Second Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, June 1, 2021

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 81

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

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

Bill 11 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2021

Second Reading of Bills

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

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

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,

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 effective

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 General,

speaking for the government, indicated a disagreement with that

proposition and that position held by the Ombudsperson but then,

secondly, said that the introduction 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 introduced.

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 different opinion than the Ombudsperson about

the authority to pass orders. Obviously, as Attorney General I take the

responsibility for government to act lawfully quite seriously. 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.

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 combination of what was Bill 19, COVID

Related Measures Act, and the amendments that were made to the Emergency

Program Act, particularly the creation of

section 10.1, creates

purposely broad, sweeping powers, exceptional 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

nefarious exercise, but that is the intention of what is now created 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 oversight. 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 minister, 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 provisions 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 amendments to the

EPA.

Now, there is meant to be, through modifications of the CRMA and

the EPA, a new level of legislative reporting, 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,

accountability for orders that are made during an emergency.

M. de Jong: First of all, I was not, nor do I now endeavour to suggest that

what the government was attempting to do with the introduction and

passage of Bill 19 was create 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 pow­er,

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

different, 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

pandemic, 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 councils 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 ex­traordinary

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 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 proportionate to the continued

application of the existing law that it purports to amend or change.

There has to be a proportionate 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. You

cannot 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: proportionality 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 extra­ordinary 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 suppose, 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 question, as we

stand here, 15 months into the pandemic and the state of emergency that

presently exists. It’s this question 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 existing laws

and rules and regulations change when emergency 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 circumstances, the

ability of the executive council to respond to emerging circumstances

necessarily had to function, had to exist, absent the traditional

oversights of the legislative 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 as­sumed 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 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 committees. 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-functioning 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 emergency 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 management B.C. and public safety

is interrupted by the pandemic, ironically, but is doing a modernization

of the emergency 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 necessarily suggesting that a

committee would overrule the executive emergency order, but maybe it

would provide an opportunity for debate, feedback, refinement,

suggestion 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 happening

through legislative debate.

[2:15 p.m.]

There are some changes that just don’t need to be permanent. 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 pandemic impacts —

this isn’t something that we want to have be a permanent statutory

change. It’s a temporary authority 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 emergency, that emergency exists in different

stages and im­poses 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 presume, 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 pressures

building….

The Attorney knows that over the course of the pandemic, 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 provide some venue for additional discussion.

But at some point, providing the legislative branch with an opportunity

to consider some of these issues and provide comment, at least, on

whether the tests of proportionality and necessity 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. You 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 certainly 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 reassurance

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 pandemic — stood together

and said these health orders were necessary, it would not be

satisfactory for some individuals. 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 Columbians can see this. The

first and probably the most complete 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 emergency — 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 emergency, 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 exhaustive list.

If that’s not the case, if it is exhaustive, maybe they can remove

that caveat. If there is another list that does represent 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 oversimpli­fying 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 province­wide

state of emergency, can the Attorney, with the assistance 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 completeness 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,

the Hansard 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-oriented, 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 immediately 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

contemporaneous 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

unconscionable 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 government 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 attorney. 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

someone’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 be­tween

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

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

ans­wer to the member’s question is simply that that review with

ministries about when these should expire is happening right

now.

[2:45 p.m.]

M. de Jong: Is the Attorney General to make the pro­duct 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 complete form. I mean, there are a finite number of orders.

Will that happen prior to the end of the state of emergency?

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 concern, 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

government 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 ex­pect

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, may­be, 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 follows: “Yes, the state of emergency is over. But out of an

abundance of caution, we will maintain these extraordinary

orders.”

I don’t think that’s the test. In some cases — I think the

Attorney has pointed out — it will be possible to demonstrate 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.]

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 necessary 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 un­winding 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 emergency, 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 justified under the

act.

To that end, of the approximately 50 orders that have been ported

over into CRMA to become statutory instruments…. I’m advised by staff

that about half of those, about 25, have expired either because they

have a limitation 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 reductions, 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

ex­pire 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 mentioned. They strike me as examples where people

have, over the life of those orders, perhaps not just grown accustomed

but, in some cases, have embraced the added flexibility 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 continuation 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 opportunity, 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 permanent

feature of the governing legislation. Is all of that a fair capsulation

of what I think the minister, the Attorney, 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 permanent 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 regulatory amendment

through the regular course.

