Hansard Blues

Committee of the Whole –

Section A

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Thursday, October

5, 2023

Morning Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 27 — MONEY JUDGMENT

ENFORCEMENT ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 27; S. Chant in the chair.

The committee met at 11:33 a.m.

The Chair: Good morning, everybody. Thank you to everybody for being here in a timely fashion,

as best as can be.

I call the Committee of the Whole on Bill 27, Money Judgment Enforcement Act, to order.

On clause 1.

M. de Jong: Just by way of providing some indication to the Attorney as to how I might try to

pose questions relating to the legislation…. It's a lengthy piece of legislation,

but not the longest we've seen, by any stretch of the imagination — a lot of procedural

matters, but a lot of substantive changes as well.

I thought, as part of the discussion around

section 1, I'd just ask some general questions

about the evolution of the legislation generally, its preparation and a few questions

about some of the

definitions.

Then, as we go through the various sections, a lot of them, I think that the best

way we're going to be able to explore the implications of some of the changes is by

way of example.

[11:35 a.m.]

I might offer one, and the Attorney can say: "Well, that's not correct, and here's

why." Or the questions may simply be: "The

section describes a particular situation

in which it would apply. Can the Attorney describe what, in that situation, that example

looks like?" I say that as much for the Attorney's benefit as for the able folks that

are going to be assisting her, who can maybe begin to think in those terms, as we

move through the legislation.

To begin with, Bill 27, the Money Judgment Enforcement Act…. This notion of finding

a more effective and efficient way to assist people in enforcing — which is a neat

lawyers' term for collecting — on the money that they are owed as a result of a dispute

that is adjudicated by a court or another tribunal is something that's been in the

works for some time.

The general question…. I recall in the early stages of this discussion and need for

change and recommendations from the Uniform Law Conference and other agencies here

in B.C., dating back almost a decade…. Can the Attorney provide an explanation for…?

I guess the short answer is that it has taken some time for this to mature into a

piece of legislation that we now have before us. Why? Was there something particularly

complicated or issues that the Attorney can point to that would have contributed to

the length of time it has taken to finalize a piece of legislation that is replacing,

as she said in second reading, a piece of legislation that dates back several centuries?

Hon. N. Sharma: I just want to take a moment to introduce the team that's here with me, and the brains

and the work behind what's before the House today, who are Natalie Barnes and Tyler

Nyvall. I thank them for coming here and for all their work.

[11:40 a.m.]

As the member mentioned, this is a big piece of legislation. To take back the history

of it, in 2005, the BCLI released in the Uniform Law Conference, or shortly after,

a sample piece of legislation. But it wasn't….

We couldn't just take that as given. Our team had to do work to understand the complexities

and how it would apply in B.C. What that means is that it covers a broad range of

substantive areas of law, and there's a lot of complexity involved in it.

So it took some time to get there, including consulting experts, considering other

areas of laws that this legislation might touch. Certainly, it was in need of amendment

for a long time, and the journey to get here has been a lot of work from the team

to make it happen.

M. de Jong: Which branch of the Attorney General's ministry has had conduct of this legislative

initiative, and has that changed over the years since, for example, 2015, or has it

remained constant?

Hon. N. Sharma: It's always been the justice services branch.

M. de Jong: The Attorney made mention of both the B.C. Law Institute recommendation and the Uniform

Law Conference draft legislation.

This may or may not be…. I'm going to ask this question, and it may be too complex.

The question is easy. The answer may be too complex for the minister to answer in

one fell swoop. But perhaps she can, or maybe it's something that we need to come

back to periodically as we traverse the legislation.

Are there areas where the legislation we have before us differs, in the mind of the

Attorney, significantly from the draft legislation prepared by the Uniform Law Conference?

Hon. N. Sharma: I'd just take the member up on the offer of going through in detail, as we traverse

through this piece of legislation, where exactly the differences are. But I will speak

generally about that.

Generally speaking, after the team went through the proposed legislation, the drafts

from Uniform Law Conference, they had to study to see whether it's applicable or should

be applied or if they should alter it. They went through that process, so they're

saying it's about 90 percent the same. There are differences specifically to B.C.'s

interpretation or needs that we can go through as we go through the legislation.

One example that I'll tell you is that there were arbitrary cutoffs for wages. Different

provinces adopted a one-year cutoff or a two-year cutoff. We decided, in this legislation,

to make it indefinite in terms of collection for wages. That's just one example, but

I'm happy to talk through the other differences as we go through.

M. de Jong: Let's consider that, then, a standing question. As we move through, where we get to

provisions that are appreciably different from what appeared in the draft Uniform

Law Conference legislation, I'd be obliged for the minister, with the assistance of

her staff, to point that out, where it's appropriate.

I think we're about to hear something else.

Hon. N. Sharma: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.

Top

NOTICE: This is a DRAFT transcript of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of

British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections and will be replaced by

the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative

precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any

of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.

Copyright © 2023: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada