British Columbia Hansard — 1 June 2021, p.m., Issue 81 (42nd Parliament, 2nd Session)

20210601pm-Hansard-n81

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session, 42nd Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (HANSARD) Tuesday, June 1, 2021 Afternoon Sitting Issue No. 81 THE HONOURABLE RAJ CHOUHAN, SPEAKER ISSN 1499-2175

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Janet Austin, OBC Second Session, 42nd Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Raj Chouhan EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................... Hon. John Horgan Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Training...........................................................................................................Hon.

Anne Kang Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries......................................................................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Housing .............................................................................................Hon. David Eby, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ....................................................................................................................Hon.

Mitzi Dean Minister of State for Child Care...................................................................................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Minister of Citizens’ Services.....................................................................................................................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Minister of Education .................................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Jennifer Whiteside Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation ........................................................................................Hon. Bruce Ralston, QC Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy............................................................................................. Hon. George Heyman Minister of Finance .......................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Selina Robinson Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development ................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Minister of State for Lands and Natural Resource Operations................................................................................. Hon. Nathan Cullen Minister of Health and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs.............................................................................Hon.

Adrian Dix Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation .......................................................................................... Hon. Murray Rankin, QC Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation....................................................................................................... Hon. Ravi Kahlon Minister of State for Trade...............................................................................................................................................Hon.

George Chow Minister of Labour ...................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Harry Bains Minister of Mental Health and Addictions.............................................................................................................. Hon. Sheila Malcolmson Minister of Municipal Affairs ............................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Josie Osborne Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ........................................................................................................... Hon. Mike Farnworth Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction........................................................................................... Hon. Nicholas Simons Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport .................................................................................................................. Hon.

Melanie Mark Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure................................................................................................................... Hon. Rob Fleming Minister of State for Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Bowinn Ma LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition...................................................................................................................................................Shirley Bond Leader of the Third Party .......................................................................................................................................................... Sonia Furstenau Deputy Speaker..........................................................................................................................................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Assistant Deputy Speaker..............................................................................................................................................................Norm Letnick Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole .......................................................................................................................... Ronna-Rae Leonard Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ...........................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel.............................................................................................................................. Seunghee Suzie Seo Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services........................................................................................................................... Artour Sogomonian Clerk of Committees.......................................................................................................................................................................

Jennifer Arril Clerk Assistant, Committees and Interparliamentary Relations ..............................................................................................Susan Sourial Senior Research Analyst ................................................................................................................................................................... Karan Riarh Acting Sergeant-at-Arms..................................................................................................................................................................Greg Nelson

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Alexis, Pam (BC NDP) ............................................................Abbotsford-Mission Anderson, Brittny (BC NDP) .........................................................Nelson-Creston Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal Party) ............................................................... Penticton Babchuk, Michele (BC NDP)...............................................................North Island Bailey, Brenda (BC NDP).................................................. Vancouver–False Creek Bains, Hon. Harry (BC NDP).........................................................

Surrey-Newton Banman, Bruce (BC Liberal Party) ............................................ Abbotsford South Beare, Hon. Lisa (BC NDP) .......................................

Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Begg, Garry (BC NDP).................................................................Surrey-Guildford Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal Party) ...............................................Peace River South Bond, Shirley (BC Liberal Party).................................Prince George–Valemount Brar, Jagrup (BC NDP) ................................................................Surrey-Fleetwood Cadieux, Stephanie (BC Liberal Party) .............................................

Surrey South Chandra Herbert, Spencer (BC NDP).................................Vancouver–West End Chant, Susie (BC NDP) ..............................................North Vancouver–Seymour Chen, Hon. Katrina (BC NDP) ............................................... Burnaby-Lougheed Chouhan, Hon. Raj (BC NDP).................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Chow, Hon. George (BC NDP) ..........................................Vancouver-Fraserview Clovechok, Doug (BC Liberal Party)........................Columbia River–Revelstoke Conroy, Hon.

Katrine (BC NDP) ....................................................Kootenay West Coulter, Dan (BC NDP) .......................................................................... Chilliwack Cullen, Hon. Nathan (BC NDP) ................................................................... Stikine Davies, Dan (BC Liberal Party)................................................. Peace River North de Jong, Michael, QC (BC Liberal Party)....................................Abbotsford West Dean, Hon. Mitzi (BC NDP) ...............................................

Esquimalt-Metchosin D’Eith, Bob (BC NDP) .........................................................Maple Ridge–Mission Dix, Hon. Adrian (BC NDP) ................................................ Vancouver-Kingsway Doerkson, Lorne (BC Liberal Party) ........................................Cariboo-Chilcotin Donnelly, Fin (BC NDP) .......................................... Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Dykeman, Megan (BC NDP)............................................................... Langley East Eby, Hon. David, QC (BC NDP).......................................

Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (BC NDP) ..................................................Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Hon. Mike (BC NDP) .................................................Port Coquitlam Fleming, Hon. Rob (BC NDP) ...............................................

Victoria–Swan Lake Furstenau, Sonia (BC Green Party) .............................................Cowichan Valley Glumac, Rick (BC NDP) ..................................................Port Moody–Coquitlam Greene, Kelly (BC NDP) ........................................................Richmond-Steveston Halford, Trevor (BC Liberal Party) .........................................Surrey–White Rock Heyman, Hon. George (BC NDP) .........................................Vancouver-Fairview Horgan, Hon. John (BC NDP) ......................................... Langford–Juan de Fuca Kahlon, Hon.

Ravi (BC NDP) .............................................................. Delta North Kang, Hon. Anne (BC NDP) .................................................. Burnaby–Deer Lake Kirkpatrick, Karin (BC Liberal Party) ........................West Vancouver–Capilano Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal Party)....................................................................Shuswap Lee, Michael (BC Liberal Party) ..............................................Vancouver-Langara Leonard, Ronna-Rae (BC NDP)...............................................

Courtenay-Comox Letnick, Norm (BC Liberal Party) .................................. Kelowna–Lake Country Lore, Grace (BC NDP)........................................................... Victoria–Beacon Hill Ma, Hon. Bowinn (BC NDP).....................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Malcolmson, Hon. Sheila (BC NDP)........................................................Nanaimo Mark, Hon. Melanie (BC NDP).................................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Mercier, Andrew (BC NDP) ........................................................................

Langley Merrifield, Renee (BC Liberal Party)......................................... Kelowna-Mission Milobar, Peter (BC Liberal Party) .......................... Kamloops–North Thompson Morris, Mike (BC Liberal Party) ................................. Prince George–Mackenzie Oakes, Coralee (BC Liberal Party).................................................. Cariboo North Olsen, Adam (BC Green Party)............................ Saanich North and the Islands Osborne, Hon.

Josie (BC NDP)........................................Mid Island–Pacific Rim Paddon, Kelli (BC NDP) ................................................................Chilliwack-Kent Paton, Ian (BC Liberal Party) ............................................................... Delta South Popham, Hon. Lana (BC NDP)........................................................ Saanich South Ralston, Hon. Bruce, QC (BC NDP) .............................................Surrey-Whalley Rankin, Hon.

Murray, QC (BC NDP) .............................Oak Bay–Gordon Head Rice, Jennifer (BC NDP) ...................................................................... North Coast Robinson, Hon. Selina (BC NDP)...................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Ross, Ellis (BC Liberal Party)......................................................................... Skeena Routledge, Janet (BC NDP) .............................................................Burnaby North Routley, Doug (BC NDP)...........................................

Nanaimo–North Cowichan Russell, Roly (BC NDP).................................................... Boundary-Similkameen Rustad, John (BC Liberal Party)......................................................Nechako Lakes Sandhu, Harwinder (BC NDP) .................................................Vernon-Monashee Sharma, Niki (BC NDP)..........................................................Vancouver-Hastings Shypitka, Tom (BC Liberal Party) .................................................... Kootenay East Simons, Hon. Nicholas (BC NDP).........................

Powell River–Sunshine Coast Sims, Jinny (BC NDP) ................................................................. Surrey-Panorama Singh, Aman (BC NDP) .............................................Richmond-Queensborough Singh, Rachna (BC NDP)...................................................Surrey–Green Timbers Starchuk, Mike (BC NDP) ......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Stewart, Ben (BC Liberal Party) .......................................................

Kelowna West Stone, Todd (BC Liberal Party) ...............................Kamloops–South Thompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal Party) ............................. West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal Party)....................................................... Fraser-Nicola Walker, Adam (BC NDP) ....................................................... Parksville-Qualicum Wat, Teresa (BC Liberal Party) ....................................... Richmond North Centre Whiteside, Hon. Jennifer (BC NDP) .........................................

New Westminster Wilkinson, Andrew, QC (BC Liberal Party)......................Vancouver-Quilchena Y ao, Henry (BC NDP) ..................................................... Richmond South Centre LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission................................................................................. Pam Alexis Abbotsford South...............................................................................Bruce Banman Abbotsford West......................................................................

Michael de Jong, QC Boundary-Similkameen........................................................................ Roly Russell Burnaby–Deer Lake....................................................................... Hon. Anne Kang Burnaby-Edmonds......................................................................Hon. Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Burnaby North .................................................................................

Janet Routledge Cariboo-Chilcotin ..........................................................................Lorne Doerkson Cariboo North.................................................................................... Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ...............................................................................................Dan Coulter Chilliwack-Kent .................................................................................... Kelli Paddon Columbia River–Revelstoke .........................................................

Doug Clovechok Coquitlam–Burke Mountain...............................................................Fin Donnelly Coquitlam-Maillardville ...................................................... Hon. Selina Robinson Courtenay-Comox................................................................... Ronna-Rae Leonard Cowichan Valley ............................................................................. Sonia Furstenau Delta North................................................................................... Hon.

Ravi Kahlon Delta South ..................................................................................................Ian Paton Esquimalt-Metchosin .................................................................... Hon. Mitzi Dean Fraser-Nicola .........................................................................................

Jackie Tegart Kamloops–North Thompson .............................................................Peter Milobar Kamloops–South Thompson..................................................................Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country .....................................................................Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission ...........................................................................

Renee Merrifield Kelowna West ..........................................................................................Ben Stewart Kootenay East.......................................................................................Tom Shypitka Kootenay West........................................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Langford–Juan de Fuca .............................................................. Hon.

John Horgan Langley .............................................................................................Andrew Mercier Langley East....................................................................................Megan Dykeman Maple Ridge–Mission.............................................................................. Bob D’Eith Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows............................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Mid Island–Pacific Rim............................................................ Hon.

Josie Osborne Nanaimo.............................................................................Hon. Sheila Malcolmson Nanaimo–North Cowichan............................................................... Doug Routley Nechako Lakes........................................................................................ John Rustad Nelson-Creston ............................................................................. Brittny Anderson New Westminster.............................................................. Hon.

Jennifer Whiteside North Coast ........................................................................................... Jennifer Rice North Island................................................................................... Michele Babchuk North Vancouver–Lonsdale......................................................... Hon. Bowinn Ma North Vancouver–Seymour...................................................................Susie Chant Oak Bay–Gordon Head..................................................Hon.

Murray Rankin, QC Parksville-Qualicum........................................................................... Adam Walker Peace River North ................................................................................... Dan Davies Peace River South ................................................................................ Mike Bernier Penticton ................................................................................................. Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam...................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam.......................................................................Rick Glumac Powell River–Sunshine Coast..............................................Hon. Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie....................................................................Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ..................................................................

Shirley Bond Richmond North Centre..........................................................................Teresa Wat Richmond-Queensborough..................................................................Aman Singh Richmond South Centre .......................................................................... Henry Y ao Richmond-Steveston ............................................................................

Kelly Greene Saanich North and the Islands .............................................................Adam Olsen Saanich South .............................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Shuswap...................................................................................................... Greg Kyllo Skeena........................................................................................................... Ellis Ross Stikine........................................................................................ Hon.

Nathan Cullen Surrey-Cloverdale .............................................................................. Mike Starchuk Surrey-Fleetwood.....................................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey–Green Timbers........................................................................Rachna Singh Surrey-Guildford......................................................................................Garry Begg Surrey-Newton ..............................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ...................................................................................... Jinny Sims Surrey South ................................................................................ Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Whalley ................................................................. Hon. Bruce Ralston, QC Surrey–White Rock .......................................................................... Trevor Halford Vancouver-Fairview.............................................................. Hon.

George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek...................................................................... Brenda Bailey Vancouver-Fraserview...............................................................Hon. George Chow Vancouver-Hastings ..............................................................................Niki Sharma Vancouver-Kensington....................................................................... Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..................................................................... Hon.

Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara................................................................................ Michael Lee Vancouver–Mount Pleasant..................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Vancouver–Point Grey ............................................................Hon. David Eby, QC Vancouver-Quilchena........................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Vancouver–West End .....................................................Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee .....................................................................

Harwinder Sandhu Victoria–Beacon Hill............................................................................... Grace Lore Victoria–Swan Lake.................................................................... Hon. Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano...........................................................Karin Kirkpatrick West Vancouver–Sea to Sky................................................................Jordan Sturdy Party Standings: BC NDP 57; BC Liberal Party 28; BC Green Party 2

CONTENTS Tuesday, June 1, 2021 Afternoon Sitting Page Orders of the Day Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 2325 Bill 11 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2021 Hon. D. Eby M. de Jong T. Shypitka Hon. B. Ralston M. Morris Hon. M.

Farnworth Report and Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................................................... 2342 Bill 11 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2021 Second Reading of Bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 2342 Bill 7 — Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2021(continued) I. Paton M. Bernier S. Bond R. Russell T.

Stone Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 2353 Estimates: Ministry of Labour(continued) G. Kyllo Hon. H. Bains Estimates: Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions Hon. S. Malcolmson T. Halford A. Olsen S.

Furstenau Proceedings in the Birch Room Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 2375 Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development(continued) K. Kirkpatrick Hon. M. Dean Hon. K. Chen S. Furstenau R. Merrifield

TUESDAY , JUNE 1, 2021 The House met at 1:33 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Orders of the Day Hon. M. Farnworth:In this chamber, I call Committee stage on Bill 11. Then in

Section A, Douglas Fir Room, I call continued estimates debate on the Ministry of Labour. When that’s finished, I will call the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions. In the Birch Room,

Section C, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development and child care. Committee of the Whole House BILL 11 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2021 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 11; N. Letnick in the chair. The committee met at 1:35 p.m. The Chair:Attorney, did you want to introduce your staff before starting? Go ahead. Hon. D. Eby:Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Joining me today with the COVID-19 Related Measures Act proposed amendments is Alex Stirling, legal counsel, policy and legislation division; Natalie Barnes, deputy supervisor, legal services branch; and Heather Brazier, executive director of policy and legislation, emergency management B.C. On clause 1. M. de Jong:I probably should just confirm procedurally what I think the intentions are.

The Attorney and I are engaged in the first eight sections of this bill, and it’s my understanding thereafter that the ministers responsible for the Clean Energy Act and, subsequently, the Motor Vehicle Act will appear to entertain any questions that exist with respect to those subsequent acts. The Attorney is indicating that that is the case, and that that’s agreeable. I’m pleased to hear it. The first

section of the bill relates to extending an effect- ive date of a piece of legislation that was passed back in July of 2020. It was that the COVID-19 Related Measures Act was passed in the wake of an Ombudsman’s report that levelled some criticism of the government for issuing orders under the Emergency Programs Act for which the Ombudsperson indicated the government didn’t possess the legal authority.

My recollection of that debate is that the Attorney Gen- eral, speaking for the government, indicated a disagree- ment with that proposition and that position held by the Ombudsperson but then, secondly, said that the introduc- tion of the amendments in what was then Bill 19 rendered that whole argument moot. In any event, I don’t propose to recover or to revisit all of those arguments and all of those issues that were canvassed in some detail back when Bill 19, the COVID-19 Related Measures Act, was first intro- duced. But maybe I should simply put this question insofar as

section 1 purports to extend chronologically the time for which Covid-19 Related Measures Act orders granted will have effect. Is it fair for me to suggest that as far as the Attorney General is concerned and the government is concerned, Bill 19, and the amended Emergency Program Act that it created, resolved definitively the question of paramountcy between the EPA and other statutes in favour of the EPA? Is that a fair synopsis? [1:40 p.m.] Hon. D.

Eby: Perhaps it goes without saying, but I do want to put on the record that government was of a dif- ferent opinion than the Ombudsperson about the author- ity to pass orders. Obviously, as Attorney General I take the responsibility for government to act lawfully quite ser- iously. With that said, there was a difference of opinion. Obviously we had the belief, the understanding — and still do — that the orders were made lawfully.

As far as the Ombudsperson’s concern, as I understand it, was expressed, when the COVID-related orders were incorporated into the COVID-19 Related Measures Act, they converted from an order to statute and, therefore, would address the concern, as I understand it, stated by the Ombudsperson. Although, again, just noting that we did not agree on it, but it would address it.

With respect to paramountcy, there were provisions in the EPA that predated the pandemic that made it clear that orders made under the emergency powers act are, to the extent that they’re in conflict with the statute book, paramount over contradictory laws or provisions. That was also included in the CRMA, the COVID-19 Related Measures Act, which I’ll refer to as CRMA throughout our discussion today. That was replicated in the CRMA legislation.

I will note that the CRMA change — one of them was to elevate a power that we believe lawfully existed with a single cabinet minister, the Minister of Public Safety, to cabinet as a whole, which was not a change in terms of the authority but was a change in terms of, in our opinion, additional oversight — that it was the executive council, the LGIC, rather than a single cabinet minister, exercising authority. 2325

M. de Jong: Thanks to the Attorney. I wasn’t trying to lead him on. I think that is confirmation of what I assumed the position of the government was. As I indicated a few moments ago, I’m not intending to rehash the arguments that were canvassed in detail at the time the original act was debated and passed back in July of last year. What I will do, though, and it’s a nice segue from what the Attorney has just summarized for the committee, is ask for his response to the following proposition. The com- bination of what was Bill 19, COVID Related Measures Act, and the amendments that were made to the Emer- gency Program Act, particularly the creation of

section 10.1, creates purposely broad, sweeping powers, excep- tional powers that are to be exercised by the executive branch of government, without any involvement, debate or oversight by the legislative branch of government. I don’t say that and attempt to describe it as some kind of nefar- ious exercise, but that is the intention of what is now cre- ated and exists legislatively. [1:45 p.m.] Hon. D. Eby:When the amendments were made to the emergency powers act, the intention of government was not to create a new authority exempt from legislative over- sight.

It was to convert an existing authority under the EPA, the emergency powers act — I’ll refer to it as EPA from now on — which was in the hands of a single minis- ter, and give it to LGIC, Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, rather than a single minister. So it wasn’t an intention to create a new authority. Within that pre-existing act, it was the intention of the emergency powers act to allow government to respond in case of an emergency, when the Legislature was not able to assemble — to respond to an emergency and to make pro- visions for British Columbians as necessary.

The power is intended to be exercised in a state of emergency when the Legislature is not able to come together, but it was a pre- existing power, not intended to be modified by the amend- ments to the EPA.

Now, there is meant to be, through modifications of the CRMA and the EPA, a new level of legislative report- ing, which is that when government does introduce a new order under the EPA, or one of those orders is converted into a legislative instrument under CRMA, there needs to be a report to the Speaker with the intention that that would be distributed to the members of Legislature so that there was a reporting mechanism built in, which we believe would enhance — or at least was intended to — communication, transparency and, ultimately, accountab- ility for orders that are made during an emergency.

M. de Jong:First of all, I was not, nor do I now endeav- our to suggest that what the government was attempting to do with the introduction and passage of Bill 19 was cre- ate a new power. I think the committee understands the explanation, the rationale that the Attorney has offered. I think he has also acknowledged that it is….

What we are dealing with here is an extraordinary pow- er, one that pre-existed in the Emergency Program Act, and I suppose, in the earlier debate, analogies were drawn to earlier legislation federally — the War Measures Act — and those kinds of extraordinary powers that have existed that allow for the exercise of authority in ways that are dif- ferent, the exclusive exercise of authority by the executive branch without the traditional types of oversight that exist by the legislative branch of government. [1:50 p.m.] The Attorney also talked about situations where the Legislative Assembly is unable to meet.

I’m going to come to that. What I was hoping to do today, as we consider the extension of timelines to take account of the reality that we’re confronted by — and that is the ongoing pan- demic, the ongoing state of emergency — is ultimately to pose some questions to the Attorney about what we have learned about the exercise of those powers and whether it is appropriate at this point to think about what we’ve learned and whether that would impact, going forward, the use of those powers. I’ll get to that in a few moments.

I wanted to acknowledge that emergencies and the use of emergency powers do always involve striking a balance between the need to respond quickly to an exceptional set of circumstances and the need to protect our traditional reliance and respect for the rule of law and the role of the legislative branch of government. Here’s a question for the Attorney. I don’t want him to receive it as a form of criticism, necessarily, of the steps that the government has taken.

But we are debating these provisions, and it is the job of the opposition to consider the use that may be made of the authorities and powers that are created, not just by the present government and not just in the present circumstances but the uses that might be made of those powers by future executive coun- cils in circumstances that we can’t imagine today. What would the Attorney say are the safeguards? He has alluded to one change that was made back in July that I expect he will point to as a safeguard. What are the safeguards against the unreasonable use of these extraordinary powers?

