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

Today in the BC Legislature we continued our debate on Bill 30: Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2019 at committee stage. Recall from my second reading speech, this bill amends the labour relations code to make a number of changes to enhance protections for workers and implement the recommendations of an independent expert review panel.

During debate on section 6 of the bill, the BC Liberals proposed an amendment concerning when and how raids can and should be allowed for. In particular, their amendment to section 6 was designed to bring the government’s proposed changes more in line with the recommendations of the independent panel.

Supporting evidence-based policy that restores protections for workers and ends pendulum swings in the labour code have been priorities for the B.C. Greens.

My colleagues, staff and I engaged numerous stakeholders to develop a deeper understanding about the forces at play and concluded — as did the panel — that construction labour law is particularly unique. Because of these unique challenges, which include the transient versus stationary nature of the work place, we believed that it was essential to not simply pass Bill 30 legislation and move on. The construction industry and its workers deserve a thorough review; this hasn’t happened since at least 1998.

The B.C. Green caucus is in strong support of creating an independent panel mandated to address the unique realities of the construction sector, and to expand upon the recommendations of the current Labour Relations Code Review Panel. Until such an independent review is conducted, we felt it was prudent to follow the advice set out by the current review panel, and therefore supported the amendment (which allowed it to pass – see vote above). If a deeper dive identifies challenges with this, I hope that all members of the House would be prepared to support additional changes. We have heard loud and clear that there are numerous questions that remain unanswered and want to ensure a process is established that can get politicians objective analysis and recommendations to act upon.

More than anything, BC Greens believe that the legislation, which passed committee stage today, will go a long ways towards ending the ideological labour code tug-of-war that has been allowed to dominate labour code policy in BC for the past 30 years. We believe it will bring fairness, certainty and stability back to the labour code.

The BC Liberals also introduced a second amendment to section 8 of this bill that we could not support (for reasons outlined below – see vote to the left) as we believed it strayed from the intent of the independent panel’s recommendation.

While this bill took up an enormous amount of our caucus and staff time, I personally found the debates to be an excellent example of how the BC Legislature functions at its best. At all times, and at all stages of the debate, the decorum in the chamber was one of mutual respect. It was clear that Harry Bains, the BC NDP Minister of Labour and the opposition critics were passionate in their views but respectful in understanding the difference of opinions in the room.

I look forward to working with both government and the official opposition to further advance a labour policy review for the construction sector.

Below I reproduce the video and text of my speeches to the two amendments. I also provide a copy of some brief rebuttal remarks I made after the Minister of Labour spoke. At the end of this post, I reproduce the media statement our office released after the passage of the bill.

---

Videos of Committee Stage Debates

---

1st Amendment	Further Remarks
2nd Amendment

---

Text of Speech in Support of 1st Amendment

---

A. Weaver: I rise to take my place to speak to the amendment that was brought forward by the member for Shuswap.

As we know, Bill 30 is a unique piece of labour legislation. It’s one of the first pieces of labour law that has received the broad support of members in this House.

Over the last 30 years, we’ve watched as labour policy in this province swings back and forth like a pendulum as government changed and as ideological fights play out. Putting an end to these pendulum swings, which create instability and division, was essential for our caucus. We further believe, as a caucus, in supporting evidence-based policy that ensures the protection of workers.

In this regard, the work of the expert review panel was essential. They made balanced and thoughtful recommendations as to how we could and should update our labour code in the province of British Columbia.

The amendment before us today, brought forward by the member for Shuswap, addresses one of the very few areas where what the government brought forward in the legislation before us differs from what the panel recommended.

Over the last few months, my colleagues, staff and I engaged with numerous stakeholders to develop a deeper understanding about the various forces at play in this issue of labour policy. What we learned through extensive consultation engagement is that construction labour law in the province of British Columbia is particularly unique. Yet my colleagues and I know that we are not the experts.

What rose from our engagement is the realization as to how essential it is to not simply pass the legislation, as is amended, and to move on from these issues, but rather to take the time to look deeper into construction labour law.

There are a number of challenges facing the construction industry that we firmly believe need to be explored further, including, of course, the question raised in the amendment before us concerning when and how raids can and should be allowed for. The panel itself acknowledged that there are construction-specific issues that relate to the changing labour code.

