On Thursday this week members of the BC Legislature will vote on the BC NDP’s 2020 budget.

The BC NDP’s 2020 budget continues to build on the positive work done since my colleagues and I first signed the Confidence and Supply Agreement (CASA) in 2017. The Premier and I reiterated our ongoing support for the CASA agreement in letters we exchanged shortly after I left the BC Green Caucus to sit as an independent as their leadership race unfolds.

In my view, Budget 2020 delivers on multiple fronts by making investments which will benefit numerous demographic groups. And rather than becoming mired in politically expedient short-termism, the budget charts a path forward to an economy centered around sustainable development and innovation.

This budget reflects many of our shared priorities. While no budget will please everyone, and all budgets can be criticized for what’s not in them, taken together I am very pleased with what’s in Budget 2020 and look forward to supporting it in the upcoming vote.

Below I expand upon my media release from last week and provide further thoughts and reflections on Budget 2020.

Affordability

Currently, the high cost of living in urban areas in BC is putting the comfortable middle-class lifestyle enjoyed by previous generations out of reach for large segments of the population, and the government is addressing the issue by continuing to introduce measures designed to make life more affordable. The complete removal of MSP premiums should save a family of four $1,800 per year while raising the earnings exemption for those on income and disability should put more money back into the pockets of those who need it most.

I am absolutely thrilled to see the regressive form of taxation embodied in MSP premiums finally eliminated. I’ve been working towards this end since January 2015 when I first announced that the BC Green Party, if elected, would eliminate the MSP premium and replace it with a progressive form of revenue generation mirroring what was done in Ontario. Public support for this was overwhelming as indicated by the tens of thousands of British Columbians who signed petitions or emailed their MLAs, and by the fact that both the BC NDP and the BC Liberals eventually also embedded a promise to eliminate MSP premiums in their 2017 election platforms.

Ongoing funding increases to childcare in BC should help to alleviate an economic stress for young families while benefiting the entire economy through greater female participation in the labour force, families with more disposable income, and the creation of jobs related to early childhood care.

On the housing front, the combination of the speculation tax (which I spent much time working on collaboratively with the Finance Minister to ensure it was razor focused on urban speculation) and the construction of affordable housing should bring unit costs down, but these measures need to be combined with continued conversations with municipalities about ways to increase density to most effectively deal with the housing crisis. Further work is needed to combat underemployment (only 39,300 of the 65,400 jobs created last year were full-time) and to provide support to those dealing with addictions, homelessness, and mental health issues, but in a time of economic uncertainty the government is continuing to devote resources to ensuring that those who require assistance are able to get it.

Education and Youth

For years, BC has been the only province without an up-front, needs-based, post-secondary educational grant. The 2020 budget rectifies this situation by introducing the BC Access Grant. Making the grant up-front is especially important because it gives students immediate financial aid, allowing them to focus on their studies without the added stress of worrying about how they are going to pay tuition or loans. The grant will also be of medium-term economic benefit to the province, helping to address anticipated shortages of healthcare providers and workers equipped with the skills needed to power an economy driven by green energy and intangibles.

The growing number of students requesting access to on campus mental health supports has been well documented and the government has responded with the introduction of a new 24/7 mental health counselling service. This system will help to provide many students with the support they need to navigate the challenges of living away from home for the first time, the pressures induced by social media, and the financial stressors that come with being a student. The new support network is not panacea to the increasing number of young adults who experience mental health challenges, but its creation demonstrates that the government is taking students’ concerns seriously and is working to address them.

Additionally, after years of inadequate funding, the government is continuing to make investments into supplying the teachers, psychologists, and educational assistants needed to maintain our public education system’s status as one of the best in the world. Indeed, a primary driver of long-term economic growth, a well-educated, skilled workforce, can only be produced through investments into our public education system now.

Strong education systems  correlate with positive health outcomes, greater social mobility, and higher levels of civic engagement. However, the mismatch between four-year political timelines and the time it takes to see the benefits of investments into education can create incentives for governments to shirk their responsibilities to adequately fund public education systems. By taking the long view and investing substantial resources into our education system now, the government is continuing to demonstrate that it is committed to sustaining our province’s prosperity.

Capital Projects and Innovation

Government choosing to make record-breaking investments into infrastructure projects while capital is cheap is a prudent choice which will help the province to deal with multiple immediate and looming challenges. Transportation related infrastructure projects such as the Pattullo Bridge replacement, Skytrain expansions, and additional HOV lanes should tackle pressures associated with continued urbanization and help to reduce congestion and pollution while facilitating the smooth flow of goods and services. Hospital overcrowding, another pressing issue in the province, promises to see relief through the construction and renovation of multiple hospitals. Additionally, the construction and renovation of numerous schools will assist areas of the province dealing with demographic pressures, and ongoing seismic upgrading is a much needed investment after years of delayed progress.

Innovative design and the integration of BC engineered wood products and energy/energy conservation systems into these capital projects demonstrates British Columbia’s ongoing leadership in recognizing that the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions can be paired with job creation throughout the province. Although it is true that the province’s debt will increase in order to finance these record-breaking capital projects, our debt to GDP ratio remains at a sustainable level.

I was also pleased to see that  government is providing a roadmap to an economy with sustainability and entrepreneurship as its cornerstones, the importance of which I have emphasized to government in countless hours of discussions and negotiations.

We have the resources to transition to an innovation driven, low-carbon economy but businesses require the certainty that comes with a clear commitment from government to supporting emerging industries in order to feel comfortable investing in them. Although there are some measures which push in the opposite direction that I will continue to oppose, on balance, the province is signaling its commitment to supporting an emerging economy that realizes BC’s comparative advantages.

Measures such as targeted investments into the bioeconomy, the exemption of electric aircrafts and electric aircraft conversions from PST, and the pledge to establish a quantum computing institute all aid burgeoning industries capable of becoming areas of economic strength for the province. Ongoing incentives to purchase electric vehicles and charging stations are simple, smart demand-oriented policies which will continue to electrify transportation. More work is needed to encourage retrofitting and the development of renewable energy sectors which harness BC’s natural resources, but the province is well on its way to transitioning to the economy of tomorrow.

Rural Development

Rural areas of the province continue to be connected to high-speed internet, giving them access to the benefits of the digital economy, and forestry dependent communities will see much needed relief through The Forestry Worker Support Program. We need to continue to transition towards a more sustainable model of forestry which produces high value-added exports but the coastal revitalization initiative, investments into the bioeconomy, and the use of made in BC engineered wood are steps in the right direction.

The only way we’re going to compete in the resource world is not to just dig dirt out of the ground and think, somehow, we’re going to compete with a jurisdiction that doesn’t internalize the social and environmental externalities we value here. The way we do that is to be smarter, more efficient and cleaner. We do that by bringing the technology sector together with the resource sector. We do that by focusing on the value-added. We do that focusing on efficiency, being cleaner and selling those technologies elsewhere, like MineSense, Axine or others. I was pleased to see that the BC NDP government has recognized this in both Budget 2020 and their recent Throne Speech.

I feel that this government is on the right track. It understands where the future of our economy is. It doesn’t lie in simply continuing to dig dirt out of the ground. It never will. It lies in innovation. It lies in the harvesting our resources in innovative ways by bringing the tech sector together with that.

Concluding Remarks

Although the scale of action  may not be as large as some may desire, there is a lot to like in a budget that devotes resources to raising the standard of living for many now while articulating a positive long-term vision for the province. I look forward to supporting the budget on Thursday.

 

 

Today the BC NDP delivered the budget for the next fiscal year. Below I reproduce the media release my office issued in response to it. As you will see from the release (reproduced below), I was pleased with Budget 2020 and I look forward to expanding on these initial remarks when I respond in the legislature hopefully tomorrow.

---

Media Release

---

MLA Weaver responds to 2020 Budget
For Immediate Release
February 18, 2020

Victoria, BC — The BC NDP’s 2020 Budget is one that invests in the people of British Columbia and charts a path forward for a sustainable economy that works for everyone.

“I’m delighted to see this government continuing to work towards lowering the cost of living for middle class British Columbians,” said Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head. “Actions such as the elimination of MSP premiums which I have long advocated for, the construction of new affordable housing units, the raising of earnings exemptions for those on income and disability assistance, and increased funding for childcare and public education should ensure that the benefits of economic growth in BC are widely shared”.

While the 2020 budget introduces several changes that positively impact the lives of British Columbians now, it is also forward looking, making significant investments into the future of the province and in particular today’s youth. Funding dedicated to increasing the supply of teachers, counsellors, and psychologists contribute to the positive social and cognitive development of our children as they move through school.

The creation of the needs-based, up-front BC Access Grant should equalize post-secondary educational opportunities in the province by allowing students to focus on their studies without worrying about how they are going to pay for their tuition. New 24/7 mental health resources for students at post-secondary institutions should no longer place young adults in a position where they feel like they have to choose between their personal well-being and academic success.

“BC’s 2020 budget also makes necessary infrastructure investments, at a time when access to capital is cheap, to manage a growing population while, at the same time, transitioning the province to a low-carbon economy by linking capital expenditures to Clean BC,” adds Weaver.

The construction of new hospitals, bridges, roads, houses, and schools promise to create numerous good, well-paying jobs in all regions of our province in addition to alleviating strains on public services.

“Innovative design and the integration of BC engineered wood products and energy/energy conservation systems into these capital projects demonstrates British Columbia’s ongoing leadership in recognizing that the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions can be paired with job creation throughout the province,” notes Weaver.

Although the budget does continue to devote resources to projects which I continue to oppose, such as the Site C dam and LNG developments, I am pleased that the government is now demonstrating its commitment to the economy of tomorrow by supporting the emerging bioeconomy, the quantum computing sector, the agri-tech and life sciences. The continued backing of renewable energy projects, ZEVs, and electric aircrafts will make our economic growth largely sustainable.

At its heart, the 2020 budget is one that places people first while embracing the opportunities created by technological and climatic change, ensuring that BC is well positioned to thrive moving forward.

MLA Weaver will monitor the progress and implementation of these budget measures to ensure they benefit the people of British Columbia.

-30-

Media contact
Judy Fainstein
Executive Director
Legislative Office of Andrew Weaver, MLA
+1 250-744-7615 | Judy.Fainstein@leg.bc.ca

 

Today in the Legislature I rose to provide my response to the BC NDP government’s Speech from the Throne. The throne speech focused largely on identifying the advances that have already been made and pathways forward to build on those advances for the betterment of British Columbia. I spoke in strong support of the throne speech as outlined in the text and video of my response (reproduced below).

