage court resources and time and

expectations when it comes to what sometimes tends to happen

particularly in acrimonious disputes where if it’s joint and not agreed

to, it could be continually showing up in a courtroom for court

determination.

So the idea is that for all those reasons, we try to drive towards

agreement between the parties when it comes to shared and joint custody,

but if you’re going before the provincial court, it’s an order, as you

see, between the parties.

M. de Jong: I don’t quarrel with the Attorney’s description of the law as it

relates to property and orders as they relate to property. I guess it

bears saying that because the Attorney and the government and this House

ultimately draft the laws, it was an option to create an exception to

that general rule and say that in the case of companion pets, the court

has an option of awarding joint ownership or shared possession. I’m not

disputing the Attorney’s description of the state of the law as it

relates to property, but that option existed.

Is the Attorney satisfied that to enable the court to have that

option would ultimately be a negative thing — that is, authorizing the

court in circumstances where it deemed it appropriate and workable to

award joint ownership of a pet or joint custody of a pet companion

animal? Is that ultimately inadvisable?

Hon. N. Sharma: Yes. So it starts with…. I already mentioned the various reasons

before, but maybe it will be instructive to give an example. For

example, if we’re at a stage where the couple have not been able to come

to agreement themselves, the likelihood of that being acrimonious or

something else being a factor for the relationship is higher.

For example, Rise legal clinic gave examples of women that are

fleeing violence where, maybe, the sole kind of tie is a companion

animal in that relationship. In that scenario, if there was an order for

joint custody, there’s an opportunity for the power and control dynamic

of that relationship in that to show up in courtrooms and for the

controlling party to use that in negative ways.

[5:05 p.m.]

So we start by the idea — this shows up, I think, in courts — that

if you’re not able to come to agreement, generally it’s because of a

certain level of acrimony or an inability to work together, and the

dynamics that may be around in that situation.

Then we think about how that might show up over time over conflict

about who pays for pet bills — all the various things that could come up

with joint custody if they’re not able to come to agreement themselves.

So yes, I think this is the way forward when it comes to these types of

orders.

M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, I won’t quarrel with the Attorney in her analysis of

the example as given, where there is that threat of violence or where

there has been that evidence of violence in the relationship and that

level of acrimony that reveals itself violently. You certainly wouldn’t

want to have that lingering connection.

I can also think of different examples. I guess I might as well

say what the person that I was talking to over the weekend said. And I

understand that the law, to this point, operates differently.

For many couples, first of all, in the case of a child, there is

an underlying recognition of a connection between the two parties that

needs to be addressed. It’s not always addressed with joint custody. In

some cases, there is no access whatsoever, but the court certainly has

that option and, if anything, tries to exercise that option on behalf of

two parents, notwithstanding the dissolution of the

relationship.

The person said to me on the weekend: “You know, for more and more

of us, the pet is our child. We don’t have children. This is ours.” Now,

companion animals, most of them, have a shorter lifespan. So some of

this eventually is resolved through the mortality of the pet. That

person would say, “Even though we might quarrel about who is getting the

boat and we might quarrel about the division, there is a fundamental

connection that we both have to this dog” or cat or whatever other

companion animals it might be.

“Even though we couldn’t come to a comprehensive agreement on all

of these other matters and even though we had to resort to the court to

get resolution on all of these other things, it seems unfair that the

court couldn’t recognize that connection” and enshrine that connection

in a court order that recognized joint ownership or joint possession on

certain terms. That is the argument that certain pet owners might

make.

I hasten to add, as the Attorney General has said, that everyone

has the option of trying to negotiate an agreement, but in the example I

have given, perhaps the Attorney General could make her views clear as

to why in no circumstances should the court have the option of ordering

joint ownership or joint possession.

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. N. Sharma: I’ll start by saying that we’re the first jurisdiction in Canada

to recognize the difference between a companion animal as it comes to

property and other property. We already start in a situation of giving

better guidance to families, on breakdown, when it comes to legal

options with respect to seeking either a court order or an

agreement.

I’ve already mentioned the various reasons why we landed where we

did. Shared custody is not an order that you can obtain from the

Provincial Court, but you can legally recognize your agreement that

you’ve made in terms of possession and how you divide that

up.

I don’t think I have anything further to add on that

point.

M. de Jong: I think the last point on this. The order of the court is a final

order. It’s a final order. For the reasons…. Pursuant to the provisions

we’ve been discussing, it is a final order that vests ownership in one

party or the other and that is not subject to being revisited, except, I

suppose, on appeal. I suppose a party could appeal that part of an

order. But unlike a custody order, it’s not something a party can come

back to the court and seek to revisit and seek to have amended. Is that

all correct?

Hon. N. Sharma: That’s correct. They can appeal it. That’s an option available to

them. But it’s a final order.

Clause 7 approved.

On clause 8.

M. de Jong: I took a few moments on clause 7 for two reasons. I had promised a

couple of the folks that I had discussed those provisions with that I

would pose those questions. It was also a convenient way to avoid

dealing with clause 8 and the delightful topic of pension divisions and

all of the incomprehensible terminology that that employs. Well, we best

get to it.

For the purpose of having this conversation…. I’m afraid I’m going

to have to ask the Attorney General to describe for the committee what a

LIF, or life income fund, is and when it arises — generally, I take it,

in the context of a pension where someone takes the commuted value of

that pension. But we’re probably going to have to ascertain for the

committee what kind of a pension asset we’re actually talking about

here.

Hon. N. Sharma: Thanks for the question, Member, and thanks for giving us a

heads-up on your questions here. I have a whole bunch of information now

when it comes to examples.

[5:15 p.m.]

We’ll start with LIRAs. LIRAs are a special type of RRSP. They’re

obtained to pay an income stream to an owner beginning at a future date,

usually when the owner is at least 55. In that way, LIRAs contain

locked-in money and are most commonly created when an employee who is

part of an employer pension plan leaves their employment after their

pension vests and transfers their entitlement to a LIRA. Similarly, a

LIF is locked-in money to be paid out in retirement.

Although it’s not impossible to remove money from a LIRA…. You

must meet certain strict criteria before you’re allowed to take out

money. These criteria are often related to needing the money to pay

daily expenses.

Therefore, LIRAs and LIFs have much in common with pensions. They

usually contain a spouse’s employment pension benefits that were

accumulated as a result of their employment and their contributed years

before benefits are received. They exist to provide an income stream and

to provide for post-employment life. They are administered by others,

usually a financial institution. The money cannot be easily withdrawn.

Hence the changes that we made — they look a lot like pensions, and they

act like pensions — to include them as that.

M. de Jong: All right. Well, let’s start to break