I expect that the Attorney will, for example, say: “Well, they are time limited. ” That, of course, is the essence of the

section that we are debating in this bill. It is an extension of that time for reasons that I think the committee and the House will ultimately be supportive of. But what are the safeguards the Attorney would point to as protecting against the unreasonable use of these ex- traordinary powers? The timelines, the finite nature of the power, the courts, I suppose, but what else? [1:55 p.m.] Hon. D. Eby:There are a couple of different safeguards. The member is right. I would've pointed him to the fact 2326 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, June 1, 2021

that, rather than a single individual having authority, a single minister, that it has been elevated to cabinet, the authorities under the EPA, and that, by function, means that you would need to have an entire rogue cabinet as opposed to a single rogue minister, which is a safeguard. But something that the member didn’t mention…. Although he did say that the courts are a safeguard — they are — but we’ve given the courts some tools for oversight of governments under

section 10.1 of the amendments of the EPA. Informally, we’re calling them the proportionality and necessity tests. So under

section 10.1, you can only impose or use this authority if the benefit of the new measure is proportion- ate to the continued application of the existing law that it purports to amend or change. There has to be a propor- tionate benefit to the change that the authority is being exercised to implement. There has to be a benefit that is proportionate to just leaving the law alone as it is.

That’s the proportionality test that the court could, on judicial review, determine; whether, in the court’s opinion, that benefit was in fact proportionate, or whether, perhaps, there was insufficient benefit to justify aggregating the existing law. The second is the necessity test, as we’re calling it. The legislation says that it’s necessary to exercise this authority in order “to prevent, respond to or alleviate the effects of an emergency. ” [2:00 p.m.] This again provides the court with an opportunity to say: “Okay, was it necessary for government to use the EPA to alleviate?

Does it in fact have a prospect of alleviating or responding to or preventing negative effects coming from the emergency? Was it necessary?” The context for exercise of these authorities is that they can only be exercised if a state of emergency exists, which is another safeguard that may be so obvious that it goes without stating it, but I will say it. Under CRMA, there is an additional safeguard. It is a tightening of the necessity test. The authorities under CRMA can only be used if the relevant incorporated order that becomes a statutory instrument is necessary to respond to the actual COVID-19 pandemic.

So CRMA won’t be able to be used to respond to other emergencies that are not a COVID-19-related emergency. Finally, under subsection 10.1(7), there are a couple of other, as we’re calling them, brakes on the authority. One is that you’re not allowed to shorten a time period under the EPA. Someone has an existing privilege under legislation to have a certain amount of time in order to file something, perhaps for a statute of limitation of some kind.

Y ou can- not shorten those time periods using an EPA power; you can’t increase fees using the EPA authorities — so more minor types of brakes on authority but some additional and important protections. M. de Jong:Thanks to the Attorney. He has pointed out two tests incorporated into the legislation: proportional- ity and necessity, which are relevant and are helpful and, I think, a partial response to the question I posed.

I suppose it goes without saying, though, that a cabinet, an executive council, that authorizes the orders that are the product of this legislation would have therefore turned their mind and concluded that the exercise of the extra- ordinary power through the order is both proportional and necessary. I guess the nature of my question is perhaps more procedural, in terms of who, if anyone, short of the courts — well firstly, the cabinet and then ultimately, I sup- pose, the courts — might have an opportunity to render an opinion around the questions of proportionality and necessity.

This is what brings me to, maybe, the heart of my ques- tion, as we stand here, 15 months into the pandemic and the state of emergency that presently exists. It’s this ques- tion that I have been posing to myself. I don’t pretend to have settled upon a definitive answer, but I think it is a relevant one to pose to the government and the Attorney General. That is: should a government’s ability to override exist- ing laws and rules and regulations change when emer- gency circumstances, giving rise to the state of emergency, extend over a greater period of time and the circumstances around that emergency change?

To particularize it to the situation we’re facing today — as the Attorney pointed out a few moments ago — in the early days of this pandemic, it wasn’t even clear if this assembly could meet. In fact, it held an extraordinary, truncated one-day session in March, I think, of last year, and that was it. No one was entirely certain how or when the assembly was going to be able to meet.

In those cir- cumstances, the ability of the executive council to respond to emerging circumstances necessarily had to function, had to exist, absent the traditional oversights of the legis- lative branch of government. [2:05 p.m.] That changed within a few months. By the summer of last year, the assembly was able to meet through the good work of a lot of people, including the Clerks and the staff in this building. We were able to meet and continue to be able to meet.

Is there a role in those circumstances, and does the Attorney — not for the purposes of this bill; it’s obviously here in its present form — think there is merit in the suggestion that incorporating some modest measure of additional oversight by the legislative branch would be worthwhile? What do I mean? What might that look like? The orders that are the product of this legislation are presently tabled with the Speaker in the Speaker’s office for distribution. Given the extraordinary nature of the powers being as- sumed by those orders, isn’t there some merit…?

When we have moved beyond the crucible of the crisis to where this House can function reasonably normally, might not these orders be referred to a select standing committee for the Tuesday, June 1, 2021 British Columbia Debates 2327

opportunity to review, to ascertain and confirm that the tests of proportionality and necessity have been met? Presumably, they would. The government that issued the orders would still maintain a majority on those com- mittees.

But if the Attorney has my point, when we move beyond the height or the initial stages of the crisis to where we are, for example, today, with a reasonably well-func- tioning parliamentary assembly, there is an argument to be made for providing the legislative branch with some opportunity to examine and comment upon these orders that, by definition, bestow extraordinary powers upon the executive branch. [2:10 p.m.] Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the member for the thoughtful question. There are a few different threads that could be followed here.

One is the overall theme that maybe there are ways to do this better, in terms of emer- gency response, ways to incorporate the Legislature better, or oversight generally. I can advise the member — and I think he’s aware, but I’ll put it on the record anyway — that emergency manage- ment B.C. and public safety is interrupted by the pandem- ic, ironically, but is doing a modernization of the emer- gency powers act. This act will be ultimately repealed and replaced with a modernized act.

It’s a good opportunity for the member and others that have suggestions about how we can do things better to provide that feedback. I can assure the member he doesn’t need to write a letter. We have his points, and there are staff on the call that listen to his questions, so he doesn’t need to duplicate that effort.

With respect to the Legislature functioning now in a way that it didn’t in the early pandemic, the idea of the reports to the Clerk was that all members would get notice of all orders, and if there were concerns or a need for debate, certainly question period is an opportunity for raising points around debate and concerns, issues raised by members. Not to suggest that that’s better than what the member suggested, just to say that there are opportunities for those questions to be raised. The overall theme of review of executive action in terms of emergency authorities certainly should be reserved for the courts.

I say that noting that the member wasn’t neces- sarily suggesting that a committee would overrule the executive emergency order, but maybe it would provide an opportunity for debate, feedback, refinement, sugges- tion and so on. I did want to note that this scheme has been designed in a way intended that the courts would be providing that oversight. With respect to this overall approach, there are some measures that began as COVID-related responses. We just wrapped up the municipal affairs bill.

That started as emergency responses around how well government could respond in light of the pandemic, now brought in front of the House for debate and refinement in the form of a bill because these are things that we want to carry forward from the pandemic into the Legislature and ultimately into the statute book for the province and authorities for local governments. That transition from emergency authorities into permanent authorities where appropriate is happen- ing through legislative debate. [2:15 p.m.] There are some changes that just don’t need to be per- manent.

One of our recent emergency orders was around the South Coast Transportation Authority not having to file their budget because their income and expenses are so bizarre that they’re still working their way through these kinds of things. So not having to hit the statutory deadline for their budget filing and being able to incorporate pan- demic impacts — this isn’t something that we want to have be a permanent statutory change. It’s a temporary author- ity and one that we hope will not be necessary again.

For those temporary authorities, they are the ones that will not be coming back to this House in the same way that the municipal affairs changes would, the sort of legacies that we want to keep versus changes that are temporary just to respond to the emergency. M. de Jong: I think it is a very valid point to observe that out of crisis of the sort we have experienced, some adjustments, some innovations are deemed appropriate to become permanent fixtures.

The advent use of different technologies and authorizing those uses on an ongoing basis would be, I think, an appropriate example that I think the Attorney was looking for. I was not — and he fairly pointed this out — suggesting in any way vesting in a legislative committee the authority to frustrate the exercise of executive branch powers. What I was and am suggesting is that over the life of an emer- gency, that emergency exists in different stages and im- poses different degrees of limitations on the abilities, or demands on the abilities, of governments to act.

When we find ourselves where we are today, we all hope and pre- sume, emerging from the darkest days of the pandemic, in those circumstances, finding a more direct role, more direct engagement for the legislative branch to comment upon and sometimes to diffuse some of the public pres- sures building…. The Attorney knows that over the course of the pan- demic, there were times when public acceptance, public debate around the appropriateness of some of the orders that were issued by the government, boiled over. Providing a venue legislatively….

The Attorney said: “Well, when the House is sitting, we’ve got question period. ” That may be the first time I’ve heard question period described as the ideal venue for a thoughtful conversation on just about anything, but if that has been the Attorney’s experience, then I applaud him for coming to that conclusion. That aside, there may be an opportunity, through the legislative rewrite, to consider at some point…. I am not suggesting that, to use this example, March 17 would have been the ideal time to convene a legislative committee to 2328 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, June 1, 2021

provide some venue for additional discussion. But at some point, providing the legislative branch with an opportun- ity to consider some of these issues and provide comment, at least, on whether the tests of proportionality and neces- sity have been met or are adequately reflected in those extraordinary orders and the exercise of that extraordinary power would be appropriate. I will let the Attorney comment, if he wishes, and then continue. [2:20 p.m.] Hon. D. Eby: I won’t do the member the indignity of a straw man response to his point.

Y ou know, how dare he suggest that we, in the middle of the early days of the pandemic, assemble the whole Legislature. I understand quite clearly the member’s point, and I take his gentle chiding about question period as a venue for sober debate of serious emergency authorities as perhaps not the ideal venue. I think he has a very important suggestion. I can assure the member that I will take his suggestion back.

We cer- tainly agree, to the extent it is possible, that even in a state of emergency, especially in a state of emergency where urgent action is needed, we work across party lines in a cooperative way, especially when the public needs reassur- ance that the measures are being taken for the appropriate reasons, namely to respond to an emergency. That could be a beneficial approach to addressing concerns. I think there are some folks we would not….