---

Text of My Response

---

A. Weaver: Thank you to the members of government here who give a little applause as I rise as an independent member to speak in strong support of the throne speech we heard yesterday.

Before I start, I wish to acknowledge and thank government for raising and acknowledging the passing of a number of friends and constituents: Al Martin, a neighbour, a conservationist, a friend, a great British Columbian; Nils Jensen, former Oak Bay mayor, a friend, a great British Columbian; Eli Pasquale, who went to UVic at the same time as me and was in the rival basketball team, as I was in the rival rugby team, who passed away at the young age of 59 — his number 13 has been retired at the University of Victoria — and of course, Paul Fraser, who we all know in this Legislature, who I became very close to over the years. He will be a great loss to all of us and British Columbia in general.

I’d like to start by addressing some of the issues in the throne speech. Now, with respect to the throne speech, it’s quite clear that the throne speech focussed largely on identifying the advances that have already been made and pathways forward to build on those advances for the betterment of British Columbia. Government has, in its throne speech, mentioned that it has already got big money out of politics and strengthened lobbying rules.

As the former leader of the B.C. Green Party, I feel very strongly that these are quite good policies and take great pride in the role that we played in working with government in ensuring that transparency and getting big money out of politics was done early in the term.

I would like to address, before I move on, an issue raised by the member for Kelowna West with respect to closing trade offices. Now, again I’m going to commend government for doing precisely that and doing what virtually every other province in Canada does, which is recognize that you are not a province in isolation of a country and your trade offices should be embedded in national offices to ensure that you capitalize on national opportunity, for which British Columbia has strategic advantage.

The fact that the previous government went rogue alone is quite remarkable. There are still many questions left as to what value was ever achieved from those multi-million-dollar leases for trade offices that were only used for British Columbia. So I commend government for their moves in this regard, and I think many fiscally responsible people will also look at that as a great achievement. It will not affect trade, and if anything, it will expedite the passage of information between provinces and the nation of Canada and enhance trade with our beautiful province.

To health care. I’m very proud of what government has done and the small role we’ve played in some of this — in the issues of MSP, for example. This is one that I personally take great pride in, for it was about five or six years ago that I stood in this Legislature and announced that the B.C. Greens would eliminate MSP as part of our campaign promise.

We feel we deserve a bit of credit for getting both parties — both the B.C. Liberals and the B.C. NDP — to recognize that public support for the elimination of MSP was so strong that really you couldn’t go forward into an election without making that a form of a campaign promise. To see it come to fruition is very, very satisfying, and I thank government for making that happen.

Government has taken the approach, a wise approach in my view, to recognition that, at times now, when capital is cheap, that is the time you use capital to invest in the province. We’re seeing funding of new hospitals and primary care centres. We’re seeing funding of new schools. And I’ll come back to that in a second. This is the time to do it, when the capital is cheap. I think that government deserves a good deal of credit for its ventures down this avenue.

I’m still hoping and still working with government to ensure that they recognize that each and every school and hospital that is built should be viewed through the eyes of innovation, as an opportunity for innovation, to showcase British Columbia technologies, British Columbia–engineered products — we’ve heard that in the throne speech today — as well as British Columbia energy efficiency and British Columbia renewable power.

We’ve got new diagnostic machines and funding for more health care professionals. I can tell you that one of the most important pieces of change that government has done in the last two years in the health care file is opening access to MRIs 24-7.

I personally have benefitted from that, and my wife has benefitted from that as well — many times, in fact. The months and months that people had to wait for diagnostic tools like MRIs was unacceptable, and the steps taken by Minister Dix in this regard truly deserve a lot of credit. We see money going into mental health services. We see money going into funding more professionals, seniors getting direct care.

On the issue of affordability, despite the rhetoric I just heard from the member for Kelowna West, government has done a remarkable job in delivering on the affordable file. We’ve seen a slow tempering of the market, a decrease at the higher end of the market in Vancouver – not a collapse, a tempered decrease, exactly the type of tempered decrease the market can absorb. Much of that artificial speculation that occurred has been tempered. Housing is becoming more affordable, and I look forward to working with government, along the lines as we did with the speculation and vacancy tax, as we move forward to deal with other rental and tenancy issues.

In particular, the speculation tax, which many in this room, including me when it was first introduced, felt was not thought through completely. The final implementation of that, I would argue — and I believe the Minister of Finance would, too, after many hundreds of hours of negotiations back and forth – is working. It’s working so well that there are jurisdictions like Tofino, like West Vancouver, that are asking to be included in such speculation tax to deal with this.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: I am hoping….

Yes, to the member who said “Really?” Yes, really. It’s actually….

There are other issues that I would like to, hopefully, see addressed as we move forward in this session with respect to rental, tenancy act issues. You know, one of the things I would like to explore is the notion — and I will be doing this on my blog shortly to get a sense of public opinion — that there is unfairness in the present system right now.

Let us suppose I live in Ontario, and I have a vacation condo in Victoria, and that vacation condo happens to be in a strata that has a “no rental” clause. Well, guess what? I don’t pay the vacancy tax because there’s a no rental clause in my strata. However, if I was the same person’s neighbour in Ontario and I had a vacation condo in a strata that allowed rentals, I would be subject to the speculation tax unless I rented it.

In my view, what we need to do in this province in a timely fashion is follow the lead of Ontario. In Ontario, they’ve eliminated the ability of strata councils to actually have no rental clauses attached to them. But in doing so, they allowed stratas to enable the banning of limited rentals – i.e., Airbnb or vacation rentals – and at the same time, grant to strata council the powers of eviction – the idea being that if there is an absent landlord, who is actually not looking after the property, council has the powers of eviction.

This, in and of itself, will create a vast amount of units. We don’t need to build more empty units. We can go to Metrotown in Burnaby. There are skyscrapers of empty units, with no rental clauses. What we need is we need units to be used. This, in my view, would be the single most important policy that I hope government will deliver upon in this coming session.

I’m also excited by the words that we saw in the throne speech about ICBC and the reforms that are forthcoming. Now, I recall in September of 2017, very shortly after Minister Eby took the role of Attorney General, he stood and he spoke out and said: “I’m not considering no-fault insurance.” At the time, I issued a press release, and I said: “Why would he do this?” Why would you take off the table ideas before you’ve actually looked at the books? Why would you not look at the model from Manitoba, having some of the lowest rates in the country, where they have a no-fault system?

We have the analogy in Saskatchewan, which is slightly different – and I know members from opposition will at some point raise it – in Saskatchewan it used to be no fault, and why over 90 percent of people in Saskatchewan are still no fault, the reason why is because it was no fault for a long time, and then they were allowed to potentially soon opt out of that, at a later date, and only a very few people did.

I think this approach to no fault is certainly going to be one that will get to the bottom of the books of ICBC. I mean, it’s a file that really has been neglected for some time by members of the opposition. I think they have to be very careful when they speak and try to pass blame on the present government in light of what they left behind. I think, in the words of the Attorney General, “a dumpster fire,” it was described as.

Education. You know, we come back to the economy. Again, I know the B.C. NDP like to be branded by the B.C. Liberals as bad for the economy. But we’ve had already balanced budget after balanced budget, and I’m convinced the next budget will be balanced with the triple-a credit rating being maintained and the strongest economy in the country. People want to live here. They want to come to British Columbia. Why? Because we are the most beautiful place in the world to live. We have a strong stable democracy, and we can offer everything.

Schools. Our school system in British Columbia is one of the top in the world. It ranks in the top five year after year in the international PISA assessments, ahead of the much-touted Finland, ahead of the much-touted Quebec. We are the very best. We have some of the best schools and best teachers in the province, and government now has invested substantively in more services for schools as a direct consequence of having to implement the rulings of the Supreme Court.

That, frankly, wasted a decade and, frankly — I’ve said this publicly — has led to a decade of children, a whole generation of children, not getting the services they needed at the times they needed in their early developmental years. From 2001 to 2017, for those 17 years, a generation of school children had their child psychologists cut, their speech pathologists cut, the in-class help cut, class size increases.

What would you expect as a result of that? Well, what you would expect is that as those children age out into adulthood, you’d start to see troubles in society. And lo and behold, guess what, delayed, down road, we’re dealing with an opioid crisis. We’re dealing with a homeless problem and an out of control….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: It is not a far reach.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: It’s interesting. One of the members opposite, who is a teacher, doesn’t clearly understand the research in education.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Well, clearly you don’t, because it is very clear that the interventions in early years of child education are absolutely critical to put the children, particularly in their K-to-3 years, on the right paths for success. If you don’t catch it early, you have to pay down the road. That falls squarely on the B.C. Liberal government.

To the First Nations, I was very proud to be part of this collective group. There is no one individual. Collectively, the passing of UNDRIP legislation last year. I’m looking forward to seeing how that moves forward.

We see in the throne speech words about safety and policing. We see about increased diversity and inclusion and how a human rights commission has now been improved. There’s talk in the throne speech about what’s being done in the arts and culture and museums. Transport and rural development were there.

One of the key things that has been done — again, I’m very pleased with this; this is something we’ve been advocating for, for a long time — is the beginning of taking high-speed broadband into rural communities. You want to stimulate the economy of rural communities? It’s not going to happen until you bring broadband in.

The only way we’re going to compete in the resource world is not to just dig dirt out of the ground and think, somehow, we’re going to beat, say, Indonesia, which doesn’t internalize the social and environmental externalities we value here. The way we do that is we’re smarter, more efficient and cleaner. We do that by bringing the technology sector together with the resource sector. We do that by focusing on the value-added. We do that focusing on efficiency, cleaner and selling those technologies elsewhere, like MineSense, Axine or others. I was so very pleased, so very pleased to see that recognized in this throne speech as a direction this government is going.

I feel that this government is on the right track. It understands where the future of our economy is. It doesn’t lie in continuing to dig dirt out of the ground. It never will. It lies in innovation. It lies in the harvesting our resources in innovative ways by bringing the tech sector together with that.

You know, a member opposite lauded the $2.7 billion surplus that the last Liberal government left, and seemed to think that that was a good thing. It’s remarkable that this was actually raised — that this $2.7 billion number was touted as a good thing to have as a surplus — when we have the highest child poverty rates in the country, when we have over a decade with disability and welfare rates not being increased, where we have homelessness getting out of control and we have a $2.7 billion surplus. It’s outrageous fiscal mismanagement at its very, very worst.