Those two orders that I mentioned are really good ex­amples

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 regular

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 by­laws. Following that, they’ll

have to make an amendment to their bylaws if they don’t already have a

provision allowing 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 de­bated and passed,

the Attorney — and I think this was re­flective 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 liability.

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

communities 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”

be­cause we are currently looking at whether we should be

continuing this protection in place through a separate statutory

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 direction 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 re­cord 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 indefinitely. 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.

M. de Jong: To begin, I just want to have a brief conversation 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 definition of family violence.

When a court is looking at whether or not…. There are a number of

reasons why family violence might be a significant factor in a court’s

consideration — 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 individual

involved actually intended to harm a family member 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 intention 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 de­cision would have

a chilling effect on applications for protection orders, determinations

of family violence in parenting 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 existing 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 applying for protection orders in certain circumstances.

Are those both fair statements?

Hon. D. Eby: The member’s

summary is right. The im­petus 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 government, about the long-lasting impacts of family violence on

vulnerable people.

Government’s intention is to address violence. Be­cause 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 vio­lence, 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 forward 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 necessitated by an

interpretation of the existing legislation by the courts that needed to

be addressed. It’s sort of our obligation 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

opportunity 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 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, coercion or

threats, including threats respecting other persons, pets or property,

(ii) unreasonable restrictions on, or pre­vention of, a family

member’s financial or personal auto­nomy, (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 subsection

(

d) says that this is including these examples. It’s open to the court

to find other types of abuse would constitute 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,

be­cause 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 discussed 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 imagine 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 psychologically damaging,

abusive.

Is it clear now, in that scenario, that that behaviour, where

there may not have been any direct intent in that re­gard — that

that is now captured by the definition of family 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

interpretation 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 definition 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 in­tent from the definition

of “family violence” in terms of when a court is asked through another

section of the statute 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

individual is showing up in court to ask for might be influenced 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 member 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 whe­ther

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 society 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 individual 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

protect 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 likeli­hood

of different scenarios. The likelihood of an individual with reduced

capacity — that the Family Law Act would be the mechanism by which a

relative or family 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 likelihood 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 threatening 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 engaging 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 elsewhere, 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.

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 minister 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 electricity 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 decommissioned 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. Yes, I was aware that in 2016,

it was decommissioned for electricity generation. As the minister

indicated, it does still provide that voltage support.

The question was: does the minister consider this volt­age 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 stabilization 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 additional 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 necessary to

replace the functionality of what Burrard thermal does right

now?

Hon. B. Ralston: What the voltage support enhancement or renewal would involve

would be placing equipment 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 Burrard 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 coming from a substation, but where would the generating power come

from?

Hon. B. Ralston: Now, I’m told that there isn’t any generation 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 Columbia would like to

see some transparency around disposition 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 legislation 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 Na­tions.

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 dispose 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 saying 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 negotiations 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 negotia­tions have taken place. What has taken

place is consultation, 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 developments. So there is interest in the site, but

there are no negotiations that have been initiated. It is, again, at a

very preliminary stage.

The Chair: Minister, in the interest of order, if you could wait until

you’re recognized, it would be appreciated. May­be 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: Yes, 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 negotiations 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 forward 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

concerns 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 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 amendment.

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-sufficiency 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 waiting 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: Yes, I understand it’s not generating anything 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 electricity self-sufficiency, and I wonder where it ends. I wonder 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-sufficiency, 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 am­endment. 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 process, 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 in­tact in British Columbia?

That is the reason why these heritage 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.

How­ever, 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 electricity 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 whatsoever.

[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 potential, and there’s a lot of

interest in it, both from Indigenous 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

British 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 minister embraced the policy in

the Clean Energy Act on keeping or maintaining British Columbia’s

electricity self-sufficient. 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.

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 se­questration 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 developing industrial land within the municipality in a

way that would contribute to the electrification and the decarbonization

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 direction.