Even if all the parties — which we did, through much of the pan- demic — stood together and said these health orders were necessary, it would not be satisfactory for some individu- als. But for others who may have some questions, it might be. I take the member’s suggestion seriously. I can assure him that staff on the call have heard that as well. I don’t have an immediate response for him, but I have his point. M. de Jong:In preparing for this discussion, I went to the Statutes of B.C. I went to Bill 19.

The question I had at this stage of the pandemic and at this stage into the declaration of the state of emergency…. I was curious to know how many orders had been issued that fell within the ambit of the COVID-19 Related Measures Act or the Emergency Program Act, or any other pertinent piece of legislation for that matter. What I found at the end of the bill was…. I did this on May 18, so executive council and ministerial orders on B.C. Laws as of May 18, 2021. It includes a lengthy list of various orders and regulations, but it also includes this caveat that this list may not be exhaustive.

Is there an exhaustive list? If a person wanted today to know how the executive branch has applied the powers contained within the COVID-19 Related Measures Act and the Emergency Program Act, is there a place that they can go for an exhaustive list of those orders? [2:25 p.m.] Hon. D. Eby:There are a couple of ways British Colum- bians can see this. The first and probably the most com- plete is the B.C. Laws website. There is a COVID

section on that website. It has all of the regulations and orders made under the EPA and CRMA. It also includes any changes that were made under other enabling legislation. As an example, there were changes made around the change fee that people pay on their car insurance if they’re not driving because of the pandemic. That was a change to the Insurance (Vehicle) Regulation. So something like that is under this

section as well. The changing of bylaws of various health regulatory bodies to allow vaccinations to be administered by different professions is also under this section. So it’s a very complete list. On the COVID

section of the B.C. government website, there is a justice sector

section that has every report that has been made to the Speaker as a result of regulations and orders under the EPA and CRMA. Then, finally, I’m advised that staff are working on a complete table for release to the public, intended to display all the orders with the in force dates under CRMA. CRMA is intended to step us down from the state of emergency so that everything doesn’t, as of the end of the state of emer- gency — all the orders — immediately come to a crashing halt, regardless of the consequences.

Some are phased out over time, so people have notice that when they hear that it’s the end of the state of emer- gency, they know they have 45 days that this authority will stay in force, because the end of the state of emergency is not a certain date. That gives people notice that that authority will be expiring. There will a table that is going to be produced for the public to have a quick reference around these authorities and when they’re going to be phased out under CRMA. M. de Jong:I think the list I have is from the B.C. Laws.

If the Attorney is indicating that there is a version of that list that doesn’t come with the caveat of “this list may not be exhaustive, ” then that’s helpful to know. The one that I found states fairly explicitly that it may not be an exhaust- ive list. If that’s not the case, if it is exhaustive, maybe they can remove that caveat.

If there is another list that does rep- resent a complete listing, then I’ll take that advice happily from the Attorney. [2:30 p.m.] I wondered about asking this next question, because on the one hand, it seems sort of remarkably oversimpli- fying a very complex period in our history, but it’s an extraordinary time and these orders represent the exercise of extraordinary powers. I’ll ask the question, in any event. So 14 to 15 months after the declaration of a province- Tuesday, June 1, 2021 British Columbia Debates 2329

wide state of emergency, can the Attorney, with the assist- ance of his staff, indicate how many orders have been issued pursuant to the COVID-19 Related Measures Act and the Emergency Program Act? I was surprised by the number I saw listed, and as I said, my list purports not to be necessarily an exhaustive list. What information is the Attorney, with the assistance of his staff, able to offer about the number of orders that drew on the powers that we are debating in the legislation today? [S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.] Hon. D.

Eby:With respect to the B.C. laws — the com- pleteness of the list — the reason for that caveat being there is that it can take a day or two for the website to update from activities in the Legislature. So the reference is meant simply to be guidance to folks to check, for example, theHansard if you wanted a complete list. There is a bit of a lag there, so it may not be complete for that time period. For those who are particularly focused, detail-ori- ented, that list may be incomplete, but just because of that lag. Otherwise, it would be a complete list.

With respect to the different orders, there are three orders that are still under the EPA that have not been moved over to CRMA. These orders relate to, first of all, the protective measures, which are around tickets that would be issued for non-compliance with the public health orders. Those aren’t necessary after the state of emergency. They can expire at the end of the state of emergency. That’s not a problem. The same for the face coverings and the travel restrictions — all of those orders will expire imme- diately following the end of the state of emergency.

There are about 50 orders that have been ported over to CRMA. These are the orders that were made under the EPA but need to be stepped down over time following the end of the state of emergency. M. de Jong: That’s helpful. I think the explanation around the time lag makes sense. To the extent that staff are listening, and I’m sure they are, they may want to make that point — that it takes time.

In this case, of course, for reasons we’ve just discussed, it’s not the delay from the operations of the Legislature but the time it takes to get information from the executive branch published which would account for missing orders. [2:35 p.m.] That aside, I will assume the list is, therefore, a complete one, limited only by the few days’ delay it would take to get new orders added that have been issued by the cabinet.

When the Attorney was discussing with the House and the committee of the House back in July, he made a point, and has again during this discussion, of the transitional nature of some of these orders. He has emphasized the challenge that would result if all orders expired contem- poraneous to, at the same time as, the state of emergency — that in some cases, that would be problematic. That’s one of the great rationales for the original act in the first place and for the time extension that

section 1 provides for to the COVID-19 Related Measures Act to the end of this calendar year. I was thinking back to the discussion the Attorney had back in July. He talked about some of the orders. He emphasized some of the orders that then were, I think it’s fair to say, front and centre in people’s minds. There was Ministerial Order M084 around the fair distribution of essential goods. M115 is the prohibition on uncon- scionable pricing.

There are too many orders for me to go through in this committee one at a time with the minister, so I’ve picked a couple that he referred to at the time the legislation was introduced and passed in July, because clearly, he and the government attached importance to those orders. Are those orders, the two that I have mentioned that would qualify for the need to continue…?

Based on what the gov- ernment and the Attorney know today about the state of circumstances, the state of play in our society, are those orders that the Attorney believes would need to continue beyond the expiration of the state of emergency? [2:40 p.m.] Hon. D. Eby:Currently, there’s a review happening with all ministries through emergency management B.C. and through my office, my ministry, in terms of all orders that are currently under CRMA and whether they need to be continued past the end of the state of emergency. There are some….

I can provide, as examples to the members, orders that will not be ending at the end of the state of emergency. Order M162 is item 17 of

schedule 2 of CRMA. This deals with representation agreements and powers of attor- ney. Even when the state of emergency ends, we expect that there will be risks related to COVID and possibly, necessarily, public health orders that might restrict some- one’s attendance at a hospital — for example, someone who is in an immunocompromised state.

We want to make sure that there’s enough time left be- tween the end of the state of emergency and the lapsing of this authority to do remote representation agreements or remote powers of attorney to be able to accommodate those public health restrictions, even after the end of the state of emergency. That order is proposed to expire 90 days after the end of the state of emergency. Another example is Order M114, which is

schedule 1, item 1 of CRMA. This allows people to attend strata property meetings electronically. It is proposed to expire on July 10, 2021. One of the reasons why this order will be extended past the end of the state of emergency is…. Our hope is that stratas will use the opportunity to modify their own bylaws if they want to allow remote meetings, because if it goes overnight, they might miss that window of opportunity to be able to change their bylaws to allow remote meetings to take place. There may still be restrictions — public health restrictions, for 2330 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, June 1, 2021

example — on meetings of 50-plus people after the end of the state of emergency. So we wanted to provide some space to hopefully accommodate that. I hope those examples are illustrative, but the larger ans- wer to the member’s question is simply that that review with ministries about when these should expire is happen- ing right now. [2:45 p.m.] M. de Jong: Is the Attorney General to make the pro- duct of that review — the report or the recommendations or, ultimately, the findings — public so that people will have knowledge? By that, I mean make it public in a com- plete form.

I mean, there are a finite number of orders. Will that happen prior to the end of the state of emer- gency? The Attorney has pointed to some orders. I think they are good examples. I might actually ask a question or two about those specific ones. I’m trying to get a sense, though, as to what the test will be. Again, almost a year ago the concern was about price gouging and the fair distribution of essential goods. It strikes me that that is no longer a con- cern, and that those orders — M084 and M115 — would lapse with the state of emergency. But if I’m wrong, the Attorney can tell me.

Or maybe he’s at a point where he can only say: “I don’t know at this stage. ” But what kind of test? The essence of the bill is about providing a mechanism by which some of these orders can continue beyond the ending of the state of emergency, for up to the end of the calendar year. But what kind of test is going to be applied to determine…? The two examples the minister has given suggest to me that in the one case where there is perceived to be a lingering health issue that needs to be addressed, that would mitigate in favour of an extension beyond the ending of the state of emergency.

I hope that the Attorney catches the drift of what I’m looking for in terms of what will guide the decisions around the continuation or ending of these orders. Then secondarily, it would be helpful if people had the benefit of that information in advance, not piecemeal sometime thereafter. Hon. D. Eby: Two parts to the member’s question. The first is how it will be publicized — the various dates. This table that’s being prepared with all of the orders under CRMA — for public distribution, both online and otherwise as appropriate — will be the way that the public is notified about the various dates of expiry.

Of course, they’re in the statute, but we want it in a more accessible format for people to be able to find it quickly on the gov- ernment website. [2:50 p.m.] The member asked about the test, and I do have his point. The test is really identical to the overall test in the EPA. We talked about proportionality and necessity. So the question is, really: is it necessary to continue this to respond to the effects of the pandemic — that they’re going to continue past the end of this state of emergency?

For both of those orders that I went through, we do ex- pect effects related to COVID to continue past the end of the state of emergency, whether it’s a need for the remote execution of a representation agreement or a power of attorney because of a public health restriction related to visiting a hospital or with respect to a strata council that has more than 15 members wanting to hold a meeting in person but being restricted by a public health order that would prevent them from doing that. The second is proportionality, of course. Continuing the order past the end of the state of emergency is….

The benefit is proportional to allowing the statute to continue in its original form. The member had a specific question about the price- gouging protective order. It was

section 115, which I, may- be, worded poorly. I made it sound like we were protecting price gouging. The order, which was intended to respond to concerns about hoarding and price gouging in the early stages of the pandemic…. I’m advised by staff…. They have confirmed that the intent is to allow it to lapse with the end of the state of emergency. It would not be extended past the end. M. de Jong:Thanks to the Attorney. A couple of things that, then, flow from that. I’ll make this as a statement. I hope the Attorney, in the first part of what I’m going to say, will deem it appropriate to offer his thoughts.

My comment goes as follows. Extraordinary orders that were issued during the time of a state of emergency that went beyond the statutory authority or the provisions of existing statutes but were otherwise required and deemed proportional and deemed necessary…. In situations where the decision is made to continue those orders beyond the life of the actual state of emergency, there is — I would suggest — an increased threshold. There is a heightened threshold for necessity and proportionality. I hope the Attorney understands what I mean by that.

The rationale for the order, in the first place, was a state of emergency. Once that state of emergency ends, there is — I would suggest, and I would submit — a heavier burden. What I am concerned about is that there may be a prevailing attitude in some quarters that goes as fol- lows: “Y es, the state of emergency is over. But out of an abundance of caution, we will maintain these extraordin- ary orders. ” I don’t think that’s the test. In some cases — I think the Attorney has pointed out — it will be possible to demon- strate a legitimate need and wisdom.

I think the burden increases and, I would suggest, should increase following the ending of the state of emergency. I’ll let the Attorney, if he wishes, comment on that. Then I think I have one more question on the matters we’ve been discussing here. [2:55 p.m.] Tuesday, June 1, 2021 British Columbia Debates 2331

Hon. D. Eby: In CRMA, there is a specific statutory test, which is that the orders under CRMA — the statutory instruments incorporated under CRMA — must be neces- sary to respond to the effects of the pandemic. There are two distinct moments, obviously. One is the end of the state of emergency under the EPA. The other is the un- winding of and the relaxation of public health orders, and so on, related to COVID. We do not expect, at the end of the EPA state of emer- gency, that public health orders related to COVID will also be wrapped up. We expect the state of emergency to end before that.

Because of that, there will still be effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, which is what CRMA is all about. These measures must be necessary to respond to the effects. As soon as they aren’t, then they are no longer jus- tified under the act. To that end, of the approximately 50 orders that have been ported over into CRMA to become statutory instru- ments…. I’m advised by staff that about half of those, about 25, have expired either because they have a limita- tion date within the order itself, up until whatever date it was not renewed, or because it was then revoked through a subsequent regulatory amendment.

As society opens up again and as we begin the restart plan, all of these kinds of things…. As more people are vaccinated and as the numbers come down, what the member should see is that these orders are being pared back. From the original 50 that have been ported over to CRMA, down to about 25 and then the gradual reduc- tions, as they’re no longer necessary to respond to the effects of the pandemic, which is the test. The member is suggesting a heightened test. The test is embedded in the statute, in CRMA itself.

The provision must be necessary to respond not to the state of emergency but specifically to the COVID-19 pandemic. M. de Jong:A short question that we should, I suppose, put on the record. In all cases, the legislation and the

section contemplate the orders expiring not later than December 31, 2021, correct? [3:00 p.m.] Hon. D. Eby: The member is correct. December 31 is the ultimate end date there. I’ve been advised by staff that I would be well recommended to make a small caveat. I advised the member that there were three measures still under the EPA that have not been ported over to CRMA. One was the ticket provision, one was the travel restriction and one was the mask restriction.

I’m advised that while it is very likely that they will ex- pire at the end of the state of emergency, there is still some public health analysis that may require them, if conditions require them to be ported over to CRMA. So I wouldn’t want the member to leave here believing that that was 100 percent clear, given the fluctuations in the pandemic and so on. So hopefully that caveat on the record assists people in understanding where we’re at. But December 31, 2021 is the relevant date. M. de Jong:The three orders the Attorney has referred to — they, too, have that ultimate limitation of December 31.

Is that correct? Hon. D. Eby:Correct. M. de Jong:The last area, just on the schedules…. It was prompted by something the Attorney said with respect to Order M114 and M162, the two examples that he men- tioned. They strike me as examples where people have, over the life of those orders, perhaps not just grown accus- tomed but, in some cases, have embraced the added flex- ibility that those orders afford them. What I think the minister has said during the course of the debate here is that whilst there may be a brief continu- ation of those orders beyond the expiration of the state of emergency….

If there is, that would be an opportunity for, for example, a strata corporation to adjust their bylaws to allow for a continuation of the kinds of meetings that are now taking place. But if they fail to do so during that window of oppor- tunity, the rules will revert back to what took place pre–state of emergency, unless the government were to come along at some point in the future and make the rules as they existed under the ministerial order a per- manent feature of the governing legislation. Is all of that a fair capsulation of what I think the minister, the Attor- ney, said earlier? Hon. D.

Eby: The member is right. There are a number of measures that were put in place around remote work or meetings, legacies of a positive nature out of a horrible pandemic period, that many people do want to keep. The Municipal Affairs bill that was just in front of the House is a good example of that and an example of the process that will be followed. Those measures will not become perman- ent through either CRMA or through the EPA. In order for permanent changes to take place, they’ll come as one would expect, through legislative amendment or regulat- ory amendment through the regular course.

Those two orders that I mentioned are really good ex- amples of areas where there may be the possibility of long- term reform that comes from our experience during the pandemic around remote execution of powers of attorney, representation agreements or with respect to electronic strata meetings. That work will happen through the regu- lar course of government. [3:05 p.m.] Specifically on the electronic strata meetings, the stratas will be able to meet by electronic means up until the expiry date of the CRMA provision without amending their by- laws.

Following that, they’ll have to make an amendment to their bylaws if they don’t already have a provision allow- 2332 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, June 1, 2021

ing remote meetings. They’ll have to make an amendment to their bylaws after that, in order to meet remotely through electronic means. M. de Jong:Back in July when the original act was de- bated and passed, the Attorney — and I think this was re- flective of perhaps a broader concern — highlighted some of the orders that had existed and listed 94, 120, 183 — all relating to providing targeted protections from civil liabil- ity. I guess I have two questions about that.

One, to the Attorney’s knowledge and the knowledge of the staff that are assisting him today, are those protections that have been utilized in particular circumstances? Have there been actual situations where that protection has been brought to bear thus far? None of us can speculate as to whether or not something might happen in the future, so I’m not asking the minister to speculate about some future cause of action. Are there any examples thus far?

Then, secondly, are those examples of orders that the Attorney expects would expire with the state of emergency or would continue to some point beyond the end of the state of emergency and December 31 of 2021? [3:10 p.m.] Hon. D. Eby: I think the member helps the debate by advising, in his second reading speeches, areas of interest, which allows staff to do a little bit of work so I can provide more complete answers. I’m grateful to both the member and staff for that cooperative work to better inform the public about the effect of legislation.

Staff were unable to find any reported decisions from British Columbia. We’re not aware of any pleadings that cite the provision, in a defence or otherwise. There’s one reported decision that staff were able to find in Ontario, which was that a case management judge in a class action proceeding noted that the protection needed it. Ontario has a similar provision that noted that the provision in Ontario would need to be taken into account in that class action that was under way.

This is really consistent with how we intended these protections to function, that they would be taken into account and that they would not be showing up in actions, because someone would have a look and see there was not a cause of action available for transmission of COVID, except in particular circumstances. The member is right. This is incorporated and becomes a statutory instrument under

section 5 of CRMA, which means the expiry date would be December 31. The intent here with the extension of these particular provisions is obviously COVID will still be, we expect, in our com- munities and still potentially transmitting. That does not mean that on January 1 you could launch a lawsuit against someone who gave you COVID a couple months ago. It is for causes of action that would have arisen December 31 or before — are immune, within the terms of the provision, from having someone make a claim against you for it.

If there was an alleged transmission of COVID in mid- December, for example, you could not sue for it on January 1. But if there was transmission after December 31, when the protection ends, if government hasn’t taken any other actions you could potentially sue for COVID transmission after that. I say “if government hasn’t taken any action” be- cause we are currently looking at whether we should be continuing this protection in place through a separate stat- utory provision for post-December 31, but no decisions have been made yet about that. Clause 1 approved. On clause 2. T.

Shypitka:Happy to speak on this part of the bill. It’s not a very big part, mind you, but it’s an interesting one all the same. I don’t have a lot of time, so I just want to maybe give a brief

summary of what I understand on the direc- tion government is going with this, and that is through

schedule 1 and the amendment by striking out Burrard thermal. It’s to my understanding that a list of heritage assets were placed in protection from…. The Chair:Apologies, Member. Sorry, we’re not quite there yet. I think you’re on

part 2, and we are on clause 2. We will get there shortly if there are no further questions, but we’ll go through the other clauses first and then get to the

section the member refers to. I’ll make sure to alert you, Member, or ask the future Chairs to. Clause 2 approved. On clause 3. M. de Jong:Just a question on clause 3, the amendment to the original act. It excludes

section 6 from repeal on December 31, 2021. Can the Attorney just put on the re- cord why is that is so. [3:15 p.m.] Hon. D. Eby: This was what the member and I were just canvassing in the previous section. If a cause of action arose during the period that the protection was in place, this

section 6 allows that protection to continue indefin- itely. What it does is say that for that period of time that the protection was in place, you can’t show up in court and make a claim in relation to that at a later date, even though December 31 has come and gone. It’s in relation to the civil liability protection section. Clause 3 approved. On clause 4. Tuesday, June 1, 2021 British Columbia Debates 2333

M. de Jong: To begin, I just want to have a brief con- versation with the Attorney and the committee about this provision. I thought that the appropriate place to start would be simply to ask him to describe for the committee the practical effect that this change will have in the context of the Family Law Act. Hon. D. Eby: I’m joined now by Shannan Knutson — she’s legal counsel with the family policy and legislation division — because this

section relates to, as the member noted, the Family Law Act. The amendments needed to clarify that an intention to harm a family member is not an element of the defini- tion of family violence. When a court is looking at wheth- er or not…. There are a number of reasons why family violence might be a significant factor in a court’s consid- eration — for example, some kind of a protection order. I could provide specific examples if the member’s interested. It’s a required element for various types of applications.

But in order to find family violence, the court, under this amendment, does not need to consider what the intentions were of the individual alleged to be involved in violence. The reason for this comes from a Court of Appeal decision in 2020. The Court of Appeal read the existing

section as requiring the court to determine that the indi- vidual involved actually intended to harm a family mem- ber before finding that emotional or psychological abuse constituted family violence for the purposes of the act. This amendment, because it’s in the definition section, will apply to all forms of abuse that are captured within the definition of family violence. If it were only to apply to emotional or psychological abuse, there would be the potential for a court to incorrectly interpret that an inten- tion to harm a family member must be present to find another form of family violence.

Really, any form of violence would be captured here. This was the intent of the definition of family violence, and it addresses concerns that the Court of Appeal’s de- cision would have a chilling effect on applications for pro- tection orders, determinations of family violence in par- enting matters, and then that could have a knock-on effect of increasing risk of violence against women, children or other vulnerable people.

