Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, March 28, 2022

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 173

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

Tributes

South Delta Storm hockey team

I. Paton

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Support for Ukraine by Vietnamese Canadians

Hon. A. Dix

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 19 — Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2022

Hon. H. Bains

Bill 12 — Property Law Amendment Act, 2022

Hon. S. Robinson

Bill 18 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2022

Hon. S. Robinson

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Hungry for Life International support for Ukrainian refugees

K. Paddon

Tommy Wong and contributions of Chinese Canadians

T. Wat

Bill Heidrick

R. Leonard

Nancy Greene Raine and fundraising for Sun Peaks community

P. Milobar

Farmers market nutrition coupon program

M. Dykeman

UBC Okanagan downtown campus project

N. Letnick

Oral Questions

Action on gas prices and fuel rebate for drivers

S. Bond

Hon. J. Horgan

Affordability issues and transit fares

T. Halford

Hon. J. Horgan

Commuter bus service for Cowichan Valley residents

S. Furstenau

Hon. R. Fleming

Child care fees and subsidies for child care providers

R. Merrifield

Hon. K. Chen

Affordability issues and rebate for renters

M. Bernier

Hon. S. Robinson

Action on affordability issues

P. Milobar

Hon. J. Horgan

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, independent audit report, B.C. Housing’s

COVID-19 Response: Additional Safe Spaces for Women and Children

Leaving Violence , March 2022

Ministry of Agriculture and Food, revised service plan, 2022-23–2024-25

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 8 — Attorney General Statutes (Hague Convention on Child and Family Support) Amendment Act, 2022

Hon. D. Eby

M. de Jong

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 8 — Attorney General Statutes (Hague Convention on Child and Family Support) Amendment Act, 2022

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 9 — Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2022

Hon. D. Eby

M. de Jong

Private Members’ Motions

Motion 6 — Support for LNG industry (continued)

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions (continued)

T. Halford

R. Merrifield

Hon. S. Malcolmson

D. Davies

D. Ashton

MONDAY, MARCH 28, 2022

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Ralston: Joining us in the west gallery this afternoon are members of the

Consular Corps of British Columbia. The Consular Corps, based mainly in

Vancouver, is the official body comprising all consular officers resident in

the province, representing 80 countries and four international

organizations. They are here today to participate in briefings by the

government.

Today we have representatives from 41 different countries and

international organizations. Given that number, I won’t be able to introduce

them individually, but I will introduce the dean of the Consular Corps and

the consul general of Mexico, Her Excellency Berenice Díaz

Ceballos.

[1:35 p.m.]

In the members’ gallery, we also have the honour of His Excellency Dr.

Ronen Hoffman, the new Ambassador of Israel to Canada, joining us today. In

addition to undertaking his initial courtesy meetings with provincial

officials, he will join us for the briefings with the Consular Corps this

afternoon.

Once again, I would invite the House to welcome the Consular Corps — I

think they are worth two ovations — and the Ambassador of Israel to

Canada.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Richmond South Centre.

H. Yao: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the accommodation.

I would like to take a moment to introduce, again, my baby girl,

Mackenzie Yi Yao.

Of course, I want to thank my in-laws Lian Sheng Tan and Xiu Yun Ning

for joining us. They have been a huge support for me to be able to become an

MLA and support our community. We all know how much our families sacrifice

for all of us, so I will take a moment to thank them.

Of course, I also want to acknowledge my wife Tania Li Tan here and

take this moment to announce that we are expecting our second.

[Applause.]

Hon. H. Bains: In the House today is Karen Ranalletta, president of CUPE B.C. Joining

Karen is Martina Boyd, the legislative coordinator for CUPE B.C. I have

asked all members of the House to please join with me and give them a warm,

warm welcome.

J. Tegart: Perhaps my colleague that just introduced his little one would like to

listen to this.

I would be remiss not to stand in the House today to wish a happy

birthday to my son Justin, whose birthday was on Saturday. I remember

Justin’s second birthday very well. Just two days later imagine our surprise

when we added twins to our family. Please join me in wishing happy birthday

to my twins, Nicki and Lisa, who I won’t say are how old today.

M. Dykeman: Joining us in the gallery today are two of my amazing CAs, Carly

Haugen and Aidan Hooper, who have come over today to bring two wonderful

interns from Kwantlen Polytechnic University, Mikaela Sorillo and Emilio

Saenz. They are students at Kwantlen Polytechnic who have come to join me as

interns in my office for a little while. They have been completely

invaluable and wonderful assets. I’m so thrilled to welcome them to

Victoria. I’m wondering if the House could please join me in welcoming them

today in the gallery.

I. Paton: What a privilege it is to stand up here today and announce that over

our two week break I became a grandfather for the first time. My son, Tom,

and his fiancé, Clare Elbro, had a little baby girl named Natalie Sue. We’re

so happy for them. They live in Ladner, very close to where we live on our

farm.

Tributes

SOUTH DELTA STORM HOCKEY TEAM

I. Paton: I have a second announcement, and this has to do with the U18

hockey provincial championships in Campbell River. The South Delta Storm

went to Campbell River. They defeated, over a course of four days,

Victoria, Trail, Fort St. John, Kelowna and Hollyburn to win the

provincial gold medal for U18 minor hockey for the South Delta

Storm.

Some of the young men on this team I know personally. Their

parents have actually worked for me on my farm: Mr. Tyler Allan, Declan

Speiran, Max Kidds, Maddex Hewitt and Ryan Carleton. And here are the

coaches. Two-time Stanley Cup ring owner Ken Priestlay is the head

coach, along with Tony Marra and Brent Wheatley.

Big congratulations to my son, Tom, and his wife and to the South

Delta Storm hockey team.

Introductions by Members

B. D’Eith: I just wanted to acknowledge someone in this House who was previously

the mayor of not a city but now a city who, also, we share the city of

Mission with now. I just wanted to wish the member for Abbotsford-Mission a

very, very happy birthday today.

[1:40 p.m.]

A. Mercier: Following, I guess, on the theme today…. I don’t know if it’s

something in the water, but I’d like to announce that the birth of my second

and final child, Simon Rémi Mercier. Kate, the love of my life, was in

labour for 2½ to three hours, I think, with Simon. It was fast. He was born

7 pounds 5 ounces on March 1, full head of hair, even better vocal

cords.

I particularly want to thank the staff at Langley Memor­ial

Hospital Foundation, all of the nurses, the doctors, everyone part of the

care team but, especially, a member of the cleaning team, Rajwinder — for

context, Simon was born within 25 minutes of parking — who recognized a

frantic husband trying to wheel his wife to maternity and took me through

the service elevator to get to 3-north, the maternity ward.

I have no doubt, Rajwinder, if you hadn’t have done that, I would have

been delivering the child in the hallway. You saved us all some pain, so

thank you so much.

M. Elmore: Following on the introduction of the Minister of Energy, Mines, and

Low Carbon Innovation introducing the consular core, I would like to give an

especial warm welcome to our consul general of Hungary, Valér Palkovits. I

had the honour and, really, the privilege to mark March 15 for the first day

in British Columbia designating Hungary Heritage Day on March 15,

celebrating that in Vancouver with our consul, Tamas Torok, and also the

community right across British Columbia.

A very warm welcome to the consul general, Valér Palkovits, and the

rest of our consular core.

S. Chant: I’d like to introduce to the House some guests that I have today who

are from out of province. They’re taking a look at how B.C. does things.

They are from Manitoba and have had some fun things to talk about. My guests

today are Tanis Kyle and Steve Raizen.

Tanis and Steve came with Steve’s mom, who is visiting Steve’s niece

in Victoria, who happens to be a very good friend of my daughter. They took

this opportunity to come and add to their collection of places that they

have gotten to tour, legislatures in the provinces of Canada.

I hope this House will give a very warm welcome my guests

today.

Tributes

SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE BY

VIETNAMESE

CANADIANS

Hon. A. Dix: One of the most moving things that has occurred to me as an MLA in

the House was the work done in the Vietnamese-Canadian community in

support of refugees who came to Canada from Syria a number of years ago.

I just wanted to acknowledge — on behalf of all members of the House,

because I know all members of the House would feel this — the work being

done in the Vietnamese-Canadian community today to support people in

Ukraine.

As people will know, the Vietnamese community, in its majority in

British Columbia, came to Canada as refugees — something that, of

course, has benefited our country in a way beyond, I think,

words.

I want to acknowledge, on behalf of the House, with the fundraiser

that was held on Friday night, the $68,000 that was raised prior to the

fundraiser and all the work being done in the community to support the

Ukraine — in particular, by the Vietnamese Veterans Association, the

Vietnamese Women’s Society of B.C., the Vietnamese Air Force Veterans

Association, Vox Vietnam, the Vietnamese Professionals Association, Lac

Viet B.C. Radio, the Vietnamese-Canadian seniors in British

Columbia.

I want to thank, on behalf of all members of the House, all

members of the community for the work they’ve done, which is, I think,

an inspiration to all of us.

Introductions by Members

T. Shypitka: Today in the virtual gallery, we have Keith and Lynne Shypitka, who,

over the break on March 18, celebrated their 60th wedding anniversary. I am

their son. How they made it through 60 years of marital bliss with a child

like me, I’ll never know. I just want to welcome them into the House. Please

celebrate their 60th wedding anniversary.

[1:45 p.m.]

H. Sandhu: Today I am so excited to welcome Jasreen, my middle daughter, for the

first time in the gallery after my becoming an MLA. She is somewhere

there.

Jasreen is in grade 10. I got very busy, as usual, with work during

spring break. Being creative, as usual, I told her to come join me in

Victoria, as they still have one week left for the break. However, she won’t

be able to see me as we work here, but at the end of the day, she can see my

face. She’s very excited to see how the House proceedings go.

I want to ask the House: would you please make my daughter Jasreen

welcome to the House for the first time.

Hon. L. Beare: We have some UVic students here in the House today. We have Hudson

Campbell, Nikita Johnson and Paige Lonus. They’re fabulous poli-sci students

out of UVic. I’m not afraid to say, on Hudson’s behalf, that he is a bit of

a political nerd. He is so excited about question period, which I think is

great.

Hudson actually happens to be my CA as well. A big thank you to him

for all the work he does in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows on behalf of our

constituents.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

K. Paddon: I would like to give a very warm welcome to my CA as well. Jennifer

Trithardt-Tufts is up there, as well as her momma, Susan. Without both of

them, I could not do what I do.

Thank you, Jennifer, on behalf of the people of Chilliwack-Kent that

you help every day.

They are also both co–market managers of the Abbotsford Farm and

Country Market. When they’re not helping the people of Chilliwack-Kent,

Jennifer and her mom, Susan, are helping people in Abbotsford.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 19 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. H. Bains presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Employment Standards Amendment Act,

Hon. H. Bains: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I am pleased to introduce Bill 19, the Employment Standards

Amendment Act, 2022. This bill amends the Employment Standards Act to

simplify and strengthen the permanent paid sick leave provisions that

came into effect on January 1, 2022.

Bill 19 ensures the paid sick leave entitlement will be applied on

a calendar year basis. This will simplify administration for employers

and ensure workers are eligible for five days of paid sick leave for

2022 and subsequent calendar years after. Bill 19 also ensures that all

workers will be provided with five paid sick days, even where collective

agreements have alternate sick leave provisions.