T. Shypitka: I agree with the minister. I think it sets up all kinds of

potentials, lots of energy-producing potentials, for sure. Since it

won’t be in B.C. Hydro’s hands anymore 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 determined. I can’t really say, with any

degree of precision, whether they would be independent. I’m not quite

sure what the member means by that. But what entities might come forward

and be successful in a process that will be a long public process is not

at all clear or predetermined at this point.

T. Shypitka: To the minister’s point, I’ve seen the member 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 salmon. 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, disposing 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 independent 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 acquisition 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 megawatts 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 British

Columbia is a leader. British Columbia regularly has a number of

companies in the global top 100 clean technology companies.

As the member has already agreed, there is huge potential 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 premature, at the very least.

T. Shypitka: Yes, 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

disposed 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 transparency 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 intention 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 security — 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 government 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 number 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 population

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 collection agencies or given to ICBC here? Is there

a cost that is…? Does ICBC charge a percentage of their cost for

collecting these fines?

Hon. M. Farnworth: As the member knows, there al­ready is infrastructure in

place. But the additional cost for this is about $58,000. The total

number of fines significantly 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.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 11 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

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 understand 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 important

that a pillar of our democracy is representation and why everyone in

this province needs to be equally represented 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 voice. They elected each and every

one of us on the understanding that their needs would be heard and

brought forward to government. Now this legislation before us has some

implications for that representation. We know that after every second

election, the Electoral Boundaries Commission is appointed to look at

the current boundaries of our ridings and possibly make some changes to

keep up with B.C.’s demographics as they shift.

This bill in particular aims to remove protections to the regions

of Cariboo-Thompson, Columbia-Kootenay and the north, which have a lower

population than most urban areas like communities on the Lower Mainland,

yet are vast geographic regions with unique challenges.

Some of the important points of Bill 7 that we are speaking in

opposition to…. While the appointing of this commission is routine, the

changes proposed in the legislation before us are not, as it seeks to

remove protections that have been put in place to ensure that rural

British Columbia is represented in our Legislature. Specifically, this

bill seeks to remove statutory protections to three regions: the

Cariboo-Thompson, the Columbia-Kootenay and the north.

These regions have been protected because while they have a lower

population than the densely populated Lo­wer Mainland, they are

vast geographic regions full of diverse people who deserve to be fairly

represented in Victoria. This is why the Electoral Boundaries Commission

itself has said that effective representation is not simply anchored to

the equality of population. A 2015 report says the “factors like

geography, community history, community interests and minority

representation should be taken into account” when deciding how to draw

electoral boundaries.

Additionally, we must consider that a large percentage of First

Nations communities in B.C. are located in the regions that are set to

have statutory protections removed. Around 30 percent of First Nations

in British Columbia live in the north and the Cariboo-Thompson regions,

some in incredibly remote locations, and we need to ensure that they

also have equal access to the representation they are entitled to under

the law.

Why does a member for Delta South even care? Why does a guy who

could drive from one end of his riding to another in no time care about

a bill that could drastically alter rural ridings and not his own? Well,

I’ve been taught in my short period of time in provincial politics that

all of British Columbia matters.

[5:00 p.m.]

Opportunities for all of British Columbia. I’ve spoken about this

in the past. I’ve spoken about how we often seem to think we live in

this perfect bubble in the Fraser Valley or in the capital city region

of Vancouver Island. We have all of the benefits of theatres and

professional sports and the best of restaurants and all of these great

things.

We may think of our holidays as a trip to Hawaii or Mexico or Palm

Springs or going on a cruise, but there are people all over this

province that love where they live because life is different for them.

They don’t have access to some of the things we have here, but their

enjoyment is different.

Their enjoyment may be the outdoors. It may be the best fishing

spot they have. It may be hunting. It may be snowmobiling, cross-country

skiing, all the things you do in remote parts of rural B.C. that are so

important to people. They are every bit as important to this province as

we are living down in the populated area, which represents about 3

percent of the geography of this province down here in the Fraser

Valley.

It’s so important to me. People in all parts of this

pro­vince have different ways of life. They even wear different

clothes, like yesterday. We have cowboys that wear the western hats and

the jeans and the boots. This is what they wear every day. This is their

lifestyle. People in the forestry industry in all parts of B.C. that

have a different job….

We have to respect everyone in all corners of this pro­vince

that may not be doctors or lawyers or accountants or do the things that

a lot of people do down here on the coast. These are people in the

forestry industry, every day, that get up and drive trucks, that operate

excavators, that do welding, that build pipelines for oil and gas, that

help to build LNG plants, that work at Rio Tinto in Kitimat, that are in

the fishing industry, that are in the mining industry.

There are just so many important things to the resource

development of this province and people living in all cor­ners of

this province. Whether you’re in forestry or mining, you’re a welder,

you drive a truck, you drive an excavator or you’re a farmer in Creston

or Fort St. John or Daw­son Creek, everybody is important in this

province.

We should not only care about what any piece of legislation means

for our own constituents but for others around the province as well, as

I have just noted. I know how important my constituents and their issues

are to me. It’s no different for my rural colleagues who already have to

work a lot harder, in some cases, to reach some of the people they

represent.

I think of my colleague in Fraser-Nicola, whose riding is

incredibly large and incredibly diverse. It’s comprised of several

communities, including Clinton, Ashcroft, Cache Creek, Lytton, Logan

Lake, Merritt and Hope, and even smaller ones like Gold Bridge and Big

Bar Creek. With that many communities, you can imagine the work that

goes into maintaining relationships with local governments, First

Nations, school districts and, most importantly, the constituents that

the member represents, who come to her with a wide variety of concerns.

Her ability to connect with her diverse constituents, who have diverse

needs, is necessary to an effective democracy.

A bill like this essentially says the only thing that matters is

that each electoral district has the same number of people living in it.

That’s where the concern lies.

Our current boundaries in more rural parts of the pro­vince

recognize the unique attributes of these areas. They reflect the reality

that while their population may be lower than what we see in more

densely populated areas, it’s pretty much impossible for all those

constituents to be represented properly if these ridings were to be made

bigger. It makes me reflect on the way I serve my constituents in an

urban riding, and more broadly, it’s why it’s so important for people to

have reasonable access to their provincial representative.

In my recent travels to Fort St. John to talk to farmers up there

about the canola industry, wheat and grass seed, raising buffalo and

beef cattle, something that I noticed…. I have been to Fort St. John

before but in the middle of winter. Nobody drives a car in Fort St.

John. Everybody has a big pickup truck. You have to have that to get

around on the roads in the climate and the weather conditions up in the

north part of B.C. People are used to driving long distances now to get

to where they have to get to, to do business.

[5:05 p.m.]

It’s long enough now as it is for someone to get from Fort Nelson

down to Fort St. John to meet with their MLA. We certainly do not need

to add more distance by combining ridings in the north. The last thing

we want to do is to add to the fact that already people are driving 2½

or three hours to meet with their MLA in Dawson Creek or Fort St. John.

The last thing we need to do is to add a trip where people might have to

drive as much as six or eight hours to get from where they live to get

to an in-person meeting with their MLA in the north or in parts of the

Kootenays.

I want to share at this time an experience I had with one of my

own constituents earlier this year. A 65-year-old gentleman in my

community of Ladner was facing eviction from a B.C. Housing unit just

down the street from my constituency office. The reason given for his

eviction was said to be a pattern of uncleanliness within the

unit.

For some background, this gentleman suffered a mas­sive

stroke about 15 years ago and continues to experience cognitive

disabilities. To mitigate his high blood pressure, he would walk around

Ladner daily and would frequent several local coffee shops to read the

Province newspaper from front to back. His calm demeanour

and friendliness earned him several friends within the community,

several of whom came to my office expressing concern over his

eviction.

In January, his belongings were removed from his unit and were

stored in a locker in New Westminster, and he suddenly had nowhere to

go. At 65 years old, he found himself homeless for the first time in his

life. Each day he would come to my office looking for help. My staff and

I worked immediately to find him housing.

In the interim, he would take refuge from the snow, the strong

winds and cold temperatures this winter at the Ladner United Church,

which is just right across the street from my office, in their extreme

weather shelter. The shelter would open at nine each evening and have

people vacated by seven o’clock the next morning. With the COVID-19

public health orders, they were restricting indoor seating. He often

found himself walking in the cold weather, trying to find a place where

he could warm up, even for a few minutes.