The Liberals, who claim to be these managers of fiscal prowess, actually demonstrated fiscal incompetence in their budgeting in that last year. We see that not only in the $2.7 billion surplus, but we see that in the money-laundering issue going on, we see that in the out-of-control speculation in the real estate market, and we see that with what has happened to some of our most vulnerable, as they’ve been on the streets.

So I say that B.C. Liberals, as I said a while back, needed to be put in a time-out for some time. I’m still convinced that that time-out is not over yet. There needs to be a longer time-out until such time as the opposition starts to recognize that you have to govern for the people of this province, not for those who are your funders, not for the elite, not for the 1 percent. If you start governing for the 1 percent, you end up seeing what we see all around us today.

We see very disturbing trends emerging. We see society splitting into two ways. We see the kind of Trump, and we see the anti-Trump. We see these two kinds of polarizing views of society, the Trump far right and the anti-Trump, almost anarchist. This is a very, very dangerous situation that the world is moving towards. It does not help when we polarize this place and continue to suggest that one side is far better than the other. We must, for the betterment of all our society, start to recognize that we are in turbulent times.

When unruly mobs like this feel like they’re not being heard, it doesn’t lead well. We have ample, ample examples in human history about how it ends up. I don’t need to do history lessons here. The way it ends up is when income inequality gets out of control — when, for those who have, compared to those who don’t have, that gap grows more and more — that sows the seeds for discontent. Each and every time in human history where that has happened, revolution has occurred.

We don’t want that to happen in Canada. We’re a nation of peaceful people. We’re a nation built on immigrants. We’re a nation of openness and of multiculturalism, of awareness, of progressive policies.

We must govern for everybody and recognize that there are some in our society who have a bit too much — maybe some of them have earned it hard; some of them have just inherited it — and there are some who have just lost the lottery of life. It’s not like they knew they were going to be born into poverty. They just lost the lottery of life. Others might have been born into and won the lottery of life. That doesn’t mean you’re a better or a worse person.

As legislators, in my view, it behooves us to recognize that we have a duty to ensure that society is stable, that we actually help those who need the help, and that we say, to those who have some more: “You know what? Our society, collectively, is better if you give us a little bit more to help those who don’t, because we know what happens in human history if the elite go off over here and everyone else is down here.”

You might want to ask: “What happened in Russia?” Or you could talk about the French Revolution. You could talk about myriad examples like this around the world. This is not what I want to see British Columbia and Canada become.

Coming down to the direct quote from the speech. I want to read this, because to me…. I was blown away, to be blunt. I was very pleased to see this. Directly from the speech, it says this:

A strong economy cannot be built on a foundation of rampant real estate speculation. It cannot be won in a race to the bottom, with minimum standards and fewer workplace protections. And it cannot be gained through windfall profits earned on the backs of low-wage workers.

Instead, a strong economy comes from good-paying jobs that raise family incomes and everyone’s standard of living. It is built with quality public services as a cornerstone, services that help B.C. grow, attract and keep its skilled workforce.

“A strong economy is rooted in competitiveness, a necessary ingredient for success in today’s global marketplace. And it is in harmony with government’s commitments to fight climate change and achieve meaningful reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.

“These are the values that guide this government’s actions to build a sustainable economy that puts people first. The challenges we face, from worsening weather to global economic headwinds, make this work more urgent than ever.”

I’ll stop there and pause there and say that those words are remarkable. It is essentially saying, in the throne speech, that government gets what the challenges are. Then it moves on to say how it plans to deal with those challenges.

“As this government charts a new course to a low-carbon economy, powered by CleanBC, British Columbians can rest assured that not only will we weather these storms; we will create the conditions for people and industry to thrive.”

“CleanBC is a critical part of this government’s strategy to grow a sustainable economy with good jobs and opportunities for people. It’s been one year since CleanBC was launched, and British Columbians are starting to see that the way to a cleaner, better future is by innovating and working together.”

The change that has happened in one year is remarkable, whether it be as simple as just saying: “Look at how many electric vehicles there are….” Now, you might say: “Oh, electrics vehicles. Whatever.” That’s stimulating the economy. We have B.C. builders of electric vehicles.

We now have Harbour Air seeing the opportunity and seeing British Columbia with the signal that this government has sent, the signal that it sent to the world, that we want to be leaders in clean tech. Harbour Air, the first electric airplane in B.C. This is what you get.

We have Corvus building batteries now for Norwegian ships. We have Portable Electric building diesel generator replacements. Innovation in British Columbia is growing, and the single-biggest seed for that innovation is signals that governments can send saying: “We’re here to support you and nurture you.”

The creation of the innovation commissioner — one of my very dear platforms — has been very, very successful as well. If you track the additional moneys British Columbia is now levering out of Ottawa, we historically have been dreadful — and it falls squarely on the B.C. Liberals — at leveraging the pools of money that exist in Ottawa if you have matching funds here in British Columbia.

One of the first things, in discussions with the innovation commissioner, we talked about was ways to actually lever that. It’s happening now. That bodes well for innovation, and that bodes well for the B.C. economy.

You know, it further says here…. Well, it said in the speech…. It talked about the innovation commissioner as well. Also, it talks about that the government is going to have plastics action plan and climate adaptation plan. It’s pretty clear that the government is taking this issue seriously and that it will work with business to promote B.C. businesses as competitive suppliers of low-carbon products. There’s a lot in those small words.

We know that there are consumers out there who want to buy products that are low carbon. We know there are businesses who want to be viewed as benefit companies, which the legislation that was passed by government…. Well, I guess it was my legislation that we all passed. These small signals actually have much greater influence and emphasis on what actually happens in our economy. We’re seeing that now.

We see that government has a potential here to actually stimulate. It’s mentioned in the throne speech that it plans to do that by saying: “Okay. We as government can’t tell you what to do unless we’re willing to model the leadership we expect in others.” Government is going to start using, where possible, B.C.-based engineered wood products in its construction.

Government could continue to advance this by focusing its procurement process on B.C. innovation in a diversity of areas, and I’m convinced that that will happen as we move ahead.

You know, I don’t want to dwell on LNG, because, to be perfectly blunt, I will believe it when I see it.

I know we’re having fights over the Coastal GasLink pipeline. I know people are touting LNG Canada and the, let’s say, $40 billion investment — which it really isn’t because most of that’s being built in Asia and brought up on tide line and then getting steel tariff exemptions, etc.

However, the market for LNG is in the dumps. It doesn’t make fiscal sense right now, and I still will argue that you might get something at some point, but I wouldn’t be counting your pennies on getting any money from LNG. The deep-well credits, $3.2 billion accrued to be used against future royalties…. I mean, there are no royalties coming from natural gas in our province.

The construction of Site C, of course, means that we the ratepayers, not the ratepayers in Kelowna, mind you, because they’re with Fortis…. We the ratepayers in other parts of B.C. are going to end up paying 15 cents a kilowatt hour for electricity that we sell to LNG Canada for 5 cents and change a kilowatt hour. We know that there is going to be no LNG income tax act, so we know they’re going to get exemptions from carbon tax increases.

This scale of subsidy, in my view, is unacceptable. But even given that, I’ll stand here and say I don’t believe LNG will ever be delivered out of Kitimat, because the market simply will not be there. For these multi-billion-dollar companies, they kick the can — $1 billion here, $10 billion there. That’s the cost of doing business. Let’s see what actually happens down the road.

You know, I’ve been to a number of natural resource forums over the years. I’ve been a strong proponent of mining in this province, but again, mining in this province, as articulated and realized in the throne speech…. We will never compete by just going in with a pickaxe and digging dirt out of the ground. We’ve got to be smarter. We get companies like MineSense doing that. We find ways and means of extracting ore in clean ways that use less energy, that use less water, that actually make us more able to reclaim the land. That could be done so more efficiently.

You can grow an economy by making it bigger, by building more stuff, or you can grow an economy by building the same amount of stuff more efficiently. That is where our success will lie, through efficiencies and cleanliness and exporting the knowledge we have developed here.

I come to B.C. Hydro, which was mentioned, albeit passingly, in the throne speech. There’s still a lot of work that needs to be done in B.C. Hydro. Over the course of this session, I hope to use my question period times to focus on specific examples, in this regard, of the opportunities that are potentially lost, as B.C. Hydro seems to be a little bit of a behemoth that needs to be reined in, in some sense, to ensure that we actually allow competition, allow innovation in the energy sector, and we allow the partnership of small projects, existing projects with users of energy as well.

Forestry — another sector that was mentioned. I’m very pleased to see that the government recently got the settlement on Vancouver Island. That’s good news. Honestly, I think it’s very rich, again…. I mean, I don’t want to dis on the B.C. Liberals. I’m reacting to the comments I heard from the member for Kelowna West, who basically hurled abuse about the forest industry on the B.C. NDP. For heaven’s sake, we lost 30,000-something jobs. We’ve known mills were closing under their watch as well.

This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue that affects all of us. We need to put our collective minds together to think about how best to rejuvenate British Columbia’s forest industry. Is it really the tenure system? Does that really apply in the 21st century? I would suggest not. I would suggest that the tenure-licensing system has been the cause of the death of a lot of our forest industry. What we need to do is move to more of a temporary lease or more of a community-based approach to forest logging.

With that said, taken together, I’m absolutely thrilled to support this throne speech. I feel very pleased that some small part of that has been accomplished through the good work that was done through the collaboration that I have had and I know my former colleagues have had with a number of ministries. In my case, I would like to thank the Minister of Finance, who I held the files for, the Ministry of Attorney General, the Premier of course, the Housing Minister, Health ministers, Energy and Mines, who I’m really excited about looking forward to working with on the innovation file.

We’ve already started communication in that regard. I think this is a great appointment. The former Minister of Energy and Mines is moving to be the minister of innovation. I think that’s exactly what that ministry needs. We’re already met and ready to go.

I thank you for your attention. I look forward to a positive vote on the throne speech.

---

Video of Response

---

Great Victoria School District officially launched its initiative today to provide free access to menstrual products for students. Ensuring equitable access to menstrual products is an important issue long advocated for by groups like the United Way Period Promise campaign, and I am proud to have played a part in helping move this initiative along.

As you will see from my Question Period exchange the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction:

“We all expect when we enter a public washroom that toilet paper is readily available and free. Why that isn’t the case for menstrual products is a very good question. One, I suspect, that if men had a menstrual cycle, we wouldn’t be asking today.“

Below I reproduce our media statement celebrating the BC Government and Victoria School District’s announcement.

---

Media Statement

---

BC Green caucus celebrates equitable access to menstrual products for students
For immediate release
September 5, 2019

VICTORIA, B.C. – Today the BC Green caucus is celebrating the official launch of the Greater Victoria School District’s initiative to provide free access to menstrual products for its students.

“Ensuring equitable access to menstrual products is an important issue long advocated for by groups like the United Way Period Promise campaign, and I am proud to have played a part in helping move this initiative along,” said B.C. Green Party Leader MLA Andrew Weaver.

In March, Weaver asked Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, as well as the Minister of Education, how the upcoming poverty reduction strategy will ensure that all children and youth have equal access to menstrual products. One month later, government announced it would require all public schools in the province to provide free menstrual products in school washrooms.

“In a minority government, a key part of our role is to bring new ideas to the table, advocate for great ideas already out there, and work with government to inspire them to act. In this case, we are thrilled at the outcome,” Weaver said. “No student should feel restricted in their ability to participate in lessons or sports because they lack access to a basic need.

“Protecting children from harm -whether it be stigma or abuse- and advancing gender equity have been two areas in which the B.C. Green Caucus and B.C. NDP clearly agree. Making schools and society safer and more equitable for all of our children is a nonpartisan pursuit that unites British Columbians.”

A B.C. Green Caucus bill amending the Residential Tenancy Act garnered tripartisan support this May and passed with full votes from the NDP and Liberals. The bill provides renters who are victims of violence associated with their home, or whose children are victims of violence, to break their fixed term lease and seek safety.

Also in May, B.C. Greens, alongside stakeholders and LGBTQ2+ rights advocates, tabled legislation that would ban the abusive practice of conversion therapy.

“We hope government continues to show support for the children of British Columbia this fall by working with our caucus to ban so-called conversion therapy,” Weaver said.

-30-

Media contact
Macon L.C. McGinley | Press Secretary
B.C. Green Caucus
+1 250-882-6187 |macon.mcginley@leg.bc.ca

Today in the legislature my private member’s bill Bill M206, Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 2019 received Royal Assent. This bill amends the Residential Tenancy Act to provide tenants with the ability to end their fixed-term lease if staying in the rental unit is a threat to their safety or security. It broadens the somewhat constraining family violence provisions introduced by the B.C. Liberal government in 2015 and gives, for example, a tenant exposed to sexualized violence by a roommate or a neighbour the right to break their lease so they can move to a safer home.

Committee stage for the bill occurred yesterday. John Rustad, the BC Liberal MLA for Nechako Lakes, was the official opposition critic. He asked numerous questions to clarify the intent of the bill. The Minister for Municipal Affairs and Housing, Selina Robinson, was also available to provide answers to questions concerning the broader implications of the legislature. The bill passed committee stage yesterday and third reading today.

Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange. I also append a copy of the media release that we issued upon passing of committee stage.

---

Video of Exchange

---

---

Text of Exchange

---

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section A) on Bill M206; R. Leonard in the chair.

The committee met at 3:29 p.m.

On section 1.

A. Weaver: Thank you to the member opposite for the questions that will be asked, and to the minister, who I’m here with too. I’m here to introduce the bill, M206, and to introduce my staff, who will be helping me out. Claire Hume is in the gallery there, along with Evan Pivnick.

As the Chair will know, this is rather a unique process. What will happen here, and what we went through with the benefit corporation, is that I may have to confer with my staff off in the gallery and the minister may confer with her staff. I, of course, am not allowed to confer with the ministerial staff, but I can confer with the minister. So it will be a rather interesting kind of dialogue and exchange here.

Interjection.

A. Weaver: Well, we can feed the member opposite some questions if he would like to see some, as well. No.

Anyway, I’d like to start by moving the amendment that’s on the order papers.

[SECTION 1, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:
1 Section 45.1 of the Residential Tenancy Act, S.B.C. 2002, c. 78, is amended (a) in subsection (1) by adding “and section 45.2” after “In this section” and by adding the following definitions:

“occupanthousehold violence” means violence that has adversely affected a tenant or an occupant’s quiet enjoyment, security, safety or physical well-being or is likely to adversely affect those if the tenant or occupant remains in a rental unit, including

(a) physical abuse of the tenant or other occupant, or a dependant of the tenant or other occupant, including forced confinement or deprivation of the necessities of life, but not including the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or others from harm,
(b) sexual abuse of the tenant or other occupant, or a dependant of the tenant or other occupant,
(c) attempts to physically or sexually abuse the tenant or other occupant, or a dependant of the tenant or other occupant,
(d) psychological or emotional abuse of the tenant or other occupant, or a dependant of the tenant or other occupant, including

(i) intimidation, harassment, coercion or threats, including threats respecting other persons, pets or property,
(ii) unreasonable restrictions on, or prevention of, the financial or personal autonomy of the tenant or other occupant, or the dependant of the tenant or other occupant,
(iii) stalking or following of the tenant or other occupant, or the dependant of the tenant or other occupant, and
(iv) intentional damage to property, and

(e) in the case of a child an individual under the age of 19, direct or indirect exposure to violence against the tenant or other occupant;, or a dependant of the tenant or other occupant. , and

“occupant” means an individual, other than a tenant, who occupies a rental unit. ,

(b) by repealing subsection (2) (a) and substituting the following:

(a) if the tenant remains in the rental unit, the safety or security of

(i) either the tenant or a dependant of the tenant who lives in the rental unit is or is likely at risk from family violence carried out by a family member of the tenant, or
(ii) either the tenant or an other occupant or a dependant of the tenant or other occupant who lives in the rental unit is or is likely at risk from occupant household violence; ., and

(c) by adding the following subsection:

(5) For certainty, a reference in this section or section 45.2 to “occupant” includes a dependant of a tenant or occupant, if the dependant occupies the rental unit.]

On the amendment.

A. Weaver: That amendment to section 1 has been on the order papers for quite some time. If we look at section 1, if we start with that, in section 45.11 of the Residential Tenancy Act, we’re proposing the addition of two new terms to be used exclusively in sections 45.1 and 45.2. What you’ll see there is that, as currently written, 45.1(1) lists and defines the following: family member, family violence, long-term care and long-term care facility. To that list, in the amendment, we’re proposing the addition of “household violence” and a clarifying definition of the word “occupant.” Again, these terms are as defined for use in sections 45.1 and 45.2 of the bill only, not throughout the rest of the act.

“Household violence” is defined using the same definition that currently exists for family violence and the same definition we had in the first draft for “occupant violence.” Recall, a lot of this good work was done by the previous administration in 2015 when they brought in a bill to actually address tenancy and family violence.

In our case, instead of only applying to violence perpetrated by a family member, it’s expanded to capture violence, in general, associated with the home, perpetrated by a non–family member, such as a neighbour or a roommate, for example, as well. We’re also proposing the use of the definition of “household violence” as follows.

“‘Household violence’ means violence that has adversely affected a tenant or occupant’s quiet enjoyment, security, safety or physical well-being or is likely to adversely affect those if the tenant or occupant remains in a rental unit, including (a) physical abuse of the tenant or occupant, including forced confinement or deprivation of the necessities of life, but not including the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or others from harm, (b) sexual abuse of the tenant or occupant, (c) attempts to physically or sexually abuse the tenant or (d) psychological or emotional abuse of the tenant or occupant, including (i) intimidation, harassment, coercion or threats, including threats respecting other persons, pets or property, (ii) unreasonable restrictions on, or prevention of, the financial or personal autonomy of the tenant or occupant, (iii) stalking or following the tenant or occupant, or the dependant of the tenant or other occupant, and (iv) intentional damage to property, and” — for the final — “(e) in the case of an individual under the age of 19, direct or indirect exposure to violence against the tenant or occupant.”

The reason why that’s important, of course, is that the violence may be to a child who’s not actually on lease, but the child’s parent may actually be an occupant in the household.

“Household violence” is proposed as an amendment here to replace “occupant violence,” as written in my original bill that was in our binders because of the feedback I received from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and their legislative drafters. There was a concern that using “occupant violence” could be confusing because of its overlap with the term tenant. For example, a tenant is an occupant, but an occupant is not necessarily a tenant. I’m sure the member opposite will be asking some questions about the process that led up to the amendments that came today, and I look forward to answering those, if those question arise.

The concept of a tenant is used extensively throughout the Residential Tenancy Act as well as in the Strata Property Act, but they can have slightly different interpretations depending on the context, so we decided it would be better to choose a new term all together. And when I say we, it is in consultation with the legislative drafter that we worked with for several months on this file.

The word “household” was chosen because it is a term that refers to people who reside under one roof, which works nicely to capture violence associated with the house. I also like the term household because it reflects the fact that after a crime, one’s residence is often no longer a home and, certainly, no longer a safe home.

The other amendment members will note, in the definition here, is a tightening of the household violence subsections and the addition of an “occupant” definition. In the first bill we had, we wrote this. It said: “of the tenant or other occupant, or a dependent of the tenant or other occupant,” repeated in each line. This was viewed to be burdensome. An example of that was: “physical abuse of the tenant or other occupant, or a dependant of the tenant or other occupant.” This starts to sound like a bit of a mouthful.

So what we did, again, from feedback through the ministry staff and their legislative drafters, who are separate and different from our legislative drafter…. They made a recommendation to simplify it by just saying “tenant or occupant.” And in the definition subsections, we added some lines there to clarify that “occupant” means an individual who occupies the rental unit, including dependents of the tenant or occupant who live there.

I recognize this sounds like a mouthful of words, like tenant, occupant and household, but again, we’re working very carefully and closely with the legislative drafter that we had access to, and then we had feedback from the legislative drafters associated with the ministry. And after several iterations, we came to this in the legislation. The policy intent remains of the original one, but it’s better organized now, so I think this is a good change as it makes the section much more readable.

Finally, I’m proposing we replace the term “child” with “individual under the age of 19”. Again, that’s for clarity reasons to ensure that people understand we are talking about youth, not adult children.