British Columbia was the first province in Canada to implement a

minimum standard of five days of permanent paid sick leave each year.

Prior to January 1, 2022, more than one million workers in this province

did not have access to paid sick leave, especially workers in low-wage

jobs, who are more often women or racialized workers.

This government has listened to the issues raised by business and

labour organizations, with the result that Bill 19 ensures that paid

sick leave addresses the needs of British Columbia.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. H. Bains: I move that the bill be placed on the order of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 19, Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2022, introduced, read a

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

at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 12 — PROPERTY LAW

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. S. Robinson presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Property Law Amendment Act,

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m pleased to introduce the Property Law Amendment Act, 2022.

Last November our government committed to bringing forward legislation

that would improve protection for people trying to buy homes during

highly competitive and high-pressure market conditions.

[1:50 p.m.]

Today I am putting forward amendments to the Property Law Act

which create the framework for a residential right of rescission, a new

homebuyer protection period, in British Columbia.

In today’s heightened market activity, the creation of a

protection period will ensure that buyers have the peace of mind they

need before making such a huge financial decision. These amendments

would enable the creation of a period to give people buying a home more

time to consider their offers, ensure financing and obtain a home

inspection, instead of feeling like they need to waive these

conditions.

The B.C. Financial Services Authority has just wrapped up

consultations on the parameters for a homebuyer protection period and

other possible consumer protection measures related to B.C. real estate.

They will be providing advice back to government later this spring to

help us build the regulations. The regulations coming this year will

define the specific time homebuyers will have to exercise this right as

well as any potential financial costs of retracting an offer.

Today’s enabling legislation and our ongoing work on the

regulations is part of our efforts to grant people better protection

while they are making one of the biggest financial decisions of their

lives.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 12, Property Law Amendment Act, 2022, introduced, read a first

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

next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 18 — SUPPLY ACT (N o . 1),

Hon. S. Robinson presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act (N o .

1), 2022.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that Bill 18, Supply Act (N o . 1),

2022, be introduced and read a first time now. Bill 18 provides interim

supply for ministry operations and other appropriations for

approximately the first three months of the ’22-23 fiscal

year.

Bill 18 also provides interim supply for a portion of government’s

anticipated financing requirements for the ’22-23 fiscal year, including

an amount equalling one-third of the fiscal year ’22-23 estimated

capital expenditures, loans, investments and other financing

requirements and the full amount of the year’s estimated disbursements

for revenues collected on behalf of and transferred to specific programs

and entities.

Mr. Speaker: Members, it’s the first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that Bill 18 be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 18, Supply Act (N o .1), 2022, introduced,

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

HUNGRY FOR LIFE INTERNATIONAL

SUPPORT FOR UKRAINIAN

REFUGEES

K. Paddon: Last Friday I had the privilege of joining a group of leaders in

our community for a video meeting with Chad Martz, with Hungry for Life

International. Chad; his wife, Mary; and their daughter Tatiana are in

Ukraine, where Mary is from, working to support people fleeing from the

attack.

The family has deep roots in Ukraine as well as our community.

Chad is a longtime resident of Chilliwack, and I first met the family

while our kids attended elementary school together in Chilliwack-Kent.

They have been in Ukraine since July, gathering a network and supplies

through their work with Hungry for Life, a Christian not-for-profit

organization based in Chilliwack.

Their small group of volunteers and churches has had an immense

impact, gathering and distributing over 400 tonnes of food and supplies

to help feed and care for thousands of people who are fleeing from their

homes and their country. Chad described the word “fleeing” as a

watered-down term, given the reality, as he explained that people were

just living their lives, going to work, going to school, and then it

ended in an instant.

Hungry for Life is not typically a first-wave response

organization. However, what they are accomplishing is incredible. Chad

shared that there is not much sleep in this sprint, and thousands of

people who are arriving at their family’s home near the border in the

west are traumatized, some unable to eat even after days without

food.

The Martz family are securing outside sources, as food within the

country runs out, as well as fuel for the ten to 20 trucks that bring

food from their two warehouses to the dozens of local, volunteer-driven

sprinter vans that risk back routes in conflict zones, with bombs going

off as people line up for bread. The focus now is reaching those who are

trapped and who are starving, as food has run out. Hungry for Life has

raised $1.5 million, which has supplied critical help. They remain

focused on raising more funds.

Please join me in thanking the Martz family, Hungry for Life and

all of the volunteers, and keep them in your thoughts as they risk their

safety to serve others.

You can help or learn more by following Hungry for Life on

Facebook or from their webpage, hungryforlife.org.

[1:55 p.m.]

TOMMY WONG AND CONTRIBUTIONS

OF CHINESE

CANADIANS

T. Wat: I rise today to honour the remarkable life of Tommy Wong —

originally from a small town on Vancouver Island, Tommy’s heroic life

and legacy both as a veteran and an advocate for B.C.’s Chinese-Canadian

community.

When the Second World War broke out, like hundreds of other young

Chinese-Canadian men, Tommy wanted to serve his country. Although most

were initially rejected by the Canadian army due to their race, once

Japan entered the war and invaded large areas of Southeast Asia,

suddenly Chinese Canadians were considered valuable soldiers. They could

blend into the populations of Asia and carry out clandestine

work.

Tommy participated in operations throughout Southeast Asia as a

member of Force 136, a special executive operations group that helped

establish, train and supply resistance movements in Japanese-occupied

territories and undertake contesting sabotage operations. Tommy’s

heroism not only cemented his legacy in our history books; the

incredible work throughout the latter half of his life has helped to

cement the legacy of all Chinese Canadians in our history

books.

I had the honour of working closely with Tommy during my time as

the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism when I worked with the

Chinese-Canada delegation through our legacy initiatives, where we

unveiled plaques commemorating Chinese-Canadian historical sites in

Barkerville, in Ashcroft in Kamloops and many others, honouring Chinese

Canadians and their contributions to our province’s history.

Our province has lost a wonderful and passionate community leader,

and many have lost a great friend and family member. My heart goes out

to all that were close to Tommy, who I know will miss him

dearly.

Please join me in honouring the incredible life of Tommy

Wong.

BILL HEIDRICK

R. Leonard: There are some people who are so vibrant, it’s hard to reconcile

that they no longer walk among us. Bill Heidrick is one of those people

who lived so well that while he has passed, his time on this planet has

made a lasting imprint on the environment he cherished and enriched the

lives of those who had the privilege to make his

acquaintance.

Before retiring to Courtenay and settling along the Courtenay

River estuary, Bill and his beloved wife, Kathie Woodley, lived in

Zeballos for over 30 years. Small town life and work in the forestry

industry made for fertile ground for Bill to jump into a life of

service, devoting time to the recreation commission, volunteer fire

department, ambulance service, rangers, fish and wildlife and election

to local government for eight years.

His life experiences, along with his contagious enthusiasm,

sincere friendly approach and confident expertise brought success for

all of us, as he dedicated the last 11 years of his life to healing the

planet through his leadership as a director of Comox Valley’s Project

Watershed. As noted on their website, he was a real example of what

environmental stewardship in action looks like.

Bill’s big passion was the Kus-kus-sum project, and his leadership

was integral to the purchase and now the ongoing restoration of the

brownfield site, which will thwart the seal predation of our iconic

salmon, return an ancient tree burial site to the K’ómoks First Peoples

and moderate against flooding.

His favourite inspirational quote was: “If there is magic on this

planet, it is contained in water.” As we walk along the estuary, the

magic of Bill Heidrick is in the water, and we are all grateful for his

inspirational legacy.

Condolences to his soulmate, Kathie Woodley.

We can join in Bill’s vision by donating at

projectwatershed.ca.

NANCY GREENE RAINE AND FUNDRAISING

FOR SUN PEAKS

COMMUNITY

P. Milobar: I’m fortunate to have a constituent in my riding that is actually

Canada’s female athlete of the century. Nancy Greene Raine has been

force at Sun Peaks the whole time she’s been in Sun Peaks.

[2:00 p.m.]

In fact, over the last 25 years, Nancy has hosted, in partnership

with Telus, the Telus Cup, which this year, unfortunately, did not

involve racing due to COVID and other issues but was more a

family-friendly event that still raised critical dollars for the

community of Sun Peaks.

Now, Sun Peaks, over the years, is a community that will always

take the bull by the horns and get the project done that needs to be

done to improve their community. Over the past years, several of those

25 years, the money was raised for the local health centre. This year

the goal was raising money for the local school and the local education

society’s operating costs.

Forty thousand dollars, on March 12, was raised on the one-day

event, which saw people come from all over British Columbia to

participate and enjoy themselves. Nancy has been a tireless advocate of

this event — but not just this event; day-in, day-out events in Sun

Peaks — and makes sure that she is always there to welcome and greet

people.

The school society has had an ambitious goal to try to make sure

that they have a permanent school in place at Sun Peaks over the years.

The province collects about $1.8 million in school taxes every year, and

the goal is to have a more permanent school. We now see over 150 kids

enrolled in schools up at Sun Peaks. Who wouldn’t like to go to a school

where you can ride a chairlift to get to your school?

They do great work up there. There’s an ever-growing number of

kids, families and everyone at Sun Peaks.

This year’s Telus Cup was a great success. We look forward to year

26 and moving forward, and we look forward to the eventual expansion of

the Sun Peaks school with Nancy Greene’s help and persistence behind it

as well.

FARMERS MARKET

NUTRITION COUPON

PROGRAM

M. Dykeman: With the ongoing pandemic and natural disasters, the past few

years have been a challenging period for all of British Columbia,

especially farmers and low-income individuals. B.C.’s farmers and

farmers markets across the province have been on the front lines working

to remain open and to support our communities with food and farmers with

a strong source of income.

To help both these groups, the British Columbia Association of

Farmers Markets has been helping with the BCAFM nutrition coupon

program. Last year the program provided healthy and affordable food to

96 lower-income residents, with $21,405 in coupons redeemed at the Fort

Langley Farmers Market alone.

The program gives back to the community by bringing people out of

the grocery stores and into farmers markets, keeping funds closer to

home. The food security brought to low-income residents and the

financial stability brought to farmers is a welcome and needed safety

during trying times.

The BCAFM partnered with Encompass Support Services Society,

Sources Langley Food Bank, the United Churches of Langley to provide

fresh and varied food for lower-income, pregnant people, families and

seniors. Over 19,000 lower-income residents in 86 communities were

brought healthy, fresh and local food, thanks to the program.

In addition, the program also brought education regarding healthy

eating and strengthened the connections between residents and farmers,

bringing a sense of community in a time when many of us felt so

alone.

I’m proud to support such a forward-thinking and wonderful

program.

I would also like to thank the Minister of Health and the Minister

of Agriculture for their support of this program, as well as one of my

fabulous interns, Emilio, who is a great supporter of this program and

is joining us today in the gallery — and who, in fact, wrote this

two-minute statement for me.

UBC OKANAGAN

DOWNTOWN CAMPUS

PROJECT

N. Letnick: Today I’m very excited to share with the House about the latest

development in UBC Okanagan’s new downtown Kelowna project, UBCO

downtown.

Being one of the fastest-growing university campuses in Canada,

UBC Okanagan has nearly 12,000 students and $40 million in annual

research funding this year alone. The UBCO downtown project will create

new spaces to support teaching, learning and research both on campus and

in the community. It will include a tower with academic and research

facilities, community-facing spaces and university rental housing

available to those who work or study at UBC.