I took it upon myself to befriend this gentleman. I could see that

every night he was sleeping on a one-inch little foam mattress on the

floor of the United Church, and they were only letting about five or six

people in each night. He couldn’t even get in till nine o’clock at

night. So he had to kill time somewhere, walking about Ladner until nine

o’clock at night.

I took it upon myself, as a local MLA, to get him into a local

motel for a few nights. I helped to pay some of the fee myself. I went

to Costco and bought him just some cheap jeans and some socks and

underwear and a few things to get him cleaned up and get him into some

clothes, as his hadn’t been washed for a great deal of time.

It was very rewarding for me to carry this through with the

fantastic people I have working for me in my office, as my staff and I

worked tirelessly to find him permanent housing through affordable

housing societies. After several weeks we were able to find him

temporary shelter at an even better shelter across the river, in the

Ironwood part of Steveston, at the Salvation Army’s Richmond shelter,

just across the river in Richmond.

After a month of walking outdoors in poor weather and sleeping on

a mat in the extreme weather shelter, the prospect of having a place to

go every night, where he could sleep on a bed that was off the ground,

use a washing ma­chine and dryer to clean his clothes and sit in a

dining hall where he could enjoy hot meals three times per day, meant

the world to him when we got him into the better shelter by the

Salvation Army, across the river in Richmond. It was shortly into his

stay at the shelter in Richmond that my office was able to secure

permanent housing for this gentleman in North Delta, and he moved into a

new B.C. Housing unit in early April.

I want to thank so much my CAs, Michelle and Taylor, for the work

they did with a couple of local social workers. It was such a success

that we got him into his own apartment, with some help to monitor his

daily living habits, up in North Delta.

It is cases like these that make me proud to be an MLA in Delta

South, knowing that my office can make a difference in people’s lives.

Without my office being located down the street from his home, who knows

where he would have sought help from? Perhaps he would still be homeless

to this day if it wasn’t for the fact that I was there and handy and he

was able to come and knock on my door and get help from his local

MLA.

[5:10 p.m.]

Imagine the same situation in a region like the Cariboo-Thompson,

Columbia-Kootenay or the north if boundaries were changed, some ridings

were removed and others were made substantially bigger as a result.

Imagine the tremendous distance between a vulnerable constituent like

this fellow and the MLA he desperately needed help from.

It may just be too large an obstacle for him to overcome. He

doesn’t have many belongings. He may not have regular access to a phone.

He has scarce funds. He couldn’t just hop on a bus to get to a

constituency office hours and hours away if he was in a huge new riding

in the north or in the Columbia-Kootenay or in the

Cariboo-Thompson.

As I mentioned, the gentleman we helped had some med­ical

considerations. He needs a helper to meet with him where he is. I can’t

imagine how he would get that help under the proposal before us. So I

think it’s important that we take these factors into consideration when

we talk about potential changes to electoral boundaries.

We cannot forget about the rest of B.C. We’re often just so

focused about what we do down here in Metro Vancouver or on Vancouver

Island, where, as I said earlier, we just have so many opportunities, so

many great things. But we just cannot discount the people that live in

places such as Fort Nelson and Atlin and Dawson Creek and Trail and the

Kootenays. I mean, the list goes on and on and on.

Those people are real people that are doing real jobs. We want to

promote people to get out of the housing craziness that we have here in

Metro Vancouver, and let’s start getting people into some areas of B.C.

where they have a chance to get a decent job in resource development or

in agriculture or in forestry and get people moving, as young people, to

some of these smaller rural towns to seek out a new and exciting and

better life.

We need to step outside of our own circumstances and think about

those who don’t have the same resources and abilities that others do. We

need to ensure that everyone in B.C. has reasonable access to their

provincial representative and not make it any harder for them to get

assistance that they need. I certainly hope that the independent

commission of three will consider the needs of all British Columbians,

not just those of the 3 percent geographical area that most of us live

in down here in Metro Vancouver and the capital city.