So responding to the court decision, part of the dialogue that happens between courts and legislatures, and providing clarity to the court about what the Legislature’s intention was here. [3:20 p.m.] M. de Jong:As the Attorney has indicated, it’s a direct legislative response to judicial

interpretation of the exist- ing definition that was not in keeping with what was the intention, or the perceived intention, of the Legislature. That’s a question. I just want the Attorney to confirm that the 2020 Court of Appeal decision was the direct impetus for the change and, more practically, that the concern is that without the change, the implications of that Court of Appeal decision could be to frustrate those who are apply- ing for protection orders in certain circumstances. Are those both fair statements? Hon. D. Eby: The member’s

summary is right. The im- petus for this is the Court of Appeal decision, and the goal is to address that potential chilling effect on applications of various kinds under the Family Law Act. Also, it’s just sort of the increasing recognition, both inside and outside gov- ernment, about the long-lasting impacts of family violence on vulnerable people. Government’s intention is to address violence.

Be- cause it places an additional burden on those who are the alleged victims of the violence to demonstrate the intent of the person alleged to be committing the vio- lence, that would be a step backwards from where we really want to go. That is to really try to make it possible for, and to support, victims of violence in coming for- ward to have matters heard in front of the court if they are, in fact, the victims of violence. The intent of the person perpetrating the violence is not relevant to the fact that that could cause very serious trauma, and that should be responded to through the act.

M. de Jong: I’m going to ask the Attorney a couple of what-if questions or scenario-based questions, because I think that’s the job we have. I hope he will accept that none of this is done to, in any way, condone violence — period — let alone in a family setting. But it would appear the amendment here was necessit- ated by an

interpretation of the existing legislation by the courts that needed to be addressed. It’s sort of our oblig- ation to ensure that we don’t, in dealing with that, create a different opportunity for an

interpretation by the courts that this House and this committee would find troubling. That, by way of

preamble. [3:25 p.m.] If one goes to the existing definition of “family violence” — and it is obviously a defined term that we are amending with this

section — it includes, in sub (d), a definition of psychological or emotional abuse of a family member and lists the ways that that psychological abuse can occur. Relationships sometimes succeed and sometimes don’t. A party who leaves a family, without the knowledge or consent of another party, may, indeed, inflict psychological abuse on a family member. They may have no intention of doing so. They may have concluded, for some very valid reasons, that it is time or it is a requirement that they leave. Is the insertion of the words contained within this amendment, contained in

section 4…? Is there a risk, in the Attorney’s mind, that we are creating an opportunity for a finding of family violence in that kind of a scenario? Or the Attorney General might say: “Well, that opportun- ity exists now. ” I hope he understands my question. I have a couple of those scenarios that I’ d like to put to him in exploring the 2334 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, June 1, 2021

impact that the insertion of these words may have, for all of the legitimate reasons that they are being proposed for insertion into the definition. Hon. D. Eby: Under the existing definition of family violence, a

section that’s not modified by the proposed amendment, subsection (

d) lists out a number of examples of psychological or emotional abuse of a family member that would constitute family violence. Those examples are “(

i) intimidation, harassment, coer- cion or threats, including threats respecting other persons, pets or property, (ii) unreasonable restrictions on, or pre- vention of, a family member’s financial or personal auto- nomy, (iii) stalking or following of the family member, and (iv) intentional damage to property, and (

e) in the case of a child, direct or indirect exposure to family violence. ” This is not an exhaustive list. The member will note sub-

section (

d) says that this is including these examples. It’s open to the court to find other types of abuse would con- stitute family violence. We’re not aware, on the staff side, of any case law that suggests that leaving a relationship would constitute psychological or emotional abuse to the level of meeting the definition of family violence. [N. Letnick in the chair.] It doesn’t mean that the court hasn’t determined that or couldn’t, in some circumstance, although that would be extremely speculative and hard to imagine that set of facts that would arise.

But it is an open category. [3:30 p.m.] The member is right to note that I was likely to say, be- cause I’m about to say, that the proposed amendment has absolutely no impact on those categories of examples of types of violence. The proposed amendment only speaks to the intent of the individual and whether that needs to be determined or not. M. de Jong: I presume the intention, again, as we dis- cussed moments ago, was to eliminate any doubt that may have existed around the need to establish intent. That will now be more graphically included in the definition of the act.

I have two other scenarios that occurred to me. I ima- gine the Attorney’s response will not be dissimilar from what he has just shared with the committee. But I suppose the next stage, the next potential level, to the example I just give, would be the party to a relationship who engaged in an extramarital affair. It’s not a stretch to suggest that that may cause another party to be deemed psychologic- ally damaging, abusive. Is it clear now, in that scenario, that that behaviour, where there may not have been any direct intent in that re- gard — that that is now captured by the definition of fam- ily violence?

Hon. D. Eby: This is very similar to the member’s last example. The subsections of (

d) that outline examples of types of psychological or emotional abuse of a family member…. None of them lend themselves to the inter- pretation that an extramarital affair would qualify, so the court would really need to find an additional subsection, essentially, somehow, in the act related to infidelity, which, again, seems very unlikely just on the plain language of the statute. M. de Jong:The third scenario that I thought of, which moves beyond the definition of psychological or emotional abuse…. I don’t think this is a fanciful — well, I know it’s not fanciful — example. But it is the family member who suffers from advanced dementia or Alzheimer’s and who commits

an act or acts that they would never have dreamed of committing when healthy, a violent act that they are incapable of forming any kind of intent around…? [3:35 p.m.] Is that behaviour now explicitly captured by the defin- ition of family violence? Or is the Attorney’s response, “Well, it always has been, ” and there is no alteration here? Hon. D. Eby: The amendment proposes to remove in- tent from the definition of “family violence” in terms of when a court is asked through another

section of the stat- ute to consider family violence as a factor. The court could find that someone without the requisite ability to form the intent, whether as a result of some disability or illness, had, in fact, committed the physical acts described in one of the subsections and that it meets the definition of family violence. Once the court has determined that that hurdle has been crossed, what the court does with that in terms of fashioning an appropriate remedy based on what the indi- vidual is showing up in court to ask for might be influ- enced by the court’s consideration of capacity.

So whether a protection order would be an appropriate response in a particular setting based on the finding of family violence, yes, but within a set of circumstances, it would be a question of the court’s discretion in fashioning an appropriate remedy. I hope that that nuance communicates well to the mem- ber that the court still has discretion in fashioning these remedies, but what we don’t want is a situation where a person making the application is stopped at the gate by a finding that, well, this can’t be family violence because the person didn’t have the requisite intent.

That’s what we’re trying to address here. M. de Jong:It is a sensitive area, to be sure, but this is the moment to at least try to canvass some of these issues and how a court and a litigant might deal with it, keeping in mind that under the act, of course, applications can be brought on behalf of family members as well. I am merely wishing to explore with the Attorney whe- Tuesday, June 1, 2021 British Columbia Debates 2335

ther there is any concern that an incapacitated person — incapacitated not by a drug or alcohol, necessarily, but incapacitated by health conditions like dementia, which has become so prevalent in our society, the by-product of living longer — would be targeted in an application by someone, by allegations of family violence, which carries with it all of the stigma that it should but in the case of a person who no longer possesses the capacity to form an intent or to even govern themselves by the norms of soci- ety and the norms of the law that we expect. [3:40 p.m.] I don’t dispute the Attorney’s explanation that the courts still possess discretionary authority to render decisions, taking those facts into account.

But the explicit nature of the definition that this amendment will create — it seems to me that we must acknowledge — will expose people in that diminished capacity to findings, to allegations and to findings that they have committed family violence in ways that, of course, they never would, were they healthy, were they not the victim of dementia or Alzheimer’s. That’s my point. I’m not here to necessarily rewrite the legislation.

I am, though, asking the Attorney whether he and his able team of drafters have turned their mind to that possibility and the impact that could have on an individu- al during fleeting moments of lucidity, when they might become alive to the fact that they are on the receiving end of allegations that they have committed family violence within the meaning of the Family Law Act. Hon. D. Eby: A couple of things come to mind in my discussion with staff.

The first is sort of accepting the member’s example on its face and just saying: “Here is a risk where you’re going to put a label on someone who committed family violence on somebody. ” We should take into account the harm that that could occasion — it is an important consideration for us in this place — and weigh it against the person against whom these acts have been occasioned and their need for protection, their need to show up to court and demonstrate that this has happened to them and to seek the protection of the court under the Family Law Act. [3:45 p.m.] The prejudice to the individual and their reputation pre- illness or pre–lack of capacity or that only comes about because of their lack of capacity, on a weighting against the need to protect the victim of this violence….

I think we both accept that the acts would be meeting the definition of violence. Our policy decision is to say our goal is to pro- tect the victim of violence, even at the risk that this person may not have intended to engage in family violence due to a lack of capacity, because the goal of the act is to protect the individual from the violence. The second is, beyond that policy decision, the likeli- hood of different scenarios.

The likelihood of an indi- vidual with reduced capacity — that the Family Law Act would be the mechanism by which a relative or fam- ily member would be seeking protection from a family member that, because of a debilitating illness or other disability, had acted out in a violent way…. The like- lihood of them pursuing remedies through the Family Law Act and that individual being labeled essentially as someone who engaged in family violence despite the capacity issue is relatively low.

The odds of somebody thinking about going to court to seek a protection order, going to a lawyer and saying, “Listen, this person I’m in a relationship with is restricting my ability to access my own financial resources, is threat- ening me, is engaging in this kind of activity of following me around or tracking me on my phone, ” or whatever, and the lawyer is saying: “Listen, there’s this court of appeal decision.

We need to prove that this person you’re in a relationship with actually intends to harm you by this behaviour in order for it to be considered family violence now. ” That, to me, seems like a far more likely scenario and one that acts as a barrier to someone being able to access remedies under the Family Law Act.

In terms of relative harms and risks of this amendment, in the absence of this amendment: a very significant risk that people who need to access the protections of the act will not be able to do so because of the difficulty in proving intent, and the risk that someone of reduced capacity would then be pulled into the Family Law Act — relatively low, although I’ll acknowledge that this scenario could happen.

But even in that situation, our desire would be to protect the person who is the victim of violence, even if it meant an unfortunate connotation about that person that didn’t have the capacity to appreciate their own actions because of Alzheimer’s, in the member’s example. In either one of those policy considerations, it brings us here to the Legislature to amend the act to remove the intent, because our intent is to protect the victim of violence and to give them the remedies available in the act, even if they can’t prove intention of the individual enga- ging in the violence.