The project will bring health education and training programs like

nursing and social work closer to the community, as well as spaces to

support education and management and the arts.

With the addition of a major new presence in the heart of the

city, UBCO downtown will help build the university’s partnership with

Interior Health, Indigenous service organizations, the Okanagan tech

sector, and the arts and cultural sector.

[2:05 p.m.]

I have no doubt this project will add vibrancy to downtown Kelowna

as it builds on UBC’s long-standing efforts to extend its Okanagan

presence, including through the UBC Faculty of Medicine clinical

academic campus at Kelowna General Hospital, Innovation UBC at the

Okan­agan innovation centre and UBCO’s partnership with the Rotary

Centre for the Arts.

Currently at the development permitting stage in front of the

city, the university aims to break ground on UBCO downtown later this

year, with a public engagement session planned for the upcoming

months.

I encourage everyone to get involved and look forward to this

upcoming project as it comes to fruition.

Oral Questions

ACTION ON GAS PRICES

AND FUEL REBATE FOR

DRIVERS

S. Bond: In two elections, the Premier promised British Columbians that

life would be more affordable. We now know that that simply is not the

case.

Let’s start with gas prices. It’s been four long years since the

Premier actually made another promise. He promised to take action on gas

prices. Instead, we’ve basically had four years of this Premier dodging

that responsibility and, in fact, making excuses, none of which made any

sense at all.

Well, perhaps it was public pressure or maybe a little bit of

polling that finally told the Premier he needed to do something. Two

weeks ago he hinted that help was on the way, but what did we find out

on Friday? The Premier’s plan continues to be to do as little as

possible and to keep making excuses. What was announced won’t even cover

the cost of filling up the family car. Much worse, it isn’t coming for

months, and that’s if it gets approved by the BCUC.

Today British Columbians have a question for the Premier. They

want to know why he has abandoned them to facing the highest gas prices

in North America and they will continue to experience that pain at the

pump.

Hon. J. Horgan: It’s little surprise that a $400 million infusion back to

policyholders is a little step, according to the B.C. Liberals. Of

course, that’s because over the 16 years they were in power — hon.

Speaker, you may remember this — they did zero, nothing, not a thing to

reduce gas prices. In fact, their current leader mocked people who

raised it as an issue, saying there’s nothing you can do about

it.

Well, again, it’s all easy for the official opposition to say

we’ve done nothing about affordability, because it completely dismisses

and discounts the fact that we did away with their tolls that they

brought in to put on motorists.

Fifteen hundred bucks for drivers in Surrey. Well, of course, you

wouldn’t know that, because there’s only one member from Surrey on that

side of the House. But 1,500 bucks is a big deal.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: It’s a big deal. The guy from Abbotsford doesn’t think that’s a

big deal, but I think his constituents certainly do.

Then there was the monthly tax they called the medical services

premium which in fact wasn’t a premium for health. It was a tax on poor

people. What did we do? We got rid of it.

Now, I can appreciate, when we took some action on the dumpster

fire that was the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia when we came into

government…. We saw, from 2001 to 2017, rates go up by 50 percent.

That’s five-zero, 50 percent. On our watch, rates have gone down up to

20 percent, and there has not been one rebate, not two rebates but three

rebates back to policyholders.

Just to conclude the episode, the B.C. Liberals used to take money

out of ICBC and give it to large corporations. We’ve chosen to give it

back to policyholders.

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

S. Bond: We’re continuing to wait for the Premier to meet another promise,

because he continues to raise the new leader of our party.

How about calling a by-election, and then he can have that

discussion in here?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s hear the question.

S. Bond: All the bluster and clapping that the members opposite want to do

today does not take away from what’s happening for families in British

Columbia.

[2:10 p.m.]

The Premier knows that it’s not just gas prices. It’s housing.

It’s rent rebates. It’s child care costs. The Premier knows that. He can

continue to dig up the things that he wants to raise in this House, but

let’s be clear. This issue is on his watch.

He made a promise to British Columbians four long years ago. He

knows that this is far too little, and it is far too late. The Premier

also knows full well that this rebate should have been coming to British

Columbians anyway, but the Premier dusts it off and calls it a gas

rebate when he knows full well that British Columbians should have been

getting it anyway.

The Premier had other options, and he knows that. He could have

chosen to return to carbon tax neutrality and provide a targeted rebate,

but instead we continue to have the highest gas taxes and prices in

North America.

Maybe the Premier would like to hear what Billy Burke had to say.

He’s actually quitting the trucking business after 20 years because, as

he says, he had to spend $14,000 on fuel last month alone.

Perhaps the Premier can answer this question. Why didn’t he choose

to give targeted, meaningful help to low- and middle-income families and

those who simply cannot afford to keep managing the highest and most

expensive gas taxes in North America?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her

question.

Werner Antweiler, a UBC economics professor, had some poignant

comments to make last week about the targeted funding that we were able

to find for drivers, policyholders.

I know this will be a mystery to those on the other side of the

House, because they never did anything like this. It’s all well and good

to say: “You should have given it to them anyway.” Well, you had 16

years to do it once, and you didn’t do it. You didn’t do it.

What we did is we made a commitment to do something about high gas

prices. We did an investigation. That investigation, by an independent

third party, discovered a 13-cent gap between what the companies were

saying they had to pay and what they were doing at the pumps.

What did we do to respond to that? You might remember it. You were

in the House. You voted against it. We passed a transparency bill to

ensure that every company that sells gasoline has to prove to customers

why they’re raising the rates.

Now, this is the free market party….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: I know this is a mystery to some of the newer members of the

House. They used to be the so-called free enterprise party, and now they

don’t understand global markets. How is that? What happened? What

happened from coming from here to going over there? Markets mean

nothing. There’s a global crisis.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. J. Horgan: News flash, B.C. Liberals: global crisis. British Columbia’s

government is taking steps to protect people. We’ve been doing that for

the past five years. It’s a mystery to you how we’re doing it, but it’s

working for people.

AFFORDABILITY ISSUES

AND TRANSIT

FARES

T. Halford: I’ll maybe let the Premier know that right now, to fill up a

family vehicle is $150. The Premier’s rebate won’t even cut

that.

Ironically, while even EV drivers are getting this so-called fuel

rebate, the Premier is, at the same time, hiking TransLink costs, with

fares going up nearly 4 percent. As the Premier says, British Columbians

can take the bus if they can’t afford the gas.

Why is the Premier doing nothing for transit riders and, in fact,

hiking fares and making this affordability crisis even worse?

Hon. J. Horgan: Kids under 12 travel free now. That was a savings to the family.

Maybe the member should spend more time on public transit.

I want to go back to Werner Antweiler, because he said the

following: “We have seen a significant price increase, and to take

roughly $400 million that’s being allocated and divide it up by the fuel

that is being consumed all across B.C., it gives relief of about eight

to nine cents a litre.” That’s what the $400 million will do, eight to

nine cents a litre. Way more than is happening in oil-rich Alberta; way

more than is happening in Ontario — nothing; Quebec —

nothing.

In British Columbia, we’re responding to the needs of people,

because we know that affordability is a challenge for British

Columbians. We have been, for the past five years, undoing the mess that

we inherited from the people on that side of the House.

I don’t know what could be more graphic than characterizing our

public auto insurance company as a dumpster fire…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: …but thank goodness someone did it. And it was lit by B.C.

Liberals.

Mr. Speaker: Surrey–White Rock, supplemental.

T. Halford: Maybe a news flash to the Premier: everything is going up. Transit

fares, going up. Gas prices have gone up. Housing has gone up.

Everything has gone up under this Premier’s watch.

Meanwhile, the Premier’s office is apparently telling EV drivers

to donate their rebate to charity. People who rely on transit to get to

work and school have no charity from the NDP. There is no charity from

this government. It is going to cost $185 just to get a monthly pass

from Surrey to Vancouver for public transit.

Four years after promising action, it’s clear this Premier has

given up on finding a long-term solution.

When will this Premier actually give British Columbians a

long-term solution on the unaffordability that it continues to

oversee?

Hon. J. Horgan: I give the member full marks for effort. Well done. Way to

try.

What hasn’t gone up in the past five years? Tolls on bridges,

because they don’t exist anymore. They don’t exist anymore.

What has gone down year after year after year? Child care costs.

The number one issue for business was to make sure that we could care

for our children.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, order.

Hon. J. Horgan: B.C. Liberals don’t want to care for kids. New Democrats do. The

Green Party wants to. The only people who don’t think child care is

transforming lives are the people who are sitting on that side of the

House.

Again, I appreciate when you’ve got very few rocks to throw, you

pick up the same one and throw it over and over again, but I don’t

understand this affordability stuff. With the guy that’s coming

in….

Interjections.

Hon. J. Horgan: Oh look. Oh look. Way to go.

The guy that’s coming in, Kevin Falcon, oversaw an increase, year

over year, for medical service premiums. Every year.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, come to order please.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. J. Horgan: Every year he raised them.

When it came to ICBC…. I’m just disappointed that the member for

Kamloops–South Thompson isn’t here.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. J. Horgan: When we asked for information about what they were doing at ICBC,

we got a report back. It wasn’t redacted; the pages were ripped out of

the document. That’s freedom of information on that side of the

House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. J. Horgan: Nice try. Keep going. Maybe one day you’ll remember that there’s a

free market economy and that people on this side of the House are

working every day to make life better for British Columbians, while you

whine over there.

Mr. Speaker: Premier and all members, do not recognize members who are in or

out, please.

COMMUTER BUS SERVICE

FOR COWICHAN VALLEY

RESIDENTS

S. Furstenau: It costs $10 to take the Cowichan Valley commuter bus, $10 each

way. If you’re a commuter from Cowichan who rides home in the evening,

it’s going to be $20. You can buy a pass that’s over $200 a

month.

The commuter bus only runs one way in the early morning and in the

early evenings. To take the bus into the city of Victoria for work,

riders need to catch it an hour and a half before school starts. For

working parents…. I’m not sure how they tend to their kids in the

interim.

This is ultimately a policy failure. There are an average of

25,000 vehicles per day travelling the Malahat. For the vast majority of

people, this is the only option available to them getting between the

CVRD and the CRD. Transit for Cowichan Valley residents is neither

affordable nor accessible.

To the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, we’re in an

affordability crisis. In one of his responses, the Premier told British

Columbians to use B.C.’s “sophisticated public transit systems, if

prices become too unaffordable in the short term.”

Does the Minister of Transportation consider the Cowichan Valley

commuter bus to be a sophisticated, affordable public transit

system?

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for asking the question.

Of course we value intercity commuter buses. We’re expanding

services this year in communities around the province, including the

member’s own community. I’m very pleased that this very day we have

introduced a brand-new intercommunity bus service between Duncan and

Nanaimo in the member’s constituency.

[2:20 p.m.]

I’m very proud of the budget that is before the House today,

because amongst all of the good things that are in that budget, there is

an 11 percent operating funding increase for B.C. Transit services in

every community in British Columbia. This year we will realize an

expansion of 120,000 additional service hours in our province, a

combined total in excess of 2.5 million annual service hours that

provide innovative routes, services, expansion of the types of services

that the member has raised here in the House today.

These are good things for the community. This is a transit

government that is expanding transit service, expanding our investment

in public transit — record investments in transit capital funding all

over the province.