Thank you for your time, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Recognizing the member for Peace River South.

[Applause.]

M. Bernier: Thank you, Chair.

Well, thank you to the government members for

ap­plaud­ing me.

Deputy Speaker: Welcome back.

M. Bernier: Yeah, they might take back that applause after they hear some of

my comments I have to make. But I do appreciate the opportunity to stand

up and speak to Bill 7.

This bill, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amend­ment

Act, is something that comes in front of this House every two elections.

I want to maybe start by acknowledging and thanking so many of my B.C.

Liberal colleagues who have taken the opportunity in their role as an

elected member of this House to stand up and to speak to this bill and

to talk about the vastness of our province of British Columbia, the

diversity that we have in our province, the differences that we have all

around — whether it be through our economy, through the people and

diversity, the geography that we have — and how we are so blessed in the

province of British Columbia because of all of that.

British Columbia, because of that, though, obviously has, I would

say, challenges but opportunities as well. We are different than almost

every other province in Confederation, almost every other province in

Canada — the way that we are spread out, the way that we have the

opportunities in our resource sector, the way we have the majority of

the people who are situated in the Lower Mainland.

I want to thank my colleagues who have stood up, especially, I’d

say…. I want to acknowledge my urban colleagues who have spoken so well,

so eloquently, and who have spoken from the heart, who understand the

differences that we have here across British Columbia. Again, this comes

in front of us every two elections, the electoral commission amendment

act, for a review.

[5:15 p.m.]

This time, though, one of the things that obviously, I think,

perplexes myself and many members on this side of the House is the fact

that government has chosen to take out a major part of what’s in the

act, which is around — and I’ll use these words not carefully —

protecting three parts of the province.

Now, let’s not kid ourselves here. That protection was brought in

for very well-thought-out reasons, because of some of the things I

mentioned earlier — the differences that we have in the province because

of the geographical vastness that we have; and again, as some of the

people have said, because of the differences even for the people in our

province of what they expect to see in our province: what they hope to

accomplish, what they hope to have out of their elected

officials.

I will say how surprised — I’ll even use the word “disappointed” —

that I am that the members of the NDP have foregone their right to speak

in this House to what I would say is one of the most important bills

that’s come forward in this session, which is about our democracy, about

our representation. This is about the people of British Columbia, the

people they elect and how they are represented here in

Victoria.

I’m surprised, actually, that no members of the NDP are willing to

stand up and justify why they want to remove this portion out of the act

which would allow for the people in rural parts of British Columbia to

have what I would say is an equitable voice.

Part of the act is talking about effective representation. Well, I

ask you: what does effective representation mean? It’s a very loose

term, I would argue. The reason why I say that is I’m sure members of

the NDP will stand up and say, in their opinion, effective

representation completely comes down to people only, and having the same

amount of people represented by an MLA. Maybe that’s why they’re not

speaking to this, because that’s what they all believe.

I know there are rural MLAs in the NDP who have travelled the

province. I truly believe that they understand the challenges in many

areas of the province that I will speak to and I know members,

colleagues of mine, will speak to. I know that there are now members of

cabinet who have been very fortunate enough, in the NDP, to travel

around the province in their role and to hear from people. But I also

know that they’ve seen the challenges that there can be to get to remote

parts of British Columbia.

The fact that you might have to fly to an airport and then drive

for five or six hours after you’ve landed in an airport just to get to a

meeting — I know members of the NDP understand that, some of them at

least. I would hope all would. So it does surprise me that not only are

they willfully removing this

section out of the act; it’s, I would say,

quite upsetting that they’re not willing to stand up in the House and

defend those exact actions that they claim to support.

Let me just put things in perspective a little bit for,

may­be, members of the NDP who have not had the privilege of

travelling around the province yet, who have maybe not had that

excitement of flying to Dawson Creek and Fort St. John and then having

to drive five or six hours to go visit First Nations communities up by

Fort Nelson, up in the Liard or almost to the Yukon border. I hope they

get that privilege, because then they’ll understand where we’re coming

from, for those of us like myself and my colleague in Peace River North,

with some of the differences.

[5:20 p.m.]