The B.C. Green caucus understands the profoundly unique nature of the construction industry. There are a number of examples that can be given. We know, for example, that in public sector unions or public sector sites, often people are in the same place for their job — on the construction site. We know that safety is often front and centre in deliberations on the site. We know that workers move from site to site to site. We know that is a very different type of working environment than, say, a stationary environment where you work in the same place.

We understand the special challenges that exist. We understand that there are unions like CMAW, like IUOE and others who actually are end-to-end project unions. We know, also, that present rules within the B.C. Federation of Labour do not allow unions to raid other unions in the Federation. So in the spirit of fairness and openness and transparency, this, to us, must be collectively addressed.

We understand that the construction sector needs a review. We understand that changes need to be there. But we also understand that the terms of reference of the panel precluded them from singling out this sector to actually provide a separate report and suite of recommendations for the construction sector.

In our view, we accept the numerous voices that told us that what they were seeing — whether you’re a representative from a union like CLAC or a union like IUOE or a union that wasn’t in the building trade, represented by the B.C. Fed — is that they’re looking for a fair and level playing field.

That is exactly what we’re looking for, one that’s grounded in evidence, not in ideology.

I come to this again, and I say this. IUOE, an end-to-end organizing union — let us suppose, hypothetically, that they go to a construction site and recognize that on that construction site, the workers there are being represented by an additional union, and that environment is not safe. Or, perhaps, there’s a multitude of unions. The IUOE, right now, is prohibited from raiding into those areas, if said unions there already are members of the B.C. Federation of Labour.

Now I come to the nurses’ union, when there was concern within the licenced practitional nurses with respect to them being represented by the health employers union. The concern was such that the licensed practition nurses felt that they would be better represented by the nurses’ union. A raid happened. The response, of course, was that the nurses’ union was kicked out of the B.C. Federation of Labour.

Is that fair? Is that actually what we’re aspiring to, here in the province of British Columbia? No. I think we’re aspiring to fair and transparent workplaces — that is, fair for all, not just for the chosen few and not just for those who have stood forward and actually have stronger influence, perhaps, with government than others.

That is why we are calling on the government to undertake a comprehensive, independent review of the construction sector, in addition to supporting the amendment before us now. There does not appear, in British Columbia, to have been a comprehensive review of this industry since 1998.

Now I’m not counting the kind of — what I would argue is a very one-sided — so-called review that occurred in the early 2000s, when the Liberals took over back then, because the building trades weren’t invited to the table. I’m not accounting a self-reflective review that’s also happened.

A proper fundamental review of how labour policy should be applied in the construction sector, I think, is long overdue in this province, because we know that in other provinces in the country, like Ontario, there are a hybridization of labour laws — one that treats stationary workplaces and one that treats transient workplaces or places where you’re not on the same site every day. We cannot expect the same labour policy to apply to stationary and transitory workplaces. The fact that we’re trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole, to take bits and pieces of what the independent expert committee has recommended, is troubling to the caucus, because we appeal to experts for our advice.

We know, and we understand, and we heard from the construction sector that many of the sweeping changes that have been brought historically hurt that sector. We appreciate that. We understand that. We heard that. That is why we urge the government to commission a further sectoral review of labour laws in the construction sector. We support an independent review. We support a timely independent review, one with short time frames and one that looks at the unique realities of this sector of the economy and expands on the recommendations of the current labour relation code review panel.

In my view and in my caucus’s view, by doing this, we can ensure that we bring forward policy to this table that does create a fair, balanced, level playing field, grounded in evidence, not ideological or historical positions. I think, ultimately, that’s what most workers want. They want the opportunity for a fair and open workplace.

Until such time as this separate review can take place, we felt it was prudent to follow the advice set out by the current review panel and, therefore, support the amendment to ensure its language is reflected in this legislation. If a deeper dive identifies challenges with this, I hope that all members of this House would be open and prepared to support additional changes. Our caucus is. We’ve heard loud and clear that there are numerous questions that remain unanswered and want to ensure that a process is established that gets politicians objective analysis and recommendations to act upon.

More than anything, we believe, as a caucus, that we must end this ideological tug-of-war that has been allowed to take place in our province for far too long. It is not about union versus employer. It is not about worker versus employer. It is about doing what’s right to create a fair and balanced work environment for all workers in British Columbia. I think that that only will happen if we actually target this industry with a separate, independent, thoughtful review of the construction sector.

---

Further Remarks to 1st Amendment

---

A. Weaver: I just wanted to rise and address a couple of the comments there. I do appreciate the minister, and I think we’re very well served in British Columbia by the minister, who is very fair and open with his deliberations and so forth. I would say that, in listening to the minister’s speech there, he said a few things that were flags to me.

He talked about the fact that this was stopping workers from having a right to…. It does no such change. What we’re saying is that the expert panel recommendations were there as a suite. They were not there to pick and choose. We recognize and we’ve supported all of the recommendations. The important successorship changes — we supported that. In this particular case, what we’re saying is that we don’t think the expert panel did the work that needs to be done to carve out the construction sector and to look at that independently.

Now, the minister has suggested that he has the solution. That’s his view, and that’s fine. It’s his prerogative to have that. Our position is that we don’t have that information. We don’t have that information on which to make a decision in this area, because I suspect that the construction industry would have a lot more that might have to change if we actually went to a review.

I honestly don’t think the construction industry, in the province of British Columbia, has been served well. I don’t think they’ve been served well for many, many years. I come back to the issue that, if there are many sites, those will be represented by a multitude of other unions. But if you are a trade union — a building trade — you cannot raid into those unions. The minister says that that’s their right. It is their right, but it’s also our right as British Columbians to ensure that the playing field is level.

This is not about trying to create an us versus them — us versus CLAC or us versus Unifor or us versus the nurses. This is about recognizing that labour law must represent the diversity of views that are out there and be inclusive and respectful and grounded in evidence that will probably not get what everyone wants but builds forth to a policy that we can actually grow from, as opposed to a pendulum swinging back and forth.

That is one of our singular objectives: to ensure stability, consistency and certainty. We’re not convinced, and certainly no evidence was put for us, that with the change to the summer months, in fact, that will be maintained with an annual, as opposed to the existing recommendation within the panel.

With that, I’ll take my place.

---

Text of Speech against 2nd Amendment

---

A. Weaver: I rise to provide support to the minister with respect to his views on this amendment. We understand where the official opposition is coming from. On page 18 of the expert report — as the minister said, it is a superb report — the experts state as follows: “A successor union should be able to apply to the board to have a collective agreement reopened, and the board should have discretion to grant such relief in extraordinary circumstances, having regard to its section 2 duties. This would permit the exercise of this discretion where, for example, terms of the collective agreements are clearly inferior to the norm in the sector.”

The words there were contained in the preamble leading up to the formal recommendation. As the minister pointed out, we believe that in fact the expert panel were, in their recommendations, very thoughtful in terms of the exact usage of language. Were we to add the words “extraordinary circumstances” into the recommendation, I would suggest that this is actually going a step further, because the panel was actually quite careful in not using the words in the actual recommendation.

With that, I will take my place, noting that we will not support this amendment.

---

Media Release

---

B.C. Green Caucus Calls for Closer Look Into Construction Industry Labour Code
For immediate release
May 28, 2019

VICTORIA, B.C. –Supporting evidence-based policy that restores protections for workers and ends pendulum swings in the labour code are priorities for the B.C. Greens, and the expert panel’s recommendations should be expanded on to address the unique challenges presented by the construction industry.

“My colleagues, staff and I engaged with a number of stakeholders to develop a deeper understanding about the forces at play and have concluded- as did the panel- that construction labour law is particularly unique,” B.C. Green party leader Andrew Weaver said. “Because of these unique challenges, we believe it is essential that we do not simply pass this legislation and move on. The construction industry and its workers deserves a thorough review, which it hasn’t had since at least 1998. The B.C. Green caucus is strongly in support of a panel mandated to address the unique realities of this sector of the economy, and expands on the recommendations of the current Labour Relation Code Review Panel.