That’s our government’s commitment. We got the transit system

through the pandemic, we’re rebounding ridership as we speak, and we

will continue our investments in public transit in her community and

right around B.C.

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

S. Furstenau: I specifically asked about the bus between Cowichan and the CRD

and got an answer about the bus between Cowichan and Nanaimo, so I’ll

try again.

For riders, for people who are commuting between the Cowichan

Valley and the capital regional district, there is an almost-zero chance

for them to be able to properly use the commuter bus because it is so

limited and, for many people, out of their cost range.

Last month’s budget does point out that transportation is the

province’s largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions. It also

pointed out that in the fight for climate change, we need to ensure that

“people are able to choose cleaner, more efficient ways to get around,

including transit.” But for commuters between the Cowichan Valley and

the CRD, that choice simply is not truly available. Last week, instead

of finding a way to support more transit users, this government decided

to give a rebate to car drivers.

My question again is to the Minister of Transportation. A

three-hour commute by bus, return, that costs $20 is not adequately

serving the transit needs of the people of Cowichan Valley. Can they

expect to see an improvement to the commuter bus system?

Hon. R. Fleming: Again, I thank the member for the question.

The fact of the matter is that just a few short years ago there

was no Cowichan commuter to the CRD. There is today. We have just been

through a pandemic where public transit ridership has been hammered, in

this province and around the globe.

I’m happy to say that B.C. Transit is now reporting a 67 percent

ridership recovery to date, which makes it amongst the highest in North

America. We are on our way to rebounding transit ridership. We are doing

so with a budget that increases funding by 11 percent this year in

operating funding.

I have to say that we chose to do things differently in B.C. when

it came to making public transit reliable to people in their time of

need during a pandemic and all the uncertainties that brought to their

lives.

With the latest partnership with Ottawa that the Finance Minister

and others helped our government negotiate, we took the lead in the

Confederation, through the Premier, on insisting that we needed more

money to help public transit recover. We will be close to investing an

additional $1 billion in transit recovery funding in the province of

British Columbia.

Other provinces turned that money down. They cut service. They

laid off staff. They slashed transit service. We built back better, and

that’s what we’re going to continue to do in her community and every

community in the province.

CHILD CARE FEES AND SUBSIDIES

FOR CHILD CARE

PROVIDERS

R. Merrifield: Well, when it comes to making life more costly, this NDP

government just keeps finding new ways to do it. This time it’s on the

backs of parents, because parents across the province are going to pay

hundreds of dollars more in child care fees this week because of

government’s incompetence.

Providers have been waiting months for subsidy applications that

could cost families over $350 a month if they aren’t approved by April

1. Parents are now going to have to pay more for child care starting

April 1, and there will not be funds for wage top-ups for early

childhood educators.

My question is this. Why is the Premier putting child care

providers and the families they serve through so much stress and

uncertainty?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: I understand that parents in B.C. have been struggling with the

high cost of child care for many, many years. Many parents, even if they

are able to afford child care, may not be able to find child care

services at all. That is why, since 2018, we’ve started the Childcare

B.C. plan to lower parent fees, to accelerate the creation of spaces and

to support early childhood educators.

We’ve come a long way. For the first time in B.C.’s history, since

we became government, parents are finding savings in their child care

fees. The fee reduction program that the member is referring to has been

a huge success, with over 93 percent of providers across the province

joining our plan, helping us to reduce parent fees together.

The fee reduction program is to make child care more affordable

for families. From my understanding, my staff in the ministry are on

track to meet all of our expressed timelines to provide approval to

providers. All providers who have submitted complete applications,

regardless of whether they submitted by the priority cutoff timeline,

will receive approvals by today.

While our side of the House has been working hard to reduce parent

fees, the other side of the House has been voting against our plan every

step of the way.

Mr. Speaker: Kelowna-Mission, supplemental.

R. Merrifield: Well, that’s good news and, if the minister is correct, very

positive news. But news flash. That’s not what parents are being told,

and that’s not what providers are being told. In fact, child care

providers have been told by government that if they keep providing

discounted rates to parents, they are doing so at their own

risk.

Amanda Worms is a child care operator who is waiting on a subsidy

application to be approved by the minister. Even though her application

was made before the February 17 deadline, she said she was told less

than a week ago that she would not be approved for funding, including

operating funding, at any of the centres before April 1. She says: “This

$350 could mean my families can’t make their mortgage

payments.”

Why is this government forcing these families to pay hundreds of

dollars out of pocket because of their own incompetence?

Hon. K. Chen: Wow, this is very encouraging, to hear the opposition talking

about child care. When they were in government, they ignored the crisis,

left parents struggling on their own.

The ministry staff have been working really hard to review

applications as quickly as possible. No deadlines have been missed. This

is business as usual. We’ve been doing this for the past few years,

learning how to lower parent fees. We’ve been processing applications,

and as of today, all providers that have submitted complete applications

have received approvals.

The only exception are those providers who are seeking to increase

fees beginning in April. They have been contacted and offered a way to

grant temporary approval, to provide certainty to parents. Parents can

continue to receive the fee relief while their applications are being

reviewed.

We are doing everything we can to work with the providers — to

support early childhood educators, to support a creation of spaces —

while the other side of the House is creating division among the child

care providers, is creating unnecessary fears for parents and not

working with us to support parents and providers.

AFFORDABILITY ISSUES

AND REBATE FOR

RENTERS

M. Bernier: We just heard in the House earlier today that the Premier doesn’t

understand the affordability issue, which obviously explains why he’s

been sitting on his hands, doing nothing, breaking promises while

British Columbia has became the least affordable place in North

America.

It seems to be the mantra of this government: make a big promise,

fail to deliver, and then blame somebody else for their

failure.

We heard today…. Whether it’s gas prices going up, doing nothing;

transit fares going up, affecting people and families; child care, all

the confusion that’s happening around that; prices going up…. Results in

British Columbia continue to be the same…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Bernier: …though it cannot be less affordable here in British Columbia

under this government. I know they have no problem voting themselves a

raise, though, while everybody is struggling in the province.

For two straight elections now, the NDP and this Premier have

promised a $400 renters rebate.

[2:30 p.m.]

Finally, we thought we heard something when the Attorney General….

Just before this budget was presented, the Attorney General stood up

here and said, “We’re working on it,” giving maybe some false hope,

because I see nothing in this budget for a $400 renters rebate. I’m

trying to figure out who’s right here. It’s not in the budget, but the

Attorney General said they’re working on it.

Will the government — the Premier, one of the ministers, somebody

— since they’re working on it, stand up and let us know when the $400

rebate will be delivered?

Hon. S. Robinson: We’ve been addressing affordability consistently since 2017,

everything from fixing a dumpster fire to the child opportunity benefit.

That’s $2,600 a year for a family with two children. That is a

significant investment in families. That’s money in their pockets.

Reducing child care costs in this budget, cutting fees by 50 percent by

the end of this year if your child is five years or younger — that is

huge, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I hope that the members across the way are going to support

the budget, because I hear that they care, finally, about affordability.

I fully expect them to support this budget.

Mr. Speaker: Peace River South, supplemental.

M. Bernier: Well, back to the question. We were talking about a $400 renters

rebate that this government, this Premier, ministers have promised that

they would deliver to help in this affordability crisis.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Yeah, twice. Half a decade now of making this promise.

The minister completely deflected away, so I’m trying to give her

another chance here, because the minister sitting right to her right

said that you were working on it, that this government was working on

it.

I know it takes a long time for the NDP to deliver on a promise.

We’re six years in, almost, of trying to deliver on a basic promise of

what they were trying to say that they were going to give to the people

of British Columbia.

Back to the minister, one of the ministers, maybe the Premier.

They promised that they would deliver this for the people of British

Columbia. Housing prices have never been higher. Rent has never been

higher. We’ve been waiting for this promise. People, families have been

waiting for this promise to be delivered.

This is not about deflecting to something else; this is about

delivering on a promise.

Will the minister stand here today and tell us when renters will

get that rebate?

Hon. S. Robinson: We are continuing to work on that commitment. I also want to

remind the members that we capped rent hikes, saving the average British

Columbia family over $1,000 a year. That’s significant.

What did the members do on the other side of the House? They

actually increased. They put a 2 percent additional increase on top of

CPI increases. We got rid of that. We’re continuing to save people money

here in this province, and we’re going to keep doing that important

work.

ACTION ON AFFORDABILITY ISSUES

P. Milobar: It’s troubling to hear the Finance Minister talk about the renters

rebate. It’s actually in the Finance Minister’s mandate letter. She’s

had that mandate letter through two budgets now.

In fact, it’s only meant, in her mandate letter, for people that

aren’t already getting subsidized housing of some sort. So the fact that

we don’t see it anywhere in this budget is very troubling, very

concerning, which means people have to wait another year for relief

there.

They’ve waited four years for the Premier to try to action

anything when it comes to gas prices. Again, the Premier’s own words.

This government seems to never want to take responsibility for their own

commitments, their own promises, especially election promises. We’ve

heard about the bungling and the confusion in the child care sector

around that.

The interesting thing, when it comes to transit or even child

care, is the only reason this government has the money for these

programs is because, like with most things over the last few years, they

wait for the federal government to come in with buckets of money and

save them from it. They had no child care plan until the federal

government came in with boatloads of money.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s hear the question, please.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

P. Milobar: Again, the so-called fuel rebate announced on Friday will see $30

of that $110 go back to this government in the form of taxation, a nice

little clawback that they don’t like to talk about. We’re seeing transit

fares increase in TransLink areas.

When will this Premier take the affordability crisis seriously —

at least he had a moment today where he finally acknowledged what we all

know, that he doesn’t understand affordability — and actually deliver on

even one of his campaign promises as it relates to affordability in this

province?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I guess what I don’t understand is how these people can keep

talking the way they’ve been talking. I think we need an Adam project in

here so we can take the 2022 Liberals back to meet the 2017 Liberals,

because they’re different people.

Kevin Falcon jacked up, put tolls on the roads in British

Columbia, the first time in 50 years. He increased the medical services

premium. He took the so-called revenue-neutral carbon tax….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. J. Horgan: He took the carbon tax and gave it to his developer friends, so

they could build houses that people speculated on. They didn’t live in

them.

For these people, the 2022 Liberals, who have no correlation

whatsoever to the Liberals that I spent 15 years yelling at…. The

Liberals of today live in another reality.

We have been taking steps for five years to reduce costs for

British Columbians.

The Leader of the Official Opposition mocked the child opportunity

benefit. It used to go to children up to the age of six, and we brought

it in for kids up to the age of 18, because we know that kids don’t get

cheaper. They get more expensive.

The only thing that people don’t understand is why it is that

Liberals are trying to pretend they’re Liberals, because they’re

not.

You should go back to being Conservatives, where you’re

comfortable. Tell people what you really stand for, and let us do the

heavy lifting on affordability.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, question period is over.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour of presenting the Auditor General’s report

B.C. Housing’s COVID-19 Response: Additional Safe Spaces for Women

and Children Leaving Violence .

Hon. L. Popham: I am tabling four copies of a revised service plan for the Ministry of

Agriculture and Food. This version replaces the plan tabled on budget day

2022 and corrects an entry error in the forecast for performance measures

2.1b on page 9.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call committee stage, Bill 8, Attorney General Statutes

(Hague Convention on Child and Family Support) Amendment Act.