Now, this is not about and it shouldn’t be about an us and them, a

rural or urban. That’s not what this is about. At no time am I trying

to, through my comments, take away from the work or the challenges that

an urban MLA faces. I just want to highlight that they’re different.

When I say “different,” I think back to a former colleague of mine, a

former mayor of Vancouver that most of us in this House know — Sam

Sullivan.

Sam flew up to Dawson Creek because he had never been up there, as

a member of this House at the time, representing Vancouver–False Creek.

He flew up to Dawson Creek because he said he really wanted to

understand the differences that we sometimes talk about in this House.

He definitely got an eye-opener when, as a person travelling and using a

wheelchair, with some of the challenges when you have dirt roads,

cobblestone sidewalks and airplanes and hotels that may not be

accommodating to someone in his situation.

One of the other things that he reminded me of in our

discussions…. He goes: “You know, sometimes we take for granted when

we’re in downtown Vancouver…. Yes, we have challenges.” And yes, they’re

unique challenges that maybe I don’t have to face, but he reminded me

that even in his situation of being a member from downtown

Vancouver….

As I know the Speaker and others will recognize, his riding was

about eight square blocks, representing more people, granted, than I

represent — eight square blocks. He also reminded me that, give or take

a few issues, the majority of those people in that eight square blocks

have similar issues, similar challenges. They have similar discussions —

not to stereotype it, by any means. Of course, there are some

differences, but he was trying to, I think, highlight for me that he

understood when he came and toured around my riding.

He said: “Wow. You know, I don’t have to deal with four different

mayors who have four different possibly competing issues, who have to

travel for hours just to have a face-to-face meeting with their MLA. I

don’t have to deal with three sawmills that are competing against each

other and the challenges of the back country. I don’t have the stresses

and challenges of a massive oil and gas field and the competition that

comes with that, and the challenges that that faces, or one of the

largest agricultural zones in the province on top of all of that, and

the ranchers.”

I could go on and on, but the point was that it was an eye-opener

for an urban MLA to understand the differences and the challenges that

rural B.C. faces. Picture this. I believe — I’ll be corrected if I’m

wrong — that there are around nine MLAs on Vancouver Island. My riding

alone is larger than Vancouver Island. Imagine being in Port Hardy, and

the only way you’d get to have a face-to-face with your MLA would be

possibly driving from Port Hardy down to Victoria, if that’s where the

office were.

Let’s look at it a different way. In the Lower Mainland, there are

48 MLAs — because of the population; I’m not taking away from that —

that represent the Lower Mainland. My riding is larger than the entire

Lower Mainland. You have one MLA, which is myself, representing a

geographical area that 48 MLAs represent in Vancouver and the Lower

Mainland area. That comes back to the point of effective and, I would

say, fair representation. I believe it’s something where most people in

the Lower Mainland, if they actually thought they would have one MLA to

represent them, because of geography, they would be up in

arms.

[5:25 p.m.]

This is why we have a situation where we represent by population.

I understand that. But that is also why there was a situation where

protection was brought in for these unique situations in these three

zones of the province because of those geographical challenges and

issues, to make sure that we recognized what effective or fair — and, in

many cases, essential — representation means. I don’t want to get into

an us-and-them. I don’t want to create that rural-urban divide. I just

want the acknowledgment that there is a rural and urban difference, that

there are different rural and urban needs and expectations.

I know my colleague from Peace River North…. I think one of the

most common things we hear, with two MLAs that represent such a large

portion, geographically, of the province…. One of the number one things

we hear is: “How do you guys even get heard in Victoria, as it is? We’re

the furthest away. There’s only two of you. How do you get your voice

heard?”

I know my colleagues can probably talk about some of those

comments that we’ve heard from people already, when we said, “You do

realize that the NDP are now taking away this part of the act that will

take away that three-zone protection” — an assurance that we’ll at least

have some semblance of fair representation in Victoria for rural parts

of the province.

If Peace River were to be amalgamated together, as could happen

under this situation that the NDP have put together, that one riding —

which would now have one MLA, I assume, under what this government is

trying to put together — would be well over 200,000 square kilometres.

Think about that: 200,000 square kilometres with one MLA