“Until such a time that a separate review, one more focused on the challenges of the constructor sector, can take place, we feel it is prudent to follow that advice set out by the current review panel, and therefore support the amendment to ensure its language is reflected in the legislation. If a deeper dive identifies challenges with this, I hope that all members of this House would be prepared to support additional changes. We have heard loud and clear that there are numerous questions that remain unanswered and want to ensure a process is established that can get politicians objective analysis and recommendations to act upon.”

The B.C. Green caucus supports other significant provisions of this legislation, which take important steps forward to better protect workers and ensure balance in workplaces. These include:

• Extending successorship provisions to protect workers in building cleaning/janitorial services, security services, bus transportation services, non-clinical health care services, and food services;
• Improved access and protection of collective bargaining;
• Removing education as an essential service.

“More than anything, BC Greens believe this legislation will go a long ways towards ending the ideological tug-of-war that has been allowed to destabilize the province’s labour code for the past 30 years.”

These amendments are necessary adjustments to existing labour law, but there is more work to do to address the other fundamental challenges facing the economy.

“Unfortunately, what continues to be missing from the conversation is a focus on how we can adapt our labour laws to support people grappling with the changing nature of work,” Weaver said. “From increases in precarious, gig-based jobs, to the increasing use of contractors instead of employees, British Columbians are dealing with huge changes to job stability and income security, and our laws aren’t keeping up.”

The B.C. Green caucus consults with government to improve fairness for workers and ensure balance in the workplace as part of the Confidence and Supply Agreement.

-30-

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

 

In the legislature today I rose during Question Period to ask the Minister of Education what his government was thinking when they tabled their class size and composition proposals. I further asked what he thought this would do to the morale of B.C. teachers given that starting in 2002 and culminating in the landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision on November 10, 2016, the BCTF fought hard to restore provisions regarding their ability to bargain class size and composition.

In addition, I  asked the minister how he reconciled his statement to the Globe and Mail on March 17th:

“The table is set different than [sic] any set of negotiations in the last 16 years. Our government is not seeking any concessions. We are seeking changes that will benefit teachers and students“,

with the comments from BCTF president Glen Hansman to the Vancouver Sun on May 17:

“[the new position of the government would] wipe out each and every word that teachers got back through the Supreme Court of Canada decision and replace it with watered-down language that’s worse than what exists in most school districts across the province.“

Below I reproduce the video and text of our Question Period exchange.

The BC Green Party made public education our top priority in the last provincial election campaign. Our fully costed platform found more than $4 billion in new funds over four years in support of this priority.

---

Video of Exchange

---

---

Question

---

A. Weaver: Last week we heard from the BCTF that this government is putting forth essentially the same proposals in contract negotiations that the former government did in 2014. In particular, government has tabled larger maximum class sizes and fewer specialty teachers.

In 2014, the now Minister of Education stated that class size and composition was a “central issue” in the ongoing teachers strike at the time and that it was “critical” and that “class size and composition do impact learning outcomes.”

My question is to the Minister of Education. Starting in 2002 and culminating in the landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision on November 10, 2016, the BCTF fought hard to restore provisions regarding their ability to bargain class size and composition. What was government thinking when they tabled their class size and composition proposals, and what does he think this will do to the morale of B.C. teachers?

---

Answer

---

Hon. R. Fleming: I thank the member for the question, because he did indeed go through a litany of damaging years in public education in British Columbia that stand in stark contrast to the record of our government over the last 21 months. Let’s remember that for 16 years, that government over there, the opposition now, fought with teachers, ripped up contracts….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, the Minister of Education has the floor.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Fleming: I think they’re a little sensitive, Mr. Speaker, about losing in court…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Fleming: …three times. Three times, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister of Education.

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s really sensitive, because they lost three times in the Supreme Court.

The point is, they wasted 12 years, they ripped resources away from kids and families, they demonized teachers, and they lost. We’re taking a different approach.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Fleming: I think the member who asked the question would like an answer. I think he would appreciate it, and here’s what the answer is. In 21 months, our government has added $1 billion of annual resource….

Interjections.

Hon. R. Fleming: We’ve hired 4,000 new teachers and 1,000 education assistants. Funding for students with special needs is up 23 percent. Rural education funding is at a record high and up under our government.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Fleming: I would ask the members opposite to read some headlines they might not want to read. The Delta Optimist, the Kelowna Courier — each one of them is saying that for the first time in 15 years, they don’t have to cut budgets. They don’t have to fire teachers. They’ve got funding and a government that’s on their side.