In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of Supply estimates

on the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 8 — ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES

(HAGUE CONVENTION ON

CHILD AND

FAMILY SUPPORT) AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 8;

J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 2:40 p.m.

On clause 1.

Hon. D. Eby: I’ll introduce the staff joining me today — Darryl Hrenyk, legal

counsel, Ministry of Attorney General, on housing and policy and

legislation division.

I look forward to the member’s questions.

M. de Jong: To put the conversation we’re going to have into some kind of

context, the Attorney knows that the House, I think, at second reading

indicated a broad level of support for what the government and he are

endeavouring to do with respect to the Hague convention.

Maybe, before we get into a few of the individual sections, the

minister could put on the record, for the purposes of the committee,

what this Hague convention on child and family support is endeavouring

to do, when Canada became a signatory and ratified, and explain the role

that the province plays with respect to breathing life into that — those

steps taken by the federal government and the federal

parliament.

Hon. D. Eby: This convention was completed in 2007 but wasn’t in force anywhere

until 2013, when two signatory countries — the first two were Norway and

Albania — ratified it. We could not enact this implementing legislation

until the federal government officially became a signatory country and

enacted ratifying legislation, because the convention is an

international instrument, not domestic law.

Canada formally became a signatory on May 23, 2017. In June of

2019, Canada amended the federal Divorce Act that, when those are

brought into force, will ratify the convention and make it possible to

apply it in whatever province and territory is ready. That’s what we’re

aiming to do here today — to be ready for that.

This convention itself functionally just makes it possible for us

to transmit documents between countries where parents are located. There

will be a parent here in British Columbia. There will be a parent in

another country. The documents can be transmitted through a central

authority that will ensure that those documents are put in front of a

competent court to be able to resolve the issue.

M. de Jong: Broadly speaking, we’re talking about two possible circumstances

here. Well, I’m going to make that statement, and if that’s not the

case, the Attorney can correct me.

[2:45 p.m.]

A circumstance where a child is located either in British Columbia

or elsewhere, but an order for that child’s maintenance has been

obtained in a jurisdiction outside of British Columbia and outside of

Canada that the custodial parent is wishing to bring and have enforced

in British Columbia. I think the term the convention uses is “enforced

against the debtor.” I think that’s the term that is used in the

convention.

Then the second circumstance where a custodial parent obtains an

order in the B.C. courts for the support of a child, and it’s seeking to

have that order enforced in a jurisdiction outside of Canada where the

debtor is believed to be located.

Is that, broadly speaking, the two circumstances that we’d be

dealing with here?

Hon. D. Eby: Generally speaking, yes.

M. de Jong: The next question I’m going to ask, only because a few people have

asked me. I ask it not in an accusatory way, because the Attorney only

became the Attorney in 2017. I recognize that Canada, as he has just

said, didn’t become a signatory to the convention until that year and

then ratified it a couple of years thereafter.

I’m told that Canada played a pretty leading role, or a pretty

significant role, in the drafting of this convention dating back to

2007, yet here we are, some 14 years later. Again, I ask this not, as is

frequently the case in this chamber, in an accusatory way against this

government or this Attorney. But this takes a long time, and we’re not

there yet. At some point, I’m going to probably ask the Attorney for

some indication of how long he thinks it will take for all of Canada to

introduce the legislation required to fully operationalize this

convention within Canada.

Let’s start with just some thoughts on the length of time that it

takes for this work to be done internationally and, in this case, within

Canada.

Hon. D. Eby: The member is right. This has taken a long time, and it will take

longer than just us passing this bill, although hopefully not too long.

After we pass this bill, we’ll still need Canada to bring into force

their amendments from June 2019 that ratified the convention, once we’re

ready.

The member is right that this was completed in 2007. The first six

years the convention was not in force at all. It required two signatory

countries to take the first steps to ratify it, and that happened in

As for us at the provincial level, as the member has said, Canada

only formally became a signatory country in 2017, so that was a decade

after the drafting of the convention. It took two more years after that

to make the amendments to the federal Divorce Act, which signalled to us

in B.C. that we should get in a position to be ready for when the

federal government ratifies the convention, which is what’s happening

now.

I understand that time was taken by an FPT,

federal-provincial-territorial, working group of family justice

officials to complete a draft uniform implementation act to enable

provinces to more easily implement it.

Bill 8 is based on provisions in the draft act that took several

months of B.C. drafting time to complete. The use of the uniform act is

really important to ensure consistency between provinces and

territories, so we were glad for it, but it did have to be modified for

the B.C. context. It helps ensure that foreign jurisdictions are seeing

similar legislation.

So lots of reasons for why we’re here in 2022 with a convention

drafted in 2007. The process of adopting these international documents

is obviously lengthy, but hopefully, it will be very beneficial for B.C.

families.

[2:50 p.m.]

M. de Jong: My reading of the convention suggests that the drafters

contemplated the fact that in many countries where there’s a federal

state, there will be a division of powers between a central government

and state or provincial governments. I presume that contributes to the

length of time it takes to do this work.

I’m not, quite frankly…. When I heard and read that Albania was

one of the first signatories…. I am of an age where I still think of

Albania as that country that we never used to hear anything about, yet

here they were, apparently on the leading edge.

Norway and, apparently, the Ukraine, ironically, in the same year

— are those unitary states, where the need to address provincial or

state-level jurisdictions isn’t as much of a burden for them? I’m

guessing that in Canada, that’s where some of the delay is going to

come.

Hon. D. Eby: The member has stumped us. Darryl and I were looking at each

other. That’s a great question.

I don’t know if Norway and Albania are unitary states, but I do

know that Canada is a state with provinces and territories that will

complicate the federal government’s job. Given that we have jurisdiction

that’s shared with the feds in relation to family law, it will

complicate the efforts of the federal government to get this ratified in

Canada. We’re just doing our part here in B.C. to make it

possible.

M. de Jong: All right. Ratified by

an act of parliament in 2019. B.C. is not

technically a signatory to the convention. Canada, as a federal

authority, is the signatory. Our work flows from our constitutional

makeup within the country. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, it is.

M. de Jong: I’m trying to think of the order to…. I’m going to try and

characterize…. Well, let me say what I’m not going to do. I wasn’t

proposing today to go through,

article by article, the Hague

convention.

The reason I think it’s all right to do that is because it is

largely procedural — an international agreement, in my reading, around

procedures that the signatories will follow. We dealt with another UN

document, declaration a few years back, which I think — and I’m not

meaning to be argumentative — just seemed to me to be more substantive

or have the greater potential to impact substantive law.

This convention doesn’t purport to tell British Columbia or

another Canadian province what their laws around child maintenance

should be, in my view. What it purports to do is create a framework

around which of those orders can be enforced. Again, we may come upon a

slight exception to that here and there, but is that a reasonably fair

characterization of this convention?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, it is.

M. de Jong: The various articles…. I see, if I direct the Attorney and his

capable adviser,

article 60 of the convention talks about the convention

coming into force and entry into force. Is the Attorney able to

give…?

Let’s assume, for the sake of this conversation, that this

legislation is going to pass in British Columbia. What can the Attorney,

with the assistance of his official, tell us about what else needs to

happen now in Canada? What other provinces…? I’m assuming the

territories can be covered by the federal government, but maybe

not.

[2:55 p.m.]

What else needs to happen in Canada? Then what needs to happen for

the convention to be in force and for people to be able to rely on the

convention here in B.C.? I guess the question I’ll ultimately have is:

has he been provided with any advice estimating when that might happen,

recognizing that most of that is beyond his control?

Hon. D. Eby: This is a difficult question in the sense, as the member has said,

that responsibility lies with the federal government to both ratify and

to file with the Hague our ratification.

B.C. is the first province to bring in legislation to adopt our

adherence to the convention. This bill is a necessary step for Canada to

do the same internationally, so it will be up to the federal government

whether they want to wait for more provinces and territories to sign on,

or whether they want to go ahead.

There are some other pieces in place. For example, there’s a

mandatory three-month delay, which is built into the convention itself,

to allow existing contracting states to become aware of ratification by

a new convention in a state. So after Canada ratifies and files, there

will be a three-month notice period.

In B.C.’s case, the convention will only become law after the

federal government files those ratification documents. For those who are

very keen, that’s under

article 58. It’s filed with the international

Permanent Bureau at the Hague, which certifies that B.C. is ready for

the convention to apply. That filing by the federal government triggers

that three-month waiting period under

article 60.

The intention here is to have our bill timed to be brought into

force at the expiry of the waiting period. It’s expected that the

federal government will do the same by bringing into force the

convention-ratifying sections of the federal Divorce Act. So it’s a very

coordinated and choreographed process.

Before filing, the federal government must complete a formal

review of B.C.’s legislation to make sure it agrees the changes will

implement the convention. The feds may also wish to consider the

readiness of other provinces and territories, as I said.

Although Canada can file documents individually for each

individual province and territory at different times, they may choose to

wait until one or two are ready. We will be asking them, though, to

ratify immediately, because we know the situation faced by some families

is quite desperate.

B.C. officials believe that other provinces are developing their

own implementing legislation, and we do believe that some of the

provinces will be bringing forward legislation soon. In B.C., we also

need to prepare and approve regulations required by the amendments in

Bill 8 so that they can be brought into force at the same time as the

provisions in Bill 8. We think that much of that can be done while

waiting for the feds to file the certifying documents.

M. de Jong: Is the three-month period the Attorney referred to that which is

referred to in

article 60?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, it is.

M. de Jong: Not uncommon in these kinds of situations where the level of

coordination described by the Attorney is required

cross-jurisdictionally in Canada for the federal government to set a

target and ask — or seek agreement, at least — amongst the provinces for

the work to be complete at the provincial legislative level.

Has the federal government provided any indication whatsoever to

British Columbia or other provinces as to their preference when the work

is done and when they’d be in a position to file those ratification

documents, and if they haven’t, is the Attorney troubled, disappointed,

impatient about that?

Hon. D. Eby: We certainly are confident that the federal government wants to do

this, that they want to get this into place. I’m certainly heartened by

that. I recognize the challenge federally of committing to certain time

periods and wanting to have as many provinces and territories as

possible onside. I’m not critical of the fact that we haven’t received

any indication from the federal government about deadline or a best

before date or an effort that they have to have provinces and

territories hit a certain target, in terms of the timeline.

[3:00 p.m.]

What I can say for British Columbia is that once we get this into

place, we will be reaching out to the federal government to, of course,

let them know and to ask them, for British Columbia, to ratify as

quickly as possible because of the situation faced by many families in

our province. I hope that other provincial legislatures also take this

opportunity to support families in the same way.

M. de Jong: I’m not going to try and provoke the Attorney General to make

statements that might be viewed as putting overt pressure on the federal

government. He knows…. He has explained to the committee and shared his

understanding of the process and the option available to the federal

government to proceed with the filing of ratification documents

following a province — or two or three, or to do it

incrementally.

I’ll invite him to take advantage of the opportunity that the

committee affords to offer an opinion on when he thinks the work in

British Columbia would be done and complete and would afford the federal

government the opportunity to at least proceed with the filing of

ratification documents as it relates to this province.

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that we feel that British Columbia can be

ready when the federal government is ready and is filing the certifying

documents at the Hague. We think that we can hit those dates, regardless

of when that is. If it’s immediately following the passage of this bill

or at some point in the future, we will not be the source of delay in

implementation.