There are a couple more changes in section 1(b) in the amendment. We’ve also made a change there, based on the feedback again from the ministry and the legislative drafters that they have access to, about the clarity matching with the existing language. I am proposing again in this amendment that we add in the word “either” to the start of 45.1(2)(a)(ii) to match the family violence section above. The family violence section exists, and it was brought forward by the B.C. Liberals in 2015.

Again to match the simplifying change made to the previous definitions section, I’ve amended 45.1(2)(a)(ii) to just say “tenant or an occupant,” instead of listing out “tenant or an other occupant or a dependent of the tenant or other occupant who lives in the rental unit.”

Finally, in section 1(c), we introduced an amendment there to add a new subsection, section 1(c) of this bill. This “For certainty” subsection pairs with the language simplification changes detailed previously to clarify the section 45.1 and 45.2. The term “occupant” includes the dependents of the tenant or occupant who live in the rental unit. This was an important thing that we were missing — that, in fact, “occupant” could include the children of a tenant there, and that children may not actually be on title, but certainly they’re living in the domicile. We’ve added the subsection instead of listing the same information every single line.

With that, hon. Chair, I thank you for allowing me to share these initial comments with the members in this room.

J. Rustad: This is an interesting process. I actually didn’t have the opportunity to go through the bill that came through earlier, and there have been very few bills that have gone through. I guess….

Do I ask the question of the member moving the bill…?

The Chair: You may.

J. Rustad: Aha, yes. And then the minister may then at that point, if she so desires, enter into a few questions. Like I say, it’s an interesting process because, as a Legislature, we don’t tend to move forward private members bills. The process tends to be, if a private member’s bill comes forward, government adopts it if they want to move it forward and then moves it as a government bill. So this is unique, and it’s actually one of the things I think that’s kind of, much as I find being in opposition on, exactly to my taste.

The current circumstances have allowed for a few of these types of situations to come forward, so it is an interesting process. And I want to congratulate the member in terms of bringing this forward and through this and obviously working through the secretary. There must have been some discussions and process that would’ve gone on with government in terms of the ability to bring this forward.

I guess maybe just an initial question, if I may, to the members. As you move this bill forward, as this process has developed, how did that conversation…? How did that work actually go on between…? And I realize that’s not in a section of the bill, but I’m curious, right?, in terms of how that work actually went on between government and the process that went on to go back and forth in order to actually draft the bill and have it come forward.

A. Weaver: First off, I wish to acknowledge that, in fact, the previous government did do precisely what the member did in the case of a couple of my private members’ bills. The government recognized that they supported the intent, and they brought in their own bill — and credit to government for doing that. So there has been precedent, but it has not been done this way. It’s kind of unique this way.

Both the minister and I will answer because we have different perspectives. It’s a very unique process here. We do not have access to the ministry staff or the ministry legislative drafters. However, government, for the first time, as far as I know, or if ever, for a very long time, has given opposition members access to legislative drafters. We have access to a legislative drafter who we have got our amendments and worked our bills through.

The process that came is that my staff and I developed the concept that we wished to be put into legislation. We went to our legislative drafter. We had a back-and-forth between our office and the legislative drafter until we got what we believed was a good first draft.

What we will see is that draft that appeared on the order papers. Government was looking at that then. Government staff, government lawyers, government legislative drafters had a look at it, and they made recommendations to us from their perspective, because our legislative drafter and their legislative drafters are not even allowed to talk to each other in this process. There are very distinct processes.

Our legislative drafter worked with us exclusively. Their legislative drafters looked at it and gave recommendations to us. We then discussed it amongst ourselves, staff and me, and the staff would go back and forth with the legislative drafter. We’d put forward some ideas, and then we got some recommendations back. There was a bit of back-and-forth in terms of recommendations.

Government…. At no time did their legislative drafters insist or require that we change anything. At all times, all they did was make recommendations that our legislative drafter took to make recommendations to us. It was a back-and-forth process.

The minister and I actually…. I don’t think we talked about this. It was all done between staff and legislative drafters through staff. In the end, I put the amendments that we came to agreement through our legislative drafter via our staff to the ministry staff, to their legislative drafters. There was some chord of recognition that we felt comfortable we had addressed their recommendations. Government, at this point, pointed out to us that they felt supportive of the intent and this bill, and we put the amendments on the order paper. As you can see from the order paper amendments, they’re extensive, but they’re not substantive. They’re extensive in terms of changing the definition of “occupant violence” to “household violence,” shortening language and also reflecting upon the issue of the children who may be associated with a tenant who is in the house.

The process was…. It actually works. It was interesting navigating it. It worked very well. We had a very good relationship with our legislative drafter. The interaction was good, and it led to where we are today.

But I don’t know what happened on the ministry side, so I’m going to appeal to the minister to see what happened there.

Hon. S. Robinson: Being part of a government that’s doing things differently is really important to me, because I think at the end of the day, for our government, it really is about: what do people need? Here was a private member’s bill that came forward, and it was…. This piece of legislation sits in my ministry, and it became a discussion around: “Do we, as government and do you, as minister, agree with this direction?”

It fits within our focus and our frame in terms of what we’re aiming to do, which is to make sure that people’s homes are safe for them, and this strengthened a piece of legislation that the previous government did. So from our perspective, it was: “Shall we work with them in order to deliver this? This is something they want to deliver.” It was like: “Okay. What’s the process?”

I think it was created as we went along, in terms of identifying how to best move forward. There was regular feedback. It would go through the Green caucus, and then it would come down through staff. They would do their work, and it would come back up to the ministry. But really, I want to acknowledge staff from the residential tenancy branch who have been absolutely outstanding in helping to co-create a method for bringing forward a private member’s bill so that it would work, and here we are today.

A. Weaver: Just one clarification to my words. I think I used the word “recommendation.” I think feedback would be a more appropriate word. I tried to do recommendation with the understanding that at no time did they require us to implement. It was really a point of feedback, so I thank the minister for using that word.

J. Rustad: Like I say, I’m fascinated with this process, because I’ve moved forward a number of private members’ bills, and I had never really even thought about actually trying to figure out if we could do this jointly with the ministry. Of course, when you’re opposition, it’s a little different in terms of the process of going through.

I’m curious. If I could, I’m really kind of curious: why weren’t they able to have the legislative drafters involved in it? I get the government…. I’ve used legislative drafting as well and having people made available to help with drafting a private member’s bill. I get that, but what I don’t get is why there needed to be the division. That doesn’t seem to make sense to me, so if I could just ask for some clarity on that.

Hon. S. Robinson: I will do my best, because it’s not my area of expertise. I am going to assume that this may have something to do with the AG’s office in terms of when you work with government versus not and how supports happen and play out. But I can do my best to get a more specific answer for the member.

Again, we need to, I think, remember that this is brand-new. We’re all sort of feeling our way around how we can do this in a way that might be more efficient. I think there are some learnings that we’re doing around how we can do this more efficiently. But this was the process that was set up as best we can, given this was brand-new.

So in using the existing structures and trying to adapt and adopt a new way of delivering good legislation, we’re feeling our way as we go through. This was a process, and I expect that there’ll be some ongoing conversation about: are there ways that we can make that work better?

J. Rustad: I want to thank the minister for that answer. Having been in government not that long ago, I fully recognize that government resources need to be spent on government activities. There’s definitely a line. There’s even a line with private members within government, let alone private member within opposition or within…. Well, I guess, officially, you’re opposition.

So I get there’s that sort of challenge on that, so that’s an interesting point. I guess I’ll need to find a way to think about that in terms of how those resources are spent. Because I do think there are some ways to able to be more efficient in terms of how we can move forward private members, which I think, quite frankly, can add some value to the work that everybody does within the Legislature.

I commend you in terms of finding a way through this and working on this. I’d love to be part of a conversation about how we actually extend that out to making it, perhaps, even more efficient in the future through what that does.

In terms of the process and the back-and-forth, I am a little curious. The member, obviously, had gone out and talked to a number of groups and would have been through some sort of engagement process before coming forward with this sort of bill. I’m just wondering if the member, in coming up with the suggestions in here, could perhaps talk a little bit about the process that he went through in terms of input that would have led to this and bringing forward this bill.

A. Weaver: Two things. First, to address the member’s comment about the process, I think I’d just like to give an example, just for illustration, in case people are watching.

Yesterday, the member for Shuswap brought forward an amendment to Bill 30, the labour code. That amendment had been prepared by legislative drafters that were made available to government. Because the amendment was actually put and developed in a manner that was consistent with legislative language from all acts, it was something that produced a very strong amendment that allowed our caucus to support the amendment brought forth yesterday.

I think the minister’s government deserves a lot of credit for making available to opposition members legislative drafters. I think the members of the official opposition as well as our Green caucus have taken advantage of that.

With respect to the process, the two main groups that we consulted were the Ending Violence Association of British Columbia and West Coast LEAF, where LEAF is the Legal Education and Action Fund, both of which are extensive advocacy groups and both of which were very actively involved and also consulted by the B.C. Liberals in 2015 when they developed the family violence provisions in the act that we’re extending.

Again, it was a similar process. We reached out to them and asked them. They’re extensively involved in ensuring that, basically, we’re moving on a path towards ending violence. They were the key people in terms of a broader engagement for us — in terms of how we were getting a sense of what the issues were. They provided us some examples of why this is important.

J. Rustad: I do, actually, have a fairly keen interest, although I didn’t get an opportunity to speak in second reading to this. Spending time as the minister for…. At that time, it was called Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. I mean, there’s significant violence in homes, both within Indigenous communities but also outside of Indigenous communities.

I have worked closely with the women’s shelters in my riding, trying to get support. Through that process, I’ve talked with them about a number of these things. Women fleeing violence, in particular, is a significant concern. The idea…. In terms of this stuff, I think it’s good to be able to have these definitions in there.

There are, obviously, some pretty unique situations that happen, certainly, in my riding, unfortunately, and in many other ridings. Having had a chance to talk with many family members and many people, particularly in a session I did with the families of the missing and murdered women from along Highway 16 as well as around the province, when we did a gathering, I had a chance to hear many stories and components around it.

I guess the question on it…. Many of those issues, of course, aren’t dealt with in here. Those are issues that are in other pieces of legislation. Certainly, when it comes to tenancy, many people found themselves trapped in situations. They didn’t know where to go. They didn’t know what to do. They’re in…. Whether it’s verbal abuse, sexual abuse, violence or these types of things, it becomes a very…. It’s a pretty challenging issue, particularly for First Nations. I mean, it’s a very challenging issue with that.