---

Supplementary Question

---

A. Weaver: I thank the minister for the answer to the question. I’m not sure it was the question that I asked, but at least there was a long answer there, so I do appreciate the words and the facts being brought forward.

In 2014, the current Minister of Education spoke passionately about how the B.C. budget of the day: “It robs from the pocketbooks of ordinary British Columbians and fails to invest in the future.” He was talking about the lack of education support, specifically the lack of school support workers at the time.

According to the BCTF president, Glen Hansman, this new position of the B.C. government would: “Wipe out each and every word that teachers got back through the Supreme Court of Canada decision and replace it with watered-down language that’s worse than what exists in most school districts across the province.”

On March 17, the Minister of Education told the Globe and Mail this: “The table is set different than any set of negotiations in the last 16 years. Our government is not seeking any concessions. We are seeking changes that will benefit teachers and students.”

My question is to the Minister of Education. How does he reconcile this quote with the claims of the BCTF president?

---

Answer

---

Hon. R. Fleming: I thank the member for the question again. He’ll know this as somebody who was a former negotiator himself for labour: that bargaining is best done at the table. What I’m proud of is our government…. We have gone to the table in this round of negotiations earlier than ever before. We have set the table with record levels of funding. I can go through that list again for the members present, but they’ve all been at school announcements in their ridings, so they know about it firsthand.

We have also demonstrated respect to the teaching profession. We have now, I’m pleased to say, 197,000 public servants in British Columbia who have signed on with tentative agreements under the sustainable services mandating agreement. We have 25,000 CUPE K-to-12 education workers who are included in that group.

I would say to the member to also listen to Mr. Hansman. He said, going into the weekend, and I would echo this message with him: “We’re still optimistic that there will be a deal. We have five weeks until the end of the school year. The good news is that both sides have scheduled a lot of dates, so there’s a lot of room to talk. That’s positive. We didn’t have that in the last few rounds.” So I will respectfully allow elected trustees — who we restored, democratically, to the bargaining process — to do their work. They understand teachers. They work alongside teachers. The previous government fired them, and I think that was a huge mistake. That is the stark contrast that we have here.

If members want to think back exactly five years ago, they locked out teachers. They cut their pay. They provoked British Columbia’s education system, and it was a disaster. It led to the longest shutdown of schools in British Columbia history. We’re in a vastly different place, where we want to work with teachers and school districts and get a good deal that’s good for everyone.

Today in the legislature I tabled Bill M218: Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Protection Act, 2019. This bill seeks to ban the practice of so-called conversion therapy by prohibiting the provision of the treatment to minors and the payment or reimbursement of conversion therapy through health insurance or MSP. All British Columbians deserve to be loved, supported and accepted, not persecuted for who they are. Below I reproduce the video and text of the Bill’s introduction.

Prior to introducing the bill, my caucus colleagues and I held a press conference indicating our intention to table the bill later in the day. I am very grateful to Peter Gajdics (survivor and author, The Inheritance of Shame: A Memoir) and Yogi Omar (queer activist and vice president, Vancouver Men’s Chorus), who joined us at the press conference to offer their views on the importance of this bill. My introductory remarks at the press conference are reproduced below.

I am also grateful to Rev. Dr. Cheri DiNovo (former Member of Provincial Parliament), Dr. Elizabeth Saewyc (Professor and Executive Director, UBC Stigma and Resilience Among Vulnerable Youth Centre),  Nicola Spurling (president, Tri-Cities Pride),  and Ian Bushfeld (BC Humanist Association), who kindly offered us words of support included in the media release (appended below).

---

Video of Introduction

---

---

Text of Introduction

---

A. Weaver: I move that a bill intituled Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Protection Act, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be now read a first time.

Conversion therapy is an abusive, dangerous practice that must be banned to protect the safety and health of British Columbians — children and youth in particular. This is, fundamentally, an issue of human rights. Medical and scientific associations, including the American Psychiatric Association and the World Health Organization, condemn the practice, but it continues to this day and it continues to this day in British Columbia.