I would certainly encourage the federal government, on the record

here, as I will in person with my federal counterparts, to ratify as

quickly as possible, given the challenges faced by B.C. families where

there is someone who owes money and lives in another jurisdiction, and

also families internationally where there’s somebody in British Columbia

that owes them money under a support agreement, to make sure that

families are looked after and that those court orders are

respected.

M. de Jong: One last question on that front. Is the Attorney aware of any work

that would be required at the provincial level, on the part of British

Columbia, that would delay or preclude the filing of ratification

documents to breathe life into the Hague convention within this part of

Canada — any reason that it couldn’t be done prior to the end of the

calendar year, recognizing it’s not the Attorney’s call?

He can’t direct the federal government to do that, but the work

here in British Columbia will have been completed and would afford the

federal government an opportunity to do that if they so

wished.

Hon. D. Eby: The member is right. This will depend on federal government

timing, but there are two significant pieces of provincial work. One is

the regulations, as I mentioned, that are required by Bill 8, needed to

bring this into force.

[3:05 p.m.]

The other is something called the interjurisdictional support

service, which is a service that exists in the Ministry of Attorney

General through the maintenance enforcement and locate services branch

of justice services branch. They are responsible for maintaining a

system, under the current act, for interjurisdictional support orders.

They will need to update their system. They’re the central authority

that’s repeatedly talked about in the Hague convention and in these

amendments.

They will be our central authority. Because they are our central

authority, they will be the ones receiving international documents and

transmitting documents internationally. They have to upgrade their

systems to do that. I am advised…. It’s the best understanding of staff

that that would not delay us. If there were an implementation date and

we were targeting the end of the year, we would be able to do

that.

Now, any time someone mentions systems and computers, I always get

a little bit nervous about firm dates. But I will give the member a

point-in-time update that at this point in time, our understanding is

that those changes could be in that system by the end of the year, and

they would be able to do this work.

With the three-month waiting period in the federal government

ratification process, that work is happening right now in British

Columbia to prepare for it, so we think we should be well in hand for

when the feds are ready.

M. de Jong: The preparation and drafting of the regulations the Attorney

referred to — are those contemplated in this legislation under clause

10? Is that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes.

M. de Jong: Then the reference to the interjurisdictional support services

branch, which is a branch within the justice ministry…. I’m going to ask

this question to try and invite the Attorney to give us a bit of a sense

of when this is eventually all up and running, how this is going to work

practically. We may come back to that in a few moments.

Right now we have an understanding amongst the Canadian

jurisdictions for the mutual registration and enforcement of orders. We

have a national organization for that which, as I understand it,

represents the central authority that the Attorney referred to a moment

ago and is contemplated under the convention.

I guess what I’m trying to ascertain is if I am a mother in a

country of the EU — I only picked that example because there are lots of

countries in the EU that are signatories — and I have located a debtor

father in British Columbia and I’m going to file the order that I have

got in my country, do I file with the central Canadian authority, or do

I file with the court — in our case, in British Columbia — or the court

in Alberta or the court in Ontario? How does that work practically for

the person seeking to enforce the order?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: This system is predicated on…. You’ve already got an order in hand

that you’re trying to enforce in your local jurisdiction. So this mom

who’s in the EU would go, in her home country, to the central authority

— whatever that country has designated as the central

authority.

They would have a form that she would fill out, including the

details of the order. She would file that with her local authority that

would transmit it to B.C.’s central authority.

Now, an important point in Canada is that each province and

territory has their own central authority. British Columbia will use the

same central authority that we’ve been using for the Interjurisdictional

Support Orders Act, which is our provincial Interjurisdictional Support

Services. They will receive that transmission from this European Union

country and receive the order here in British Columbia.

In the reverse situation, where the mother is in British Columbia,

it would go to the Interjurisdictional Support Services, as our central

authority. They would advise her to fill out this form, and that would

be what was transmitted to the central authority in the other country

where the debtor was located.

M. de Jong: Okay, that’s actually very helpful. If I misunderstood…. So the

good news is that on the surface, at least, it looks like that person in

the European jurisdiction isn’t obliged to travel, retain counsel. That

seems to be the intention, and vice versa. The person, the custodial

parent in British Columbia, doesn’t incur the expense of having to

retain counsel or find a way to register documents at a court in

Europe.

One thing I was unclear on. To carry on with my example, once the

custodial parent in the country in Europe submits the documents to the

central authority there, do the documents go directly from there to the

B.C. branch of the Canadian central authority, or do they go via the

central authority, which then transmits them? If there is that role for

the central authority, do they have a reviewing function to ensure that

the documents are in order, and who fulfils that reviewing

function?

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for his second reading speech laying out some

of these areas of interest because it allows staff to prepare full

answers for me to read into the record.

Thank you, Darryl and your team, for providing us a helpful,

step-by-step process.

What I’m going to do is I’m going to take the member through two

scenarios. One is where there’s a court order, a family order, a support

order that’s made in some third country that’s trying to be enforced in

B.C. Also, what would happen in a B.C. order that’s trying to be

enforced somewhere else?

I’ll start with an order made somewhere else that’s attempted to

be enforced in B.C. through this new process. The folks at B.C. central

authority will receive an application from that third country asking

B.C. to recognize and enforce a support order that was made in that

state. Once they get that application, they’re going to check the

appli­cation for completeness, and they’re going to do an

information search, if appropriate, to confirm the location in B.C. of

the party that’s named in the application.

Now, the authority for that is in

part 11 of the Family Law Act,

which allows the central authority to make a request to a search officer

to find that individual. The central authority also converts the amount

of the support in the foreign order into Canadian dollars and sends that

order to a B.C. court to be registered. Once it’s registered in a B.C.

court, the court registry will notify the B.C. party that, therefore, an

order has been registered.

That’s the debtor, the local person in British Columbia, who

suddenly gets a notice that says there’s an order that’s been registered

here in B.C. Now, if that person, the debtor, wants to dispute the

registration, they have 30 days to apply to the B.C. court to challenge

the registration on one or more grounds that are set out in the

Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act.

When it’s registered in the court, the foreign order then has the

same effect as a support order that’s made by a B.C. court, which means

it will be enrolled with the Family Maintenance Agency for collection.

The Family Maintenance Agency receives, records and sends any payments

collected from the B.C. payer to the central authority in the

contracting state where the recipient resides for disbursement to the

recipient.

[3:15 p.m.]

And now the reverse situation.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Eby: The member has asked me to pause there and clarify some things.

Then we’ll go into the second scenario.

M. de Jong: I’m obliged to the Attorney. The reason I suggested we stop there

is because the reverse scenario — there’s a lot more outside of the

control of the B.C. authority when the order is going the other way. So

I will focus on the first example, which I think is of even greater….

Well, they’re both relevant, but this one involves way more people in

B.C.

I just want to make sure I understood, when the Attorney was

referring to the central authority, then registering the order with the

B.C. court, is that the national central authority? I have been using

that term in reference to this national coordinating body, but it seems

that the Attorney may have been referring to a central authority within

British Columbia.

Hon. D. Eby: I think that there might be a bit of a disconnect there. The

central authority in this convention, in this bill and generally is in

British Columbia, and it is our central authority.

I am advised by staff there will be a national central authority

but limited to Divorce Act applications, and people would still deal

with the B.C. central authority for people located in British Columbia.

So it’s more helpful to think of it as a B.C. institution that is

enabled by this international process. It will be staffed by B.C.

government officials and so on, and everything will be dealt with in

B.C.

I think that might clarify for the member where we’re

disconnecting.

M. de Jong: Yes, it does.

The foreign maintenance order…. Of course, all of this is

predicated on the fact that British Columbia, Canada and this other

country are signatories and have ratified and are fully part of the

Hague convention, so we’ll take that as a given for the purpose of our

conversation.

The foreign order comes in. It’s filed or it’s sent to this

central authority within British Columbia that I presume will be housed,

or is housed now, within the Justice Ministry, and then that’s going to

trigger some work on their part, which the Attorney summarized in

part.

He talked about the…. I guess there’s a review of the

documentation to ensure that it’s in order and complies with the

provisions of the convention. Then there is a notification of the

debtor. I’m curious, and I suppose, ultimately, custodial parents will

be curious. The Attorney knows this from his work prior to being in this

place and his experience and, obviously, his work as the Attorney.

Debtors sometimes can expend great deals of energy to avoid receiving

the documentation and meeting their obligations.

Again, these are more practical questions. What does the Attorney

see as the degree to which the central authority is going to take steps

to locate this person, this debtor? What are the obligations under the

convention for the central authority within B.C. to take action in that

regard?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Domestically we have search officers that work with the

maintenance enforcement and locate services branch of the justice

services branch. They support the Family Maintenance Agency in finding

and enforcing judgments for people who are located in British

Columbia.

This same service will be offered to international people who

register their orders through this process. The central authority’s

search to find the person will be the same as is done for domestic

debtors and creditors in the family law system. These search officers

have authority, under

part 11 of the Family Law Act, to do these

searches. They’re very good at their work. If the person is in B.C.,

they’re usually quite good at finding them.

The same process would be followed for enforcing these kinds of

debts under the Family Maintenance Agency as are done domestically in

relation to support debts.

One of the commitments that Canada made and will make in ratifying

the convention and that we make through this legislation in ratifying it

is that we will make best efforts to locate people, to serve them and to

ensure that enforcement is effected in British Columbia.

M. de Jong: Again, that is exceedingly helpful to get a sense of how this is

going to work practically. The order comes in to the B.C. central

authority. It reviews the documentation, and then it sounds like it gets

passed along to the family maintenance enforcement program for

enforcement. If that’s so, if I’ve got that essentially correct, the

Attorney can tell me that.

The next question I’m going to ask is based on observations that

are admittedly perhaps a bit dated. If the Attorney wants to reassure me

that this is not any longer the case…. I will say it this way. Family

maintenance enforcement program has a lot of files, and they have to

make decisions about prioritizing those files.

I will say an observation that I used to make is that the files

that got the most attention were the ones where, as a result of a

debtor, a non-custodial parent not fulfilling their maintenance

obligations, was triggering a need by the province of British Columbia

to step in and provide assistance to the custodial parent.

I’ve said that clumsily, perhaps, but I think the Attorney

probably gets my drift — that the incentive on the part of the program

was to deal in circumstances where people were collecting assistance

when they might not otherwise have to if the non-custodial parent were

fulfilling their maintenance obligations.

I mean, this is all speculative now. We’re probably still some….

It sounds like not just months but probably a few years away from this

being fully operational in B.C. Is the Attorney satisfied that these

orders — by definition, foreign orders — will receive the attention they

require within the admittedly difficult circumstances that agencies like

family maintenance enforcement find? They are busy, and they have lots

of files.

[3:25 p.m.]

Then I guess the question that follows from that. I take it that

there’s nothing to preclude someone from a foreign jurisdiction who has

filed the order to come over and assist in terms of trying to identify

assets or provide information to a family maintenance enforcement

agency, who says: “Here’s where I think that you can go to look, and

here are the steps that I think you can take to follow through with the

enforcement of these orders.” So really two questions there, I

guess.

Hon. D. Eby: The member, at the beginning of his question, asked whether I

could confirm whether his understanding was right, and it is

correct.

For the second part of his question, he asked about prioritization

within the family maintenance enforcement agency. I can advise the

member that to the best of our knowledge, there is no policy that would

prioritize someone who is living on assistance or somebody else that is

facing a situation where somebody owes them child support.