That’s why I’m asking…. The groups that you mentioned, obviously, are very connected with that and those parts of it, particularly from that perspective of people living in these situations on reserve. Did you get any feedback or components around that as part of how you developed this bill?

A. Weaver: Thank you to the member for that very important question about consultation with broader Indigenous communities. What we did, as I mentioned, is go through the Ending Violence Association of British Columbia and West Coast Legal Education and Action Fund. These are two organizations that have extensive experience working with Indigenous and other marginalized communities where we accept that some of these problems that we’re trying to deal with are often amplified.

One of the things that I think is important to also add here is that when the former government brought in the family violence legislation in 2015, they created a very fine suite of regulations attached to it. They spent a fair amount of time extensively consulting more broadly to, in particular, come up the types of people who may make a family violence confirmation statement.

The idea here, as you’ll see in the legislation, is that there are certain professionals that are able to make family violence confirmation statements. They’re individuals that…. For the purpose of this discussion, the two key aspects of that are an employee of “(i) an aboriginal organization who is responsible for duties as a family support worker, executive director, aboriginal court worker or aboriginal justice worker, or (ii) a first nation or the Métis Nation British Columbia who is responsible for providing support or services in respect of children, families, justice, housing, or health.”

Our approach to this was to go to the advocates who have extensive experience working with communities, both Indigenous and other communities, to seek their extensive advice, and also to recognize that government previously had done extensive consultation in terms of setting up the regulatory environment. And we, as you’ll see in the legislation, agree that this is a very good foundation.

In fact, we believe that the section (o)…. In part 7, “End of Fixed Term Tenancy,” section 39 of that, called “Eligibility to confirm risk of family violence” in the residential tenancy regulations, section (o), “an employee of…,” is very fine language that gives Aboriginal communities the ability to use local support workers or court workers or justice workers or the Métis Nation to actually be the person making the statement to allow for the lease to be broken.

Hon. S. Robinson: I do have an answer to the member’s previous question about the use of legislative drafters. And it’s about the client’s listed privilege that the legislative drafters…. The client is the government, not the opposition. Everyone has their own relationship, so that’s why it’s set up the way it is. So the drafters — their client is the Third Party. That’s the frame, and that’s why it’s broken down the way it is.

I also wanted to make mention…. The member asked and commented specifically about Indigenous women. We know that the risk for Indigenous women is significantly greater than it is for other women. That’s why our government has taken a number of steps around, first of all, significant funds for women and children fleeing violence.

I was just in Penticton, for example, opening up homes for women, and the stories that I heard were quite astounding. In fact, there was one woman in particular who told the story of her husband just locking her out with their infant son and not having any place to go and so was grateful to have the opportunity to set up a home so she can raise her child.

The other thing that we’ve done, of course, is housing on and off reserve. That really just gives people, certainly, a home where their community is. That was a significant announcement. We’re still the only province to have done so. Again, we know that when there are multiple families living in a home on reserve, people are crowded. There’s terrible overcrowding, and we need to find a way to deliver the kind of housing that people on reserve need. So our government is doing our part to help relieve some of that burden.

J. Rustad: I actually want to — as an opposition member, sometimes you don’t often get a chance to say this very much — thank the minister for the investments in that. When I had the portfolio for over four years, obviously, with the stories, with the circumstances, I’m appreciative of anybody, any government that has an opportunity to step up to the plate and to be able to help address these situations. Some of those particular circumstances that people had enough confidence to share with me were pretty horrendous, and so anything that can be done to help try to alleviate and change those circumstances I think is good.

To that end, that’s why I particularly asked the question around engaging on the Indigenous side, because the numbers are significantly higher than they are in the general population, so for making changes, we want to make sure that it can work effectively for a population that really needs it.

The side circumstances, of course, that come from not having a safe environment, not having a safe…. Whether it’s issues within family, related family members or others is…. Sorry. I get kind of emotional in talking about this, because it is such…. I mean, it’s quite remarkable when I think back on some of the stories, and I wish there was a way I could actually share some of those stories more publicly, simply for the reason that more people need to hear about these things. But they’re not my stories to tell, so I can’t go off and talk about that.

In terms of this act, in terms of the changes that are brought forward in the household violence and that side of things…. I’m thinking particularly about the occupant violence. Sometimes there can be blurred lines around that. I’m just wondering. Are you satisfied in terms of how that’s defined? Or do you think there’s any potential loopholes that could come, given the circumstances? Often, in a situation on reserve, there can be multifamilies. It can be overcrowded. There can be situations that can lead to these sorts of challenges that this bill, hopefully, is designed to try to address.

A. Weaver: In section 1, article 1, there’s a very key word here. That is the word “including.”

There’s a definition of “household violence,” and it says this. Let me get the version that’s as amended just so I can ensure that I don’t mess it up. As amended, if the amendment passes, it would say: “…means violence that has adversely affected a tenant or occupant’s quiet enjoyment, security, safety or physical well-being or is likely to adversely affect those if the tenant or occupant remains in a rental unit, including….” Now, the key word there is “including,” because by using the word including, it provides a list of situations covered by the term “family violence,” as is also used in the definition of “family violence.”

Now, family violence, of course, exists in the existing bill. That was what was brought forward by the B.C. Liberals and passed with the support of the House in 2015.

We’ve built upon that. The law is kept inclusive of a range of situations that could fit the broader intent, rather than explicitly specifying which situations would be covered and risking unintentionally excluding — by having the word “including” and giving a list of examples but recognizing that there may be some that, down the road, others might find that might have not been covered within the actual “including.”

This is precisely why it’s so important to move towards the regulations, which I touched upon earlier. Again, these regulations in the existing act were brought forward after extensive consultations by the previous government with reference to the family violence provisions. In those extensive consultations, in which Indigenous communities were included, it was very important and critical to ensure that the experts who could provide the testimony were relevant to the communities on which the violence was occurring. So we commend the previous government — we’ve done this several times — for really extensively canvassing the type of professionals who should be involved in making recommendations with respect to breaking a lease.

The Aboriginal components in there are carried forward into this legislation. So we believe that it’s inclusive. We believe we have the right regulatory framework in place already.

However, under section 3 of this act, you’ll see that there’s a time period proposed to be amended. The idea is that government may go through a consultation process and find that there are some other examples that we might have to consider. So the regulatory environment that is enabled here would also allow government to come up with some other examples as the civil service does their work, if they find some. We’re confident we’re capturing it.

Again, just like in 2015, in speaking with members at the time, I think we build legislation. If gaps are found down the road, I’m certain, based on the support we’ve seen on this type of thing, we’ll get to fixing it collectively.

J. Rustad: I actually wasn’t too sure how the process is, if the minister needed more time, whether I had to get up again or whether it was wait for the minister. Like I say, it is fascinating to watch.

Anyway, I want to thank you for that answer. I am happy that I see the wording here using “including.” Including is good, because that means it’s not excluding — right? — if there’s something that wasn’t necessarily in that list. That is helpful in terms of moving through.

I’m just curious in terms of how that sort of situation comes about. If somebody is there for a period of time that may not be a tenant, so to speak…. It may just be somebody in the thing. How is that dealt with and associated with this bill?

A. Weaver: To address the question, there is in the amendment a definition of the word “occupant.” It’s a clarifying definition. It means an individual other than a tenant who occupies a rental unit. I’ll come to that in a second.

Now, if we, then…. What does “occupy” mean, and what does “occupant” mean? Well, “occupies,” as used in the definition of “occupant,” has the ordinary meaning here. It’s commonly used in the Residential Tenancy Act, as it is, and also in the Strata Property Act, as it exists in statutes, to describe someone who lives in the unit. However, these amendments do not cover violence towards guests or visitors.

If someone is considered to be an occupant as to the regular meaning in use already in the Residential Tenancy Act and the Strata Property Act, they’d be covered. However, a guest, someone who’s, perhaps, visiting you for a couple of days, would not be considered an occupant. They would not be covered under the act, based on the normal use of the words “occupant” and “occupies.”

J. Rustad: I’m curious about that, just in terms of occupant — I apologize; I don’t have the definition here in front of me — and what length of time before someone changes over from being a guest to being an occupant.

The reason why I ask, of course, is because…. You can get some very interesting situations that happen and that I’ve heard, particularly with Indigenous communities but in other communities. You may have a situation where a brother or an uncle or a friend is being invited to come in and stay for a while, and a while turns into, potentially, many months. So I’m just wondering how that works.

A. Weaver: I don’t want people to change the channel at home. We want to give them something to listen to, as the minister is consulting.

I just wanted to address the member’s questions about process. Anything that’s with respect to the bill, I will try to address as best I can. I am unable to go and talk about the broader implications.

This particular question refers to a time with respect to the regular use of the word “occupy.” That reflects the use in the Residential Tenancy Act and the Strata Property Act, which requires the minister to speak on that behalf. So she will answer this question.

Hon. S. Robinson: And I have an answer. We have third-party verifiers, and they make that determination. Each situation is unique. It’s based on the existing regulations, and that’s the process that has been developed and that’s being used.

J. Rustad: I want to thank both members for the answer. And you can see, as I’m working through and thinking about the situations, I’ve got a number of situations where there has been this. These sorts of issues have been raised in my office, which is why I’m asking specifically about these. That’s one thing about being an MLA. Particularly in a rural area but, really, in all areas, your office tends to get engaged in many, many different circumstances. So the clarity on that is helpful. I’ve had people come in and ask: “How do I deal with this situation?” Anyway, that part is good.

Just a little bit of follow-up in terms of when you go through the list. One of the things that’s in here that I kind of wondered about was where it talks about stalking or following a tenant. Is there a measure, or is there a process that has a reasonable sort of fairness perspective in terms of what that would constitute?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, I’m not going to wait for any other member, because I’ve got an answer.

Interjection.

Hon. S. Robinson: And he can have another answer. We’ll see if it’s the same answer.

Staff tell me that it’s consistent with the Family Law Act. They just took it right from the Family Law Act, and they’ve imported it into this act so that, as government, we’re consistent.

A. Weaver: And I can provide some value-added commentary to the minister’s response. In fact, there is a criminal definition of “stalking.” The offence of criminal harassment or stalking generally consists of repeated conduct that is carried out over a period of time and which causes those who are victimized in these ways to reasonably fear for their safety. The criminal behaviour does not necessarily result in physical injury. So there is actually a criminal definition of stalking, and as the minister mentioned, this is consistent with the family violence act.