M. de Jong:I’ll merely thank the Attorney General for his responses on

section 4 and, by way of warning to those who are tracking and participating proceedings from else- where, indicate that following the passage of

section 4, I will invite the Committee to pass sections 5 through 8. Clauses 4 to 8 inclusive approved. On clause 9. T. Shypitka:We’ll try this again. Awesome. Thank you to the minister for allowing me some time here today to talk to

part 2…. The Chair:Sorry, Kootenay East. One moment please. Attorney General. 2336 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, June 1, 2021

Hon. D. Eby:My apologies to the member for Kootenay East. This is an ill-fated question he’s trying to ask. I believe there will be a change of staff and possibly a minister here, so if we could just have a couple of minutes. This is the Minister for Energy and Mines, this section. Just let me confirm that. The Chair:We’ll take a five-minute recess. The committee recessed from 3:49 p.m. to 3:55 p.m. [N. Letnick in the chair.] The Chair:I am thinking that maybe Kootenay East might want to say a few words. Go ahead, Kootenay East, please. T. Shypitka:Thank you, Chair. Three times the charm. Thank you to the minister and staff for offering me the time on this small part of Bill 11,

part 2, which speaks to the Clean Energy Act, particularly

schedule 1 — amending by striking out, I guess, Burrard thermal. It’s a very small part of the bill, but it’s of a lot of interest to me and, I think, a lot of other people. I don’t have a lot of time, so I’m just going to do a little brief

summary if I can, and the minis- ter can agree. I’ll ask a question, just in the consideration of time here. In

schedule 1, there’s a list of heritage assets that were placed in protection from disposition when the Clean Energy Act came out in 2010. I believe the rationale was to keep these assets to ensure our province’s electricity self-sufficiency. It’s also my understanding that Burrard thermal continues to provide voltage support and stability for B.C. Hydro’s transmission and distribution of electri- city in the Lower Mainland. This comes in the form of high-demand or peak times of electricity use. I guess the first question to the minister is: do I have this right? Does Burrard thermal still provide this support?

Would the role that Burrard thermal plays right now not be considered as high-demand or emergency support? Hon. B. Ralston:Burrard thermal has been decommis- sioned and no longer is capable of generating electricity. It does provide what’s called voltage support, although that function is reaching what Hydro regards as its end of life. Hydro is currently considering a number of other options to ensure that its transmission system will operate safely and reliably. T. Shypitka:Thank you to the minister for that. Y es, I was aware that in 2016, it was decommissioned for elec- tricity generation.

As the minister indicated, it does still provide that voltage support. The question was: does the minister consider this volt- age support right now? I realize it’s coming to end of life, but it still does provide that service. Does the minister consider that to be a high-demand type of service as well as emergency support? [4:00 p.m.] Hon. B. Ralston:I’m advised that the voltage support is designed to stabilize the system during peak demand and low demand, but it doesn’t really provide any emergency support.

I think that the member may be referring to the previous capacity that has now been decommissioned of generating electricity. It no longer does that. It’s more a sta- bilization role for the system at large. T. Shypitka:Thank you to the minister. So it provides stability to the grid. Without that support, what situation would we be in without that stability support? I mean, it’s there for a reason. It’s doing a job of some sort. What I’m getting at is if that was removed immediately, where would we find the capacity?

Where would we find that addition- al support to back the system up during high demands or low demands, as you said? Hon. B. Ralston:B.C. Hydro is evaluating the function this site serves. No decision has been made. It wouldn’t be ended immediately. If it were to stay on this site, it would require investment, or it could be moved to another one of the substations in the Lower Mainland to perform the same function. So there need be no concern that it would end abruptly.

The function would continue either on this site with further investment or at another substation in the Lower Mainland to perform the same function. [4:05 p.m.] T. Shypitka:Thank you, Minister. Does the minister know what type of capacity is neces- sary to replace the functionality of what Burrard thermal does right now? Hon. B. Ralston:What the voltage support enhance- ment or renewal would involve would be placing equip- ment either in the present location or in another location. But there is no….

If the question is how much it is going to cost, they haven’t reached the point in the process where they’re able to provide a costing. T. Shypitka: The question wasn’t about cost. It was about what type of capacity is needed to replace what Bur- rard thermal supplies right now. The minister mentioned it could be easily…. It wouldn’t be immediate, but then, eventually, it could be relocated from a substation in the Lower Mainland somewhere.

I guess the question would be: what is the capacity that’s necessary from the substation to supply the voltage support that is necessary for what Burrard thermal is doing right now? The second question to that would be: where would the generating power come from? It’s com- Tuesday, June 1, 2021 British Columbia Debates 2337

ing from a substation, but where would the generating power come from? Hon. B. Ralston:Now, I’m told that there isn’t any gen- eration capacity involved in this. The voltage support is really to support the transmission system, and that’s what the equipment does. So it can either perform that function at this site in the future, or the decision might be to move it to another substation in the Lower Mainland. T. Shypitka:Speaking of that, there have been rumours that this site will be…. Obviously, it’s going to be disposed of. That’s why it’s taking it out of the heritage assets. I guess the question is….

It’s a public asset owned by the taxpayers, and constituents and people in British Colum- bia would like to see some transparency around disposi- tion of this asset. Can the minister confirm the transparency of the sale, the price, if there’s any government financing to whoever purchases it, tax breaks to whom it’s sold, conditions, intended use — those types of things? [4:10 p.m.] Hon. B. Ralston:The process is just beginning. I think it’s not correct to assume that it would be a sale. This legis- lation is required because Hydro can neither lease nor sell this property so long as it’s on that list.

So we’re at the very beginning of the process, and this is a very public step, obviously, by changing the legislation. The next step will be to consult with Indigenous Na- tions. Some have been consulted with already. They’ve indicated no concerns with those amendments. But once, and if, this legislation passes, Hydro will be notifying and engaging with Musqueam, Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh and other nations to explore their interests in the Burrard site. So we’re at the very beginning of what I would expect would be a long and fully engaged public process. T. Shypitka:Thanks for that, Minister.

But obviously, there’s some intent. There’s intent when we go through this amendment to strike Burrard thermal from the protected list of heritage assets. There’s an intent, obviously, to dis- pose of the asset. There would be no rationale otherwise to go through this process. So let’s talk about these early beginnings, as the minister said. I heard the Attorney General in second reading say- ing that there was some consultation with First Nations. I heard the minister just now saying they’re starting to, yet we’re disposing of this asset that is protected under the Clean Energy Act.

Maybe the minister can enlighten me on what negoti- ations have happened with which nations. And are we not putting the cart in front of the horse here? Why would we not fully disclose to First Nations in British Columbia on the sale or the disposition of a public asset? Hon. B. Ralston:The member is wrong to characterize what has taken place so far as negotiations. No negotia- tions have taken place. What has taken place is consulta- tion, which is required legally, and that’s a commitment of the government. But there is interest in this site. There’s no doubt about it. It has industrial zoning.

It has connection to energy infrastructure, proximity to tidewater. There are a number of inquiries, particularly for clean technology develop- ments. So there is interest in the site, but there are no nego- tiations that have been initiated. It is, again, at a very pre- liminary stage. The Chair:Minister, in the interest of order, if you could wait until you’re recognized, it would be appreciated. May- be wave or do something so I know you wish to speak, and then I’ll be very happy to recognize you. Hon. B. Ralston:I apologize. This is a very awkward process, as you well know. The Chair:Y es, I agree.

Wave to me, and it will make it simpler. Kootenay East, please. T. Shypitka: Thank you, Chair. To the minister, I’m assuming — I’m not stating a fact — that there are nego- tiations going on, on a sale right now. But I’m assuming that when the government goes through a process to strike a public asset from a protected list on the heritage assets list, that…. [4:15 p.m.] As the minister said, it’s a very attractive site. It would do a lot of great things for a lot of people, and I look for- ward to what can come from this. My question was on consultation with First Nations.

Before you take this out — that’s what this bill represents — wouldn’t it be prudent for the ministry to consult First Nations on the intent of what it means to take a public asset out of the public trust? Hon. B. Ralston:As I said earlier, ministry staff have met and consulted with the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Nations. They have indicated no con- cerns with the proposed amendments.

The ministry sent letters of notification to the Kwikwetlem First Nation and several Stó:lō Nation members, including Seabird Island, Shxw’ ow’hamel, Skawahlook, Soowahlie, Stó:lō Nation and the Stó:lō Tribal Council to ensure that they are aware of the proposed amendments and inviting comments or feedback. Once, and if, this legislation passes, then those nations will be engaged to explore their interests in the site. During that engagement, B.C. Hydro will share its preliminary thinking on the process for exploring potential future uses of the site, given its unique characteristics.

This would 2338 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, June 1, 2021

involve consideration of principles, format and timing. That would be initiating a separate process that would — as the member might expect — be likely to take some time. It’s not clear, at this point, what the level of interest, if any, is, but that’s why that outreach would take place. But as I’ve said now, twice, the preliminary steps have been taken, and there’s no opposition to the proposed amend- ment. T. Shypitka:I’m just trying to rephrase my thinking here, but I’ll go to an easier question. If a sale is done or leased, what will the proceeds of the sale be used for? Where will that money go?

Is it going to stay with B.C. Hydro? Does it go back to general revenue? What is the intent when the funds are exchanged? Hon. B. Ralston:The proceeds of a sale, if there were to be one — or if there were to be a lease, the lease payments — would go to B.C. Hydro. T. Shypitka:Okay. Thank you, Minister, for that. Taking this heritage asset out of the protected list — I think there are about 35 or 36 of them of them in the province — what does that mean for electricity self-suf- ficiency in our province?

Does it jeopardize emergency provisions, if needed, for failing electrical systems in the future? [4:20 p.m.] The Chair:Seeing as the minister is not yet in the wait- ing room, we will recess until 25 after four. The committee recessed from 4:21 p.m. to 4:25 p.m. [N. Letnick in the chair.] Hon. B. Ralston:The member’s question was: what is the impact of this proposed legislative amendment on the energy self-sufficiency of the province? The answer is none. Burrard thermal is not a generating facility. T. Shypitka:Y es, I understand it’s not generating any- thing right now.

I just look at the list of assets that B.C. Hydro right now has, and the fact that these assets were protected under Clean Energy B.C. for the purpose of elec- tricity self-sufficiency, and I wonder where it ends. I won- der if amendments like this will become the norm if B.C. Hydro needs the cash or if government needs the cash, essentially setting up a virtual ATM system. Self-suffi- ciency, which was mandated as a fairly important thing…. Maybe the minister doesn’t agree.

I guess the question to the minister is: does the minister believe that energy or electricity self-sufficiency should be a priority for British Columbia? Hon. B. Ralston:This is a very precise proposed am- endment. It’s removing one asset from the list. There are no plans at all, despite the member’s attempt to conjure up some kind of impending tsunami. Even if that were the case, each one of the assets that was proposed to be removed would have to come forward in this same pro- cess, to the Legislature, for a full debate on an amendment. There is no plan other than to deal with this one, assuming that it passes.

T. Shypitka:The question was: does the minister have a priority in mind on keeping electricity self-sufficiency in- tact in British Columbia? That is the reason why these her- itage assets were on a protected list to begin with. We’re seeing one leave now. Nothing really to see here, I guess, other than the fact that it could go towards a really great project. I encourage it, and I’ d like to see what comes of it. How- ever, it’s a stroke of a pen, and it’s bringing an amendment forward with a majority government, that others could fall.

My question to the minister, which he didn’t answer, was: does he see the need or the priority for B.C. to have elec- tricity self-sufficiency? Hon. B. Ralston:I believe I’ve made it clear that the removal of this asset from the list will not have an impact on the self-sufficiency of the British Columbia grid what- soever. [4:30 p.m.] It is not a generating facility. It is no longer capable of generating electricity. It’s confined to a single amendment from the list, a single striking of one facility from the list.

As the member rightly knows, this site has huge poten- tial, and there’s a lot of interest in it, both from Indigen- ous Nations and from many others in the clean technology sector particularly. I know that the city of Port Moody is interested, because when Burrard thermal was decommissioned, they lost the tax revenue. It was, I think, 2 or 3 percent of their total tax revenue as a city when it was decommissioned. So they are interested to see a new development on this site, and it’s a site with huge potential for advancing the economy of Brit- ish Columbia and the prosperity of British Columbia.

So that’s what we’re endeavouring to do here, and it really has no impact on the question that the member raises. T. Shypitka:Well, the question was whether the minis- ter embraced the policy in the Clean Energy Act on keep- ing or maintaining British Columbia’s electricity self-suffi- cient. That was the question. [S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.] I understand that the Burrard thermal generating plant was decommissioned in 2016. It’s not having a purposeful life right now, so I can see it moving on to better pastures. I’ll ask about those in a second. Tuesday, June 1, 2021 British Columbia Debates 2339

The question to the minister was: does he embrace the Clean Energy Act and keeping British Columbia energy, or electricity, self-sufficient? Hon. B. Ralston:Well, with respect to the member…. The Chair:Minister. Hon. B. Ralston:Thank you. With respect to the member, that’s not a question this amendment engages. I mean, what we’re talking about are the possible alternate uses of this site. B.C. Hydro has received inquiries from many companies about the use of the site, including data centres, power generation, LNG terminals, hydrogen developments, carbon se- questration projects.

It’s got waterfront access, industrial zoning, potential access of up to 300 megawatts of clean, reliable and affordable energy from the system. So it has huge economic potential. That’s what motivates me in bringing this amendment forward, and that’s what I’m looking forward to. T. Shypitka:Well, seeing, I guess, as the minister won’t answer whether he believes B.C. should be electricity self- sufficient…. The reason why I ask it is because it is in a list of protected assets that were set up to keep B.C. energy self-sufficient. If we sold all these assets off, then we will lose that self-sufficiency.

That’s why I asked the question, and the minister won’t answer it. I think it’s appropriate for what this amendment means, but let’s talk about some of those projects he was talking about. I’m excited as much as the minister is. We could have some great First Nation projects. We could have…. The minister mentioned hydrogen projects, some other energy projects. Does the minister see this disposition of this asset going to another energy-producing project? Hon. B. Ralston:I think it’s early days. The Chair:Minister. Hon. B. Ralston:Pardon me. Sorry. The Chair:Please proceed, Minister. Hon. B. Ralston:Thank you.

I apologize, Chair. The potential is there. No decisions have been made. I think the potential for clean energy at this site, for all the reasons that I’ve already given, is excellent. I know the MLA from Port Moody has expressed his support for that. I know that the city of Port Moody is interested in devel- oping industrial land within the municipality in a way that would contribute to the electrification and the decarbon- ization of British Columbia’s economy. [4:35 p.m.] It’s an ideal site for many potential uses, and indeed, there may be multiple uses, given the size of the site. So that’s the vision.

We’re at the very, very beginning of the process. This is about a first, very small step in that dir- ection. T. Shypitka:I agree with the minister. I think it sets up all kinds of potentials, lots of energy-producing poten- tials, for sure. Since it won’t be in B.C. Hydro’s hands any- more or government’s hands anymore, I would assume that these power producers would be independent. Would that be correct? Hon. B. Ralston:Well, there is a lot of potential. There have been a lot of inquiries, but nothing has been determ- ined. I can’t really say, with any degree of precision, wheth- er they would be independent.

I’m not quite sure what the member means by that. But what entities might come for- ward and be successful in a process that will be a long pub- lic process is not at all clear or predetermined at this point. T. Shypitka:To the minister’s point, I’ve seen the mem- ber from Port Moody’s comments on what this site could represent. The minister has mentioned a litany of different examples of what this project or this site could represent, all energy-producing. I think there were some other ones that were not. I think there was something to do with sal- mon. I’m not sure exactly what it was.

But most of them, 95 percent of the ones I’ve heard, are energy-producing projects, which makes sense, because a lot of the infrastructure is there already. My question — that the minister wasn’t understanding, maybe, and maybe I didn’t phrase it right — is that because B.C. Hydro won’t be involved because we’re releasing it from their assets, dis- posing it from their assets, it would more than likely be an independent producer of power. I wonder on that, because we have said, time and time again, that B.C. Hydro has eliminated the standing offer program for independent power producers.

Would that not be a contradiction, bringing in a large-scale independ- ent power producer for this site? Hon. B. Ralston:Well, at the present, B.C. Hydro is working on the IRP , the long-term plan for energy acquis- ition and development in the province. It’s a 20-year plan that’s being worked on at this point. For a long time in the future, B.C. Hydro will have a surplus of energy, and that’s the process that we’re engaged in. [4:40 p.m.] What this is dealing with is a site with access to mega- watts for a variety of purposes.

It has a number of really excellent attributes that have a number of companies and entities interested in the potential that might be developed on this site, along with support from the city of Port Moody and, generally, the clean tech sector, of which Brit- ish Columbia is a leader. British Columbia regularly has a 2340 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, June 1, 2021

number of companies in the global top 100 clean techno- logy companies. As the member has already agreed, there is huge poten- tial for this site. That’s what we’re focused on. For me to commit or say that a certain type of company, other than a very broad category, is destined to be on this site is prema- ture, at the very least. T. Shypitka:Y es, Minister. Once again, I agree that there is a huge potential. Where I get stuck is that we have been holding independent power producers back for the last three years or so on trying to tie into the grid because of the surplus energy.

Here we go with a project that if dis- posed of, if this asset is sold off, could represent a huge power producer. I think Burrard thermal generated, I believe, about 950 megawatts, which is pretty close to what Site C represents at 1,100. Burrard thermal has the infrastructure to be a very large power producer to someone. Where I get stuck, like I said, is that we’ve been denying folks for a while on independent power-producing contracts, and here we go with something like this. I guess just a final question then. Will there be transpar- ency on the sale — who bought it, how much it was, what’s the intended use?

I think I had a couple of other lists here, but I can write them down for you. Can we expect transparency from government on the proceeds of the sale in its entirety? Hon. B. Ralston:It is not necessarily a sale, as I have attempted to repeatedly say. It could well be a long-term lease or a sale, but neither alternative has been decided upon. It will be a transparent process. I can guarantee that the interest of the surrounding communities, particularly Port Moody, will be intense and there will be public interest in a project of this scale in this location. It’s certainly the inten- tion of B.C.

Hydro to be transparent in the steps that are taken, should this piece of legislation pass. [4:45 p.m.] T. Shypitka:Does Burrard thermal provide port secur- ity — to secure power for port security? Hon. B. Ralston:Sorry, I needed to check with staff on a question. No. It doesn’t provide power for port security. T. Shypitka:Last question. The minister kind of alluded to it earlier, but right now Port Moody receives grants in lieu of taxes, I believe, as well as the loss of school taxes on the property, which are remitted back to the province. This is about…. I believe it’s $300,000 a year, somewhere around there.

I think the grants in lieu of taxes are around $290,000. What will happen with that if this is sold off? Hon. B. Ralston:When the generating facility was in existence, Port Moody received $1.3 million of grants in lieu of taxes, and they lost that when the facility was shut down. Buildings and other properties, or other assets on the properties, generate, as the member has said, some taxes. We don’t see any change in that in the short term at all. Clauses 9 to 12 inclusive approved. On clause 13. M. Morris:Just a couple of questions on the process and some of the work that is being done around this.

Does gov- ernment know how many persons who have been issued COVID fines and fines under the emergency measures act currently have a driver’s licence in British Columbia? Hon. M. Farnworth:No, we don’t have the exact num- ber in terms of how many people that have been issued tickets have drivers’ licences or do not have drivers’ licences. But I think it would be fair to say that it would probably be representative, very much, of the overall pop- ulation in British Columbia, and that the vast majority of people in this province do have a driver’s licence. M.

Morris:So what is the method of collecting fines from non-B.C. drivers, or people in British Columbia who don’t have drivers’ licences? [4:50 p.m.] Hon. M. Farnworth:It would be the collection agency process, which is the process that we already have in place. M. Morris:That leads to my last question here. Has the government done a cost-benefit analysis of whether it should be left in the hands of the bailiffs or the debt col- lection agencies or given to ICBC here? Is there a cost that is…? Does ICBC charge a percentage of their cost for col- lecting these fines? Hon. M.

Farnworth:As the member knows, there al- ready is infrastructure in place. But the additional cost for this is about $58,000. The total number of fines signific- antly exceeds that. Clause 13 approved. Title approved. Hon. M. Farnworth:I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment. Motion approved. The committee rose at 4:51 p.m. Tuesday, June 1, 2021 British Columbia Debates 2341

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Report and Third Reading of Bills BILL 11 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2021 Bill 11, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2021, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. [4:55 p.m.] Hon. M. Farnworth:I call continued second reading debate, Bill 7. [S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.] Second Reading of Bills BILL 7 — ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2021 (continued) I.

Paton:I got started yesterday afternoon speaking to Bill 7, and I’ll just backtrack a little bit to talk about once again my role as Agriculture critic, and how I’ve had the opportunity to travel throughout B.C. to just really under- stand the vastness and the differences between not only geography but the people and what people do in this province for a living and why it’s so fundamentally import- ant that a pillar of our democracy is representation and why everyone in this province needs to be equally repres- ented no matter where you happen to live. Why are we all here, in the first place?

It’s because the constituents in our ridings need a v

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20210601pm-Hansard-n81
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20210601pm Hansard n81
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	a7bbc6f67a77994f353c04a3b037e821be2b714e

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).