Now, this is a human enterprise. I can imagine, as an officer

working in the family maintenance agency, that if you’ve got someone

who’s in dire financial straits or living on welfare because their

partner is not paying child support, you may feel moved to put some

extra energy into it, or something. I’m just speculating; I don’t know.

But I can advise the member that to the best of my knowledge, there is

no such policy.

Perhaps it might be helpful for the member to know that this

international system is working today in British Columbia, where we have

these bilateral agreements with other countries. This will hopefully fit

into that larger piece. When you look at the entire world outside of

British Columbia, we have, coming into B.C. from outside British

Columbia, the United States, a net inflow of $1.3 million; and

internationally, a net inflow of $650,000 and change.

That net maybe conceals, a little bit, that there are flows going

back and forth. Inflow to British Columbia from the United States is

$2.295 million; outflow from B.C. to the United States is $986,000 and

change. Then internationally, inflows to B.C., $791,000; and outflow

from B.C., $139,000. That collection period is 2020-21.

It shows that there’s money going back and forth. The system is

working. The numbers, understandably, flowing into British Columbia from

the rest of the world are bigger, because there are more places. The

money flowing out from B.C. is about 2 to 1, U.S.A. inflow to B.C.

compared to outflow, and about a 4 to 1 international inflows to

outflows ratio. This system is working, and it is collecting.

Now, the member asked a third part to his question, and I confess

that he hit our capacity at two, so the member will have to repeat that

question.

M. de Jong: Sorry. I didn’t hear the last part that the Attorney

said.

Hon. D. Eby: Is the member pulling my leg? I said that I didn’t hear the last

part of the member’s question, so we’re going around and around here.

I’m hopeful that he would repeat the third part of his question, because

I missed it.

M. de Jong: I’m going to have to think about the third question I

asked.

While I do that, I think the Attorney meant to convey that we can

learn a lot about how this broader, global system is going to work by

looking at the system that is in place bilaterally with a few

countries.

[3:30 p.m.]

He’s nodding and indicating that’s the case.

Those bilateral agreements — do they roughly equate with…? I think

what I’m trying to get at here is this idea that it sure sounds good.

When we get to the other example about the British Columbia parent

filing elsewhere — that someone need not come to the jurisdiction where

the debtor is and incur all of expense of getting there and figuring out

who to talk to and can just file these documents and rely upon an

enforcement mechanism within the jurisdiction to do the rest, as it

were.

Is that a fair description of the bilateral mechanism that’s in

place, and is that a pretty good indication how one hopes this broader

global system is going to work?

Hon. D. Eby: The agency that will do the work within the Ministry of Attorney

General is the same. The central authority is the same for the bilateral

as it will be for this Hague convention piece. The process is very

similar. There is a central authority in British Columbia. There is one

in the third country where somebody goes to. They file, and they

transmit the documents, so that process is very similar.

What this does is that this opens a much larger…. I don’t want to

overstate it. It opens a larger number of countries to British

Columbians for this kind of enforcement work to take place. If I’m

taking the member’s point, it will depend on the infrastructure in other

countries for British Columbians to enforce those orders in those

countries that they obtain in British Columbia in, say, Albania. There

is a degree of trust that’s required that all countries participating

will do best effort.

Certainly for B.C., we can say that that person from Albania

that’s transmitting that order over to British Columbia will get the

same service that a British Columbian would get in relation to a

domestic claim of family support that’s owing. For British Columbians, I

guess, that’s really the best we can ask — that you get the same

treatment as an Albanian would get that had a domestic claim in that

country.

The effort here is to expand the world of countries that we’re

working with, not to dramatically reform the interjurisdictional support

order process. It would be very similar.

M. de Jong: That is helpful clarification.

I presume, but I might as well ask. As the network of nations

involved grows and the numbers of orders coming into the jurisdiction

for enforcement grow, the terms of the convention say that the

jurisdiction in Canada — in this case, British Columbia — will absorb

the cost associated with enforcing those orders, as they do domestic

orders. There is no provision contemplation within the convention and, I

suppose I should ask the Attorney, no intention on the part of the

province of British Columbia to collect an additional fee for that

work.

Maybe I should ask: is that even precluded under the terms of the

convention?

Hon. D. Eby: We’ll have to check on that issue of whether the convention itself

precludes such activity, but it is not our intention to charge any fee

like that to a cost recovery mechanism.

M. de Jong: Thanks. Probably a good segue, then, into the second example. I

think the Attorney has answered a lot of those questions that flow from

the second example of the British Columbia parent who is now seeking to

enforce an order elsewhere in the world.

I presume the short answer is that everything the Attorney has

described about the situation that would exist and the procedure that

would be followed in British Columbia is intended to reciprocate in

another country. But I cut him off as he was about to enlighten us, so

I’ll encourage him to continue.

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: These are the steps that would be taken to recognize and enforce a

decision made in British Columbia in relation to family maintenance that

relates to somebody who lives in another one of the contracting states

to the convention.

A B.C. recipient, having received an order from the court, just as

they would if the debtor was another British Columbian, enrols in the

Family Maintenance Agency program to have that support order enforced.

They just indicate that the payer lives in another contracting state and

that arrears are owed.

The Family Maintenance Agency will open a file. They’ll set up a

payment

schedule according to the terms of the support order and

calculate the arrears amount that’s owing. They will note where the

payer lives and confirm, if necessary, that the payer is in the other

contracting state.

Now, that can be confirmed through a request for a search by a

search officer. We’ve talked about that search officer that’s located

here in British Columbia, under the authority of the Family Law Act, or

it could be done through the central authority in the contracting state

where the payer is believed to be.

The Family Maintenance Agency then prepares an enforcement

application using the proper convention forms. These documents will be a

statement of arrears, if necessary; a copy of the B.C. support order;

and any necessary translations into the official language of the other

country. They will send those materials to the central authority in the

contracting state where the payer lives.

Once it’s received, the central authority in that country will

process the Family Maintenance Agency’s documents in accordance with

domestic procedures and rules. That collection of support payments in

that country will be carried out under their domestic law.

Any payments that are collected by that country, by the central

authority of that country, are forwarded to the Family Maintenance

Agency for disbursement to the recipient in British Columbia. The Family

Maintenance Agency receives and records payments and will ultimately

disburse them to the B.C. recipient.

M. de Jong: Following up on the question, and the Attorney may give me the

same answer, which is that he and his officials may need to

check.

In that procedure that he’s mentioned, I’d be curious to know

whether the foreign country doing the collection work is precluded from

subtracting a processing fee for the funds collected for the parent and

child located in British Columbia. I understand that we can check that

and get confirmation of that.

I’m sure the Attorney…. This is true of either example, but let’s

take the example where we have the British Columbian custodial parent,

child in B.C., has received an order seeking to enforce it. Does the

convention contemplate enforcement in circumstances where the location

of the debtor is not known for certain but the location of some of the

debtor’s assets are?

Can collection take place where a debtor has made himself or

herself scarce but — for example, in the case of real property assets —

those assets are obviously identifiable and locatable?

Hon. D. Eby: The specific situation will depend on the domestic law of the

other country. The easiest way is to think about it by analogy to

British Columbia.

If there was a notice received, transmitted to British Columbia

and the debtor had assets in British Columbia, you could have a

situation where there were attempts at service and it was unsuccessful.

You could get a substitute service order, and you could collect against

those assets, even without knowing whether or not the person has

received service.

[3:40 p.m.]

We suspect that most countries that are adhering to this

convention have similar processes. In most situations, where there is an

asset that’s known to the creditor and they’re pursuing it in the third

country, that country will have processes for notice and service and

will allow for substitute service where required. But it will depend on

the domestic law of the other country.

M. de Jong: Right. I mean, I think, ultimately, that is the answer and where,

hopefully, some of the frustration that we’ve seen in the past might be

overcome.

I wanted to ask a question. I was told by the helpful staff that

provided the briefing that there are 43 countries that are signatories

to the convention at this point, 26 of them being EU countries. I’m not

going to ask for a listing.

I am going to ask this, though. I’m not sure if there is data on

this, as it relates to circumstances in which children in British

Columbia are supposed to be receiving maintenance. They do not, and the

parent with that obligation to provide that maintenance has left the

jurisdiction. Do we have any data at all on particular parts of the

world, particular countries, where there are above average…? In terms of

the inflow and outflow of people into British Columbia….

I think I’m trying to find a way to ask the Attorney: are there

countries that are not yet signatories to this agreement that it would

be really helpful if they were to become signatories because a lot of

the cases that arise out of British Columbia involve those countries? I

don’t know if that data exists.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Thanks to the member for the question.

First of all, I don’t understand that there are any statistics of

countries where we both don’t have a bilateral agreement with them and

they are not contracting states. How many matters do B.C. families have

that might fall in the jurisdiction of those countries? I just don’t

have that information for the member. But I can advise the member that

where there are countries with a significant number of matters, B.C. has

worked to establish that they are bilateral reciprocating jurisdictions.

There are many.

The nice part about this work is that the bilateral countries that

we have agreements with tend to be our top international partners, where

there are issues. So the United States, intuitively, is the biggest

jurisdiction where there are people living cross-border. Within the

United States, Washington state is our biggest reciprocal partner —

obviously, very close geographically — with total funds in the 2020-21

collection period of $884,193.

Our top international bilateral partners are the United Kingdom,

Australia and Germany, in that order. It drops off very quickly. Germany

is our third top international partner. There is $82,971 of total funds

for Germany.

Those countries that have ratified the convention, where we will

see an immediate impact for B.C. families and the volume of that impact

— there are a number of them. The total is 17 countries, with British

Columbians who are seeking to enforce judgments, but they have not been

able to because we’re not ratified. There are 35 files among those 17

countries, and the total arrears outstanding is $3.6 million and

change.

The largest of these countries are France, Netherlands and Brazil

— one, two and three — with four files each: France, $125,000 in arrears

outstanding; Netherlands, $877,000 outstanding on four matters; Brazil,

$47,000 outstanding on four files.

We do have two files in Ireland worth a total of $830,497. We have

one file in Turkey that’s worth a total of $286,827. Some of these can

be quite significant for families and will be once this is

ratified.

M. de Jong: The two most populous countries in the world are ones with which

Canada and British Columbia have extensive trade and cultural

relationships. I’m thinking of China and India. Are either China or

India signatories or poised to become signatories to the Hague

convention?

Hon. D. Eby: Neither of those countries have signed the convention.

M. de Jong: Any indication from the work taking place nationally about

prospects for either of those jurisdictions joining the

convention?

I don’t expect the Attorney and his able adviser to be on top of

what negotiations may or may not be taking place this week or last

month, even. But it strikes me that it would be…. These are

jurisdictions with which we have regular contact. Any intel on whether

or not there is a willingness on either of those two countries to sign

on to the convention?

Hon. D. Eby: No, we don’t have information on that.

I can advise the member that we do have bilateral agreements with

Hong Kong and with Singapore for those families with debtors that live

in those jurisdictions, although they are not currently signatories or

indicating that they are going to be signatories to the

convention.

[3:50 p.m.]

M. de Jong: The Attorney may not know this, or his assistant. India, I think,

is a signatory to the Hague convention on adoption. So there has been

some willingness in the past. They’re not a signatory to this one

yet.

Hon. D. Eby: I’ll take the member’s advice on that. The federal government

tends to lead on international adoption convention standards.

M. de Jong: It has been helpful to have that conversation about the practical

workings — how one hopes this is going to operate to the benefit of

people who generally find themselves in difficult circumstances and

children who are entitled…. As the convention makes clear, it’s premised

on the belief that children are entitled to be looked after by their

parents, and there are obligations that come with parenting.

I have a few questions, not many, that are just directly relevant

section 1. I’ll try to go through them quickly. In

section 1, there

are some amendments to

definitions. The definition under “convention”

with respect to international recovery of child support speaks of “…any

declarations or reservations made under the convention by the government

of Canada in respect of B.C.” I read the reference in the

convention.

I suspect there are none at this point — there are no declarations

or reservations — but can the Attorney confirm that?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s our understanding that Canada is likely to make declarations

under two articles and a reservation under one.

The first declaration we anticipate would be made under

article 2

on behalf of British Columbia. That would do three things. It would

extend the scope of the convention to include child support obligations

for children over the age of 21 in the situation where the child is

unable to withdraw from their parents’ care by reason of illness,

disability or other case, which is in accordance with our domestic B.C.

family law.

The second and third items are with regard to spousal support. It

will specify that applications involving spousal support apply equally

to support obligations arising out of the breakdown of marriage or an

unmarried spousal relationship between same and opposite-sex persons

under federal and B.C. law and extend the convention scope to claims for

spousal support only.

Also, we anticipate that Canada will make a declaration under

subarticle 30(7) to require all applications for the recognition and

enforcement of child support agreements to be made through central

authorities rather than directly through the courts.

[3:55 p.m.]

Under reservations, it is anticipated that Canada will make a

reservation under

article 20, on behalf of British Columbia, that will

not require the recognition and enforcement in B.C. of decisions made in

another contracting state if the decision is based on the fact only:

first, the person who is owed support under a decision “was habitually

resident in the State when proceedings” were brought against them; or

two, the parties agreed to the use of the contracting state for

proceedings; or three, the decision was made by an authority exercising

jurisdiction because of a “matter of personal status or parental

responsibility” related to a party — for example, based on the

nationality of a party.

Any declarations and reservations will be added into

schedule 2 by

the OIC.

M. de Jong: That’s helpful in terms of the few articles that I wanted to ask

the Attorney about. But before we get to that further…. Well, those are

the declarations and reservations that the Attorney and the government

expect and anticipate, and they would be made at the time the

ratification documents are submitted. Is that the sequencing?

Hon. D. Eby: These are the ones that we anticipated making at the time of

filing. There is the opportunity after filing to make other declarations

or reservations. These are the ones that we anticipate would be made on

the initial filing.

M. de Jong: Are they made on the initiative of the federal government, or does

the Attorney — and more particularly, his staff and the central

authority here — prepare those and say: “These are the declarations and

the reservations that we request as the central authority British

Columbia?”

Hon. D. Eby: We do cooperate on these matters, as the member might anticipate.

But it is the federal government that has to request that, as that is

their jurisdiction — the international relations and conventions like

this.

M. de Jong: Further down in

section 1, the definition of support order, sub

(a), refers to orders “made by a court or by an administrative body,

that requires the payment of support.”

I was trying to think about what the Attorney may have

contemplated here in terms of administrative bodies beyond orders of the

family court or orders of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. What

would the…? I suspect the term was chosen deliberately. Where else would

orders perhaps come from that would be captured by the enforcement

proceedings here?

Hon. D. Eby: An example of an administrative body is that in Australia, they

have an administrative service that calculates child support, that can

generate an order. That’s an example. It’s certainly possible that

tribunals in other jurisdictions could generate an order — a tribunal

other than a court.

It’s important to recognize that this definition of an order needs

to incorporate the origin of the international order, not just what

happens in British Columbia. We don’t have a tribunal that could

generate an order like this, but internationally, there are.

One other piece I want to note is that this isn’t a change to the

Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act. That wording was present in the

previous version of the act as well, so it’s a continuation of that

policy brought into the Hague convention contracting estates.

[4:00 p.m.]

M. de Jong: Might it include, though, an order — I’m trying to think back

again, practically — where the family maintenance enforcement agency

varies…? They don’t vary the court order, but they might vary a payment

schedule. Would that qualify as an order by an administrative

body?

Hon. D. Eby: No, the family maintenance agency doesn’t generate orders. They

enforce those orders on behalf of the parties, but the orders come from

the courts.

M. de Jong: The

section right below that refers to

article 19. I guess my

question…. Within the meaning of the new definition contemplated here,

is that a reference to a separation agreement? Is that what that is

intended to capture?

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

Hon. D. Eby: This convention uses the word “decision” instead of “order.” So

that’s why this amendment…. They mean order, among other things, but

that’s not included in our current statute, so we need to put that word

that the convention uses into our definition of an order in order to

capture it so that it’s consistent between the two.

What the member is thinking of is subsection (c), the maintenance

arrangement. That would be the agreement that he was asking about. So

(

b) is meant to incorporate the language of the convention, and (

c) is

meant to incorporate agreements that might be entered into between two

separating spouses or parents.

M. de Jong: That makes sense to me. When I looked at

article 19, I saw the

reference to: “The term ‘decision’ also includes a settlement or

agreement concluded before or approved by such an authority.” I guess

that’s the distinction between a negotiated settlement agreement and a

settlement that flows out of a dispute before the courts. Is that the

distinction between the two?

Hon. D. Eby: There will be a bit of overlap, I guess, between these pieces,

because the effort here is to really capture everything that might be

contemplated in these pieces so that they can be enforced. It is the

intention here of the drafters, when they say “maintenance arrangement,”

to refer to those kinds of agreements that people reach about mutual

support in the event of the need to support a child in this

way.

A decision…. I think the member’s nuance is probably a good way to

think about it: something that would be entered in a court, that would

be enforced by a court. But it starts to break down when you get too far

down the path, because the intent here was to have a bit of overlap

between the two so that nothing fell in between and that there were no

gaps. That’s the intention here.

Just to be completely clear, the intention was, around (c), in

“maintenance arrangement,” to refer to those types of

agreements.

M. de Jong: The idea there is that, in the same way that within British

Columbia and Canada, you can negotiate a maintenance agreement, a

settlement agreement, and ultimately register it with the court, you

could do the same thing here and have that then applied in the foreign

jurisdiction and enforced as if it is an order of their court because it

is an order of our court?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member is right. We know what we do here, but we don’t know

exactly how things play out in other places, so we’re trying to be as

complete as possible in this definition.

M. de Jong: Final point on this. So what we’re trying to achieve and convey is

that there is no disincentive to try and negotiate an agreement. We

wouldn’t want people to be left with the impression that, oh my

goodness, you better follow through on your judicial proceedings because

a negotiated agreement somehow won’t receive the same level of

enforcement as an order flowing from a judicial proceeding.

Hon. D. Eby: Yes, that’s exactly right. That also feeds into why we anticipate

Canada to be making a declaration, under

article 30, sub 7, to require

applications for recognition and enforcement of child support agreements

to be made through central authorities, not just court judgments, so

that they’re treated in a similar way.

Clauses 1 and 2 approved.

On clause 3.

M. de Jong: I want to assure the Attorney and the members of the committee

that I don’t want to go through, I’m not going to go through, the

convention clause by clause, or

article by article. There were three or

four that captured my attention that I thought it would be worthwhile to

have the Attorney address. I thought I would do that as part of

section

3, which refers specifically to the Hague convention.

Let me start. I think the Attorney has already answered my

question with respect to

article 2, which related to, on the surface,

that the convention applies to persons under 21 years of age. But the

Attorney has pointed out that we anticipate Canada filing a declaration

that would extend the provisions beyond that. I’m trying to remember

whether that declaration was going to include language about

circumstances in which maintenance obligations would continue beyond 21

years of age.

Hon. D. Eby: The member is right. In British Columbia domestic law, child

support obligations can continue for a child over the age of 21 where

the child is unable to withdraw from their parents’ care by reason of

illness, disability or other case. That is why the declaration, under

article 2, we anticipate, would extend the scope of the convention to

include similar child support obligations so that the convention is

consistent with our domestic law here in British Columbia.

M. de Jong: And the declaration is made pursuant to No. 3 of

article 2. Is

that correct?

Hon. D. Eby: Yes.

[4:10 p.m.]

M. de Jong:

Article 3 refers to a debtor, meaning “an individual who owes or

who is alleged to owe maintenance.” This might be a bit obscure, but can

a debtor be a government agency? We’ve had examples here in the past of

suggestions or circumstances where children in the care of government

may or may not have received benefits to which they’re entitled.

Subsequently, action is commenced, and there is an order obtained for

payment of those benefits. Can a debtor be a government?

Hon. D. Eby: There are a couple of hurdles to what the member puts forward as a

possible scenario in terms of enforcement under the convention. The

first is that the convention is meant to deal with civil law as opposed

to public law, so you’d have to overcome that hurdle in terms of the

government obligations, which typically tend to be considered public

law.

When we look at our own British Columbia example, the obligations

of child support flow to a guardian or a parent in their individual

capacity. So you couldn’t, in B.C. anyway, have those kinds of

obligations flowing to government or a company.

We can’t rule out that maybe there’s some scenario, in a

contracting country that ratifies the convention, where they would

create such a judgment, but it seems to be quite distant from the intent

of the convention. Given the civil law focus of the convention, it’s

hard to conceive a scenario that might allow that to arise when we look

at our own domestic roles here in British Columbia.

M. de Jong: Well, as I think through the scenarios, I have my own difficulties

trying to imagine a circumstance in which it would be necessary to

enforce an order in a jurisdiction against that government. If I can

think of a compelling one, we’ll come back to it. But for the moment, I

cannot.

Let’s go to

article 10. I think these are practical. As I was

trying to think of examples in which the convention is going to be

brought into use, these are the kinds of appli­cations that a

creditor…. When I say “creditor,” I’m going to, for the purpose of my

question, refer to a custodial parent who is bringing applications on

behalf of a child.

When I read this, what this suggests to me is that that creditor

parent, acting on behalf of the child, could come into British Columbia

and, amongst other things, seek an order compelling a paternity test,

under sub 1(c)? Am I reading that correctly?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that somebody in a third country could go to their

central authority and file an application for child support that

required some establishment of paternity. In British Columbia, we have

that process under our Family Law Act, where a court could theoretically

order…. Now, there are presumptions, and there are restrictions on the

ability to order, but there is the ability to order a paternity test, in

some circumstances, in relation to resolving whether or not a person

owes child support.

It works the same way. A person in a third country would go to

their central authority. That application would be transmitted to

British Columbia. It would be entered in British Columbia, but it would

be decided by the court as to whether or not the paternity test would be

allowed. It wouldn’t be as a matter of course that you could just get

that or you could just require somebody else to do that.

M. de Jong: Okay. I’ll just take a moment on this, because I’m not sure I

understand.

The term the convention uses is where a creditor is “seeking to

recover maintenance….” Someone who has received an order in another

jurisdiction — as the Attorney has mentioned — takes that order and

files it with their central authority, and it gets transferred over

here. But somewhere along the line, someone is contemplating a scenario

in which it may be necessary for the — in our case — B.C. court to make

an order establishing parentage. When would that…?

I’m also a bit confused. If it’s then an order of the court, who’s

appearing? Who’s appearing in those proceedings? There’s no one…. The

other person is