J. Rustad: I appreciate that. That’s good. You know, in one of the communities that I represent, there have been cases where information has come forward and has not actually been able to play out because of circumstances, whether it’s proof or otherwise. That’s why I’m sort of asking about that in terms of where that line may be. So that line is the same as it has been in the other laws. That’s good.

I kind of assumed that would be the case, but I just wanted to make sure — not so much on the stalking but just on the following side — because you do get these situations where sometimes a family member or friend or perhaps somebody who used to be a friend will make an accusation and base it on various components. You never know. Sometimes those accusations, of course, don’t follow through in terms of getting to a place where somebody is actually held accountable for that sort of thing. Like I say, that’s why that was one of those things that stood out for me when I went through the bill, and I just wanted to be able to have the clarification around that.

I’m trying to think through the amendment that you had, in the situation that I’ve outlined. So it is not exclusive. It’s inclusive in terms of the process going through. There will be regulations or the potential for regulations to be made through this process. Is there going to be a process in terms of those regulations similar in terms of engagement and discussion? Once again, obviously there’ll be lots of people that’ll be very interested in this component. There are many groups that are engaged in and concerned on this side. I’m just wondering how that process will go through so that people don’t have a sense of there being an exclusion or something that might be missed.

Hon. S. Robinson: We would absolutely consult and perhaps build on the work that’s already been done and undertaken in order to make sure that we can cover off as much as we can as part of the regulation. It’s really important that we consult with these groups and others so that we are as inclusive as possible and that we can make sure that this works.

Because at the end of the day, it really is about the people, the people that find themselves in dangerous situations and in frightening situations or in unsafe situations. We want to make sure that they have the ability to get to safety, and this is another way to do that. So we want to make sure that we’re as broad as we can be. Consultation is a key component of developing these regulations.

J. Rustad: I’m glad to hear that. That’s an important piece. Just curious as well, though, in terms of issues of mental health — these types of things that can happen that can sometimes be viewed from one perspective but may not be because of the situation. I’m just wondering how that plays into the definitions and the process that is outlined here in the bill.

A. Weaver: I’m wondering if we might get some clarification from the member as to what he means with respect to the issue of mental health? Is the member asking about what would happen if a tenant was undergoing a mental health crisis? Or is it about a perpetrator who may have mental health issues or an occupant who may have mental health…? We’re a little unclear as to what the member is meaning with respect to mental health.

J. Rustad: I was referring to an occupant or a tenant that may have a mental health situation that could create an environment that may not necessarily be threatening or otherwise but may be perceived that way — and just how that sort of thing would be handled.

A. Weaver: Thank you for the clarification. In the section 1 definitions, there is something there that talks about “(d) psychological or emotional abuse of the tenant or…occupant.” Let’s suppose hypothetically that there are two people sharing a lease. Let’s suppose they’re two students and they have a two-bedroom condominium and they’re both on the lease. One of the students suffers some mental illness that makes the other student feel very unsafe.

The other student has the ability to go to the third-party validators, such as counsellors, mental health professionals, psychiatrists to seek an opinion as to whether or not this would allow them to break the lease. If they get third-party validating certification, they would be able to break the lease because of a perceived threat under section 45.1(d) with respect to “psychological or emotional abuse.”

Or it could actually be a worry about a threat of violence. Let’s suppose, hypothetically, there was a concern that a student with you stopped taking medication with respect to schizophrenia or something like that. You might imagine that might you feel unsafe on a lease, and a third-party validator would allow a person to break a lease. We believe it’s captured in the existing definitions.

J. Rustad: I’m chuckling a little bit. This is obviously a very serious issue. But the first thing that came to mind, of course, was Big Bang Theory.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: Oh, you did? Okay. I’m sorry. I won’t go there, Minister, but that’s okay.

My apologies, Madam Speaker. This is obviously a very serious issue in terms of it. A little bit of humour as we go through this process is always nice to be able do, but I certainly don’t want anybody taking it out of context in the seriousness of the issue.

In terms of going through, it looks like this has gone through and been able to capture the circumstances certainly that I have run across in my time and privilege of being an MLA and certainly the issues that I’ve dealt with as being minister and the kind of things that would…up.

I’m happy to see that is in place. I don’t think I have any other questions on section 1.

A. Weaver: I just want to formally acknowledge how important I think it is to bring humour into discussions like this, so I appreciate the candour. It is a very serious issue. I agree with the member. But when the member referred to Big Bang Theory, it brought back just as many memories to me too. So thank you for that reference.

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

On section 2.

A. Weaver: Thank you for the patience of the member opposite as I introduce an amendment to this section. The amendment to section 2 has been standing in my name on the order paper for quite some time, a couple of weeks now.

[SECTION 2, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

2 Section 45.2 (1) (b) is amended by adding “and, if applicable in respect of household violence, the occupant and the occupant’s circumstances” after “the tenant’s circumstances”.the following subsection:

(4) If the regulations do not provide for the making of a statement under this section in relation to occupant violence, a person’s authority under this section to make a statement in relation to family violence is deemed to include the authority to make a statement in relation to occupant violence.]

On the amendment.

A. Weaver: What the amendment does is as follows.

The original intent of section 2, Residential Tenancy Act, section 45.2 in my bill was to extend a person’s authority to make a confirmation statement in relation to family violence to include the authority to make a confirmation statement in relation to household violence as well. The amendment still accomplishes that policy goal but, again, with different language that aligns with the feedback that we received from the ministry.

Instead of specifying that if the regulations do not provide for the making of a statement under the section in relation to household violence, a person’s authority under this section to make a statement in relation to family violence is deemed to include the authority to make a statement in relation to household violence.

My staff have talked extensively with ministry about adjusting section 3 to build in the time necessary to consult and adjust the regulations directly, which would make this section as I originally drafted it essentially redundant.

We accepted that, and this amendment text is added to the end of section 45.2(1)(b) to clarify…. Is that an l or a 1? If it was written as an l, I can assure you that a few years from now, there’d be a very fine legislative drafter who would pick up the error, and we’d have a misc stats bill, because we actually changed one of those recently — an l to a 1, or vice versa.

In this amendment, the text is added to the end of section of 45.2(1)(b) to clarify that for household violence the occupant and occupant’s circumstances can also be considered by the third-party validator when they are evaluating the tenant’s situation.

For example, if your roommate or child is attacked by your neighbour, even though it is not specifically about you as the tenant, it is reasonable to expect you may need or want to leave for a safer home. Here the amendment is clarifying, tightening and ensuring that it’s inclusive as well.

J. Rustad: I have no real concerns on the amendment. The amendment’s fine.

I’m actually just curious, once again, about the process with the legislative drafters, just that process that went on and how that came about. I understand the legislative drafters’ job is to put forward that, but I’m just wondering: wouldn’t there be a better way, so that wouldn’t have to go back…? I just want to ask a little bit about that process and how it came to this amendment of change.

A. Weaver: We’ll go through the process. It’s very similar to the previous process. Of course, we put the bill, through that process that I won’t really go through, onto the order papers after we consulted with our legislative drafters. It’s at that point that ministry staff and ministry lawyers and ministry drafters were able to see what we entailed, and they provided feedback.

One of the things we did there is we felt that the regulatory environment that was brought in place by the former government associated with family violence was very strong. We wanted to ensure…. We felt that that language and that regulatory environment could carry right across into household violence. So what we did, initially, is ensure that if government didn’t come up with a regulatory environment, this one would fill in. We would ensure that there was a default, which, in essence, was what was already on the books applicable to family violence.

However, my understanding, in consultation between staff, was that government agreed that the regulations that had been brought in place by the former government were very strong. And they believed that it was a foundation on which to build, as opposed to one to replace. We accepted that, and we thought this was no longer necessary and hence redundant and so removed that by simply clarifying.

It was really a process of us putting the bill on the order papers; the government looking at it, providing us feedback; us responding to that feedback; a discussion about the importance of the regulatory environment brought forward by the previous government; and agreement by both government and the Third Party that these were the foundations, not something to be removed. So the text was redundant.

J. Rustad: I want to thank you for that explanation. Just procedural question, if I may. I’m just wondering. We talked about this a little bit before. Do you actually have to have it on the order papers as a bill before the ministry’s legislative drafters can look at it, or is it possible to provide a draft through a process? I’m just wondering if it has to actually be on the floor before you can get that input.

A. Weaver: Our procedure that we identified was we tabled, at first reading, the bill. I stood at first reading and tabled the bill. It was that time that was government’s first time seeing the bill.

Because of the fact that our legislative drafter that we have access to cannot — because of, I guess, client privilege — interact with the government legislative drafters, the communication between them did not occur until after…. Well, it really never occurred directly between them. Our communications only took forward once our bill had been tabled at first reading.

It was the feedback and ongoing discussions with ministry staff and our staff that led to the amendments put on the order paper a couple of weeks ago. That was us. And it was only at that period that we knew what the feedback from their legislative drafters was relative to our legislative drafters.

I tend to agree that maybe there are other processes involved, but this seems to have worked. I mean, it seemed to have worked well. It was very collaborative. It was very consultative. It was very rewarding, actually, to get the feedback. And honestly, I think that having a diversity of views on the same piece of legislation and feedback from a multitude of legislative drafters led to a tighter and better piece of legislation.

J. Rustad: I agree with the member, actually. I think the process going…. The question I had, though, was just whether or not there was another way to do that, whether or not there was a way to be able to provide the minister with a draft copy to potentially look at and whether or not there was any potential to do some of that work. Not that it can’t be done this way. Obviously, this can be done, and this bill can be moved forward, and the amendments can be brought forward and this kind of stuff. But I’m just wondering if there was a way to be able to have that collaboration sort of as a process before it was officially on the floor, just from a technical perspective.

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, I suppose one way that could have been done more efficiently is to introduce it as a government bill, right? And then we’d just have government legislators we’d bring it by. The intent of the bill still is kept whole. This was a different exercise and a different understanding and agreement that this would be a private member’s bill. Again, because we have this division of solicitor-client privilege, it’s about keeping it separate because the legislative writers work for government. Government is the client. And they can’t work for both opposition and…. That why it’s separate.