It’s particularly important and timely to be advancing this ban today, as we hear news that the United Conservative Party of Alberta is walking back the previous government’s commitment to end the practice there.

This bill seeks to ban the practice of so-called conversion therapy by prohibiting the provision of the treatment to minors and the payment or reimbursement of conversion therapy through health insurance or MSP. All British Columbians deserve to be loved, supported and accepted, not persecuted for who they are.

I’m honoured to be standing alongside LGBTQ2S+ advocates, including survivors of conversion therapy, as we reaffirm the rights of all British Columbians to be who they are and to live in safety. It is because of your advocacy that we are here today.

Motion approved.

A. Weaver: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M218, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Protection Act, 2019, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

---

Press Conference Remarks

---

I am very pleased to be joined today by advocates and leaders from the LGBTQ2+ community in bringing forward a bill to end the abhorrent practice of so-called conversion therapy.

It is particularly important and timely to be advancing this ban today, as we hear news that the United Conservative Party of Alberta is walking back the previous government’s commitment to end the practice there.

Conversion therapy is an abusive, dangerous practice that should be banned to protect the safety and health of the LGBTQ2+ community – children and youth in particular.

This is an issue of human rights.
British Columbia has been a leader in protecting and celebrating the LGBTQ2+ community. We were the second province to extend marriage rights, and we continue to support the sexual orientation and gender identity program in BC schools. However, we know there is more work to do.

Over this legislative session, our team has worked collaboratively with members of the LGBTQ2+ community, health professionals, legislative drafters, and legal experts to ensure that our bill does everything within the provincial jurisdiction to prohibit this practice.

In this regard, British Columbia is currently behind much of Canada. Ontario banned this practice provincially in 2015, as did Nova Scotia in 2018. While we believe that this practice should not be happening anywhere in Canada, the federal government responded to this issue by saying it is up to the provinces to address this. So we will.

I am so thankful to the many community members who have worked with our team to develop this bill.

I want to thank a few people who are here today. Nicola Spurling, president of Tri-Cities Pride; Christina Winter, chair of the BC Green Party equity and diversity committee; all of the young people here today to support this bill; and of course our staff team that has worked so hard to make this happen. There are many more who were part of this who couldn’t be here today, and we are so appreciative of their contributions.

In listening to the stories of people who have had their lives impacted by conversion therapy, it is clear that the harms this has caused the LGBTQ2+ community are immense. I commend the brave people who have stepped forward to share their stories, so that we legislators can understand how vital it is to end this practice. It is because of your advocacy that we are here today.

Our bill will prohibit the provision of conversion therapy to minors by health professionals, the payment or reimbursement of conversion therapy through health insurance, and the expenditure of public funds, like MSP, for the provision of conversion therapy.

I hope that all members of the legislature will support a ban on this practice and bring a close to this dark chapter of BC’s history. I invite both the BC NDP and BC Liberals to join us in following the tri-partisan leadership demonstrated in other provinces by either supporting this bill or tabling their own.

I would now like to turn it over to the true experts on this file, the people who have been fighting for this for decades, and the real reason we are all here today.

I am very pleased to have met this morning with Peter Gajdics, someone who has shared his story of experiencing conversion therapy many times. He has been at the forefront of the movement to ban this, and I would like to invite him to say a few words.

— Break for Peter’s comments—

I would like to now invite Yogi Omar to say a few words. Yogi was a member of the City of Vancouver’s LGBTQ2+ civic advisory committee, and worked on their motion to ban conversion therapy in the city. He has been an advocate for LGBTQ2+ people for a long time, and I am so glad he was able to join us today.

— Break for Yogi’s comments—

---

Media Release

---

B.C. Greens table legislation to ban conversion therapy
For immediate release
May 27, 2019

VICTORIA, B.C. – Today the B.C. Greens, alongside stakeholders and LGBTQ2+ rights advocates, are tabling legislation that will ban the abusive practice of conversion therapy and protect British Columbians.

“Today we are tabling the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Protection Act, which will protect the human rights, health, and safety of LGBTQ2+ people by banning so-called conversion therapy in our province,” said Dr. Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green party. “This bill supports those with diverse sexualities