But I don’t disagree; maybe there is another way. I don’t know. Like I said, this is the second time that we’re doing this, this session. But the most efficient way, I think, is for government to say: “Well, let’s just pull it into a number of changes that we’re doing. Let’s just add it in and continue the consultation. Is this the intent?” But we only use one set of legislative writers, drafters, who’d do it, and that would be the government drafters. Of course, they have the history. They’re most familiar. They’re special folks. The Residential Tenancy Act — they know it well. They know how it interfaces with all the other acts. So that would be, certainly…. Just have government do it, and use resources a little bit differently.

J. Rustad: Thanks to the minister for that. That’s why I was just wondering. I guess if it had come forward from a private member who asked the minister to have a look at it, in order to do that, it would basically have had to become a government bill. That is unfortunate, of course, because there’s a lot of work and effort that goes into it from a private member, whether it’s the Green Party or other members of the House, right? And the recognition, obviously, needs to be there or wants to be there — right? — in terms of that work. You’re working hard on behalf of constituents on issues that come up. I get that.

Okay. I just wanted to understand that better in terms of why that couldn’t have happened that way. So I really appreciate taking that question and providing an answer.

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

On section 3.

A. Weaver: I thank the enthusiasm from government members who are….

Interjections.

A. Weaver: On this point I’d like to also move an amendment that’s on the order paper. You’ll notice that the section 3 amendment has been on the order paper for a couple of weeks.

[SECTION 3, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

Commencement

3 This Act comes into force on the date of Royal Assent. by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council or on the date that is one year after the date of Royal Assent, whichever is earlier.]

On the amendment.

A. Weaver:  This may seem to be somewhat unique, and it is unique in the B.C. context to amend it as such. But this type of commencement language is actually quite common with bills in the Senate federally — in particular, opposition bills — and the federal parliament.

We have a very different process federally for debating private members’ bills than we do provincially. We’re kind of learning it here, as we move forward, provincially.

The idea here is that…. We recognize that government needs to take some time to reflect upon the regulatory environments and do some consultations. That will take some time. The one year is a backstop. This is an important issue. It’s a very important issue for a large number of people. So the one-year backstop means that government has a full year — we believe that’s entirely reasonable — to bring it into force, to do the consultation and to make any regulatory changes. That’s why we have the backstop at one year. Otherwise, it’s just an order-in-council, which is a typical thing that we see on most bills here in British Columbia.

J. Rustad: I think it’s probably the first time I’ve ever stood up and asked a question about commencement.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: Exactly. It’s a dawning of a new age.

Actually, I am curious about this. I have never seen this in the years that I have had the privilege and honour of serving my constituents and of being in here debating bits and pieces of legislation. I’ve never seen one that has had the either-or, a one-year sort of thing.

I guess I could see, in the potential situation where you didn’t want to lose the bill or have the bill kind of get hung — maybe there’s an election or a change of government or these types of things — having that in there. I also, of course, see it’s implemented by regulation or through an order-in-council, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

I guess the question is…. The bill, as it is…. There’s regulation that can be created and put in place, obviously, and that needs to be put in place. There’s consultation and work that will be done around that. Why is there a need, then, to actually have the division here, as opposed to just having it passed upon royal assent?

I’m just wondering…. If it’s passed by royal assent, the government still has the ability and the need to be able to go forward and create the regulations and the process that’s happening. So I’m just wondering why that was put in.

A. Weaver: From our perspective, we felt we wanted to give government the time to develop the regulatory environment. It’s more difficult for us, as an opposition caucus, to know exactly what’s entailed in terms of the regulatory environment. Our worry, by putting it at royal assent, is we would have not given government that time.

The member is absolutely correct. The rationale for a year is…. Again, it comes from the federal Senate and the federal parliament. It’s very common there for private members’ bills to have that clause. The idea there is exactly as the member identified. If government…. Let’s suppose, hypothetically, an election happened. Let’s suppose there’s a change of priorities, and this falls on the back burner. The one year, actually, is a backstop there.

We just wanted to give government the time to do the background. That was really the rationale for why we did it. I think it’s a part of collaboration. We didn’t want to force them into something. We wanted to allow them to reflect upon it and bring it in, in a timely fashion. There is an element of trust there. I recognize that. But we also have the one-year backstop.

Hon. S. Robinson: I have a couple of responses to the member’s question. The first one is we need to remember that this is about people. Yes, it’s a piece of legislation that the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head worked really diligently on with his staff. I want to thank them for their work. We need to make sure that…. What does it mean for people?

The concern…. When you bring in on royal assent, people think it’s already in place, when, in fact, the regulations haven’t even been formed, and there’s still some work to be done. So this is a way to say: “We’re not quite there yet. It’s a law, but there are still some regulations. In order to make sure that everybody understands how to use this, we need to make sure that we have the regulations.”

I know that there was some discussion about the one year and the regulation. I can appreciate wanting to make sure that there’s a backstop, but we’re committed, as a government, to make sure that we have the pieces in place for these people who find themselves in untenable situations. That’s what this is about.

We keep going back to: so what does this mean for people? By doing it on royal assent, the concern is that people will think that it’s raring to go. We haven’t really fully built it out yet, and we need the time to do that.

J. Rustad: Thank you, both, for the answer in regards to that. It is a little different to see. I actually want to thank staff and the member for bringing this thing forward, and government for recognizing its importance and bringing it forward, too, because it is about people.

As I mentioned at the beginning, I get quite emotional about this issue because of all of the experience, all the things that I’ve had an unfortunate opportunity to hear about and to be involved in and see. So thank you for the work on this thing. Certainly, if there’s anything I can do, as you’re developing regulations and bringing this thing forward, I’d be happy to be engaged and involved in it.

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the member for his questions. I’m assuming that he doesn’t have anymore.

I want to thank my staff, Wendy, Tyann and Greg, for being here. I know it wasn’t easy for the two staff groups because it took a lot of bodies to figure out how to make this work. What I’m most proud of is that we always kept people at the centre of it — “Who is it we’re talking about? What is it they need from their government, broad government?” — in order to deliver for them. So I want to thank the people that are sitting behind me, the people who are sitting at the end here, for their hard work in bringing forward good policy.

A. Weaver: In the spirit of that, I would be remiss if I were not to thank both the minister and her staff for working with us on this, the member for Nechako Lakes for his line of questioning, and of course, my amazing, incredible staff, Claire and Evan. Claire really put her heart and soul into this project, and I think what we’ve seen here is a testament to the good work that she does. Thank you to everybody for bringing this forward.

The Chair: Although everyone has made their concluding remarks, we still have a couple of votes here.

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

Title approved.

A. Weaver: I wish to thank the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast for his enthusiastic ayes.

With that, I’d like to move that the committee rise, report Bill M206 complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:47 pm.

---

Media Release

---

B.C. Green PMB Passes Committee to Expand Protections, Support Survivors
For immediate release
May 29, 2019

VICTORIA, B.C. –  Renters who are victims of violence at their home are one step closer to being able to break their fixed term lease and seek safety after the B.C. Greens’ Private Member’s Bill amending the Residential Tenancy Act garnered broad tripartisan support from NDP and Liberals when passing committee stage today.

“No one should be forced to live in close proximity to their perpetrator – this bill supports survivors,” said B.C. Green Party leader Andrew Weaver. “We are building upon the good work of the BC Liberals in 2015, when they added the family violence provision with support from the BC NDP. This bill, drafted in consultation and cooperation with the legislative drafters, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and House, and stakeholders like West Coast LEAF and Ending Violence Association of B.C., expands on existing provisions to insure that all victims have the same rights. It gives, for example, someone who is sexually assaulted by their roommate or neighbour the right to break their lease so they can move somewhere safe.”

There are approximately 60,000 incidents of sexual and domestic violence in British Columbia each year, according to Ending Violence Association of British Columbia. That equates to more than 1,000 incidents per week.

Selina Robinson, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and her staff in particular were instrumental in assisting with seeing this legislation through the drafting process and making it before the House.

“Everyone should feel safe in their home,” Minister Robinson said. “The Province is proud to support this bill as it aligns with government’s commitment to take a stand against violence. Our government is also committed to strengthening protections for renters and recent improvements to the Residential Tenancy Branch are ensuring renters get the help they need, when they need it.”

“B.C. Green Caucus believes updating current legislation or drafting new bills to advance protections for women and other vulnerable groups is simply good governance,” said MLA Weaver, “whether it’s workplace protections like the 2017 bill preventing employers from requiring select employees to wear high-heeled shoes in the workplace, or in 2016 when I brought for the Post-Secondary Sexual Violence Policies Act. Earlier this week, our caucus introduced legislation to ban the conversion therapy among minors in B.C. These types of human rights protections are nonpartisan issues that the B.C. Green caucus is proud to unite the parties around.”

This is the second Private Member’s Bill from the BC Greens to pass third reading this session. The caucus made history earlier this month with the passing its first ever PMB in the province’s history and the first PMB from an opposition party to pass in decades. The Greens also positioned the province as a leader nationally with that legislation by making B.C. the first province to formally provide a legal framework for businesses committed to pursuing social and environmental goals to incorporate as benefit companies under the Business Corporations Act.

Quick Facts

• A number of House amendments were moved by MLA Weaver at committee stage to accommodate feedback received from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and legislative drafters.
• The bill amends the Residential Tenancy Act to add “household violence” to the existing family violence and long term care provisions.
• “Household violence” was proposed as a House amendment in committee stage to replace “occupant violence” as written in the original Private Member’s Bill because of feedback that suggested “occupant violence” could be confusing given its overlap with the term “tenant.” For example, a tenant is an occupant, but an occupant is not necessarily a tenant.
• Regulations specify which expert professionals and practitioners are authorized to provide third-party confirmation for victims who need to end their fixed term lease: police, listed medical practitioners, counsellors, First Nations support workers, victims support workers, etc.
• Having regulations that extend verification powers beyond law enforcement is vital as not all survivors will be able or willing to involve police. In cases of domestic violence, risk of injury or death can actually increase if a violent partner learns their spouse has contacted police or is planning on leaving.
• The bill is intended to protect anyone who lives in the household whose safety, security, or physical wellbeing has been adversely affected by violence associated with the rental home, including but not limited to: physical, sexual, or psychological abuse, threats of physical or sexual abuse, or exposing a child directly or indirectly to violence.

-30-

Media contact
Macon McGinley, Press Secretary
BC Green Caucus
+1 250-882-6187 | macon.mcginley@leg.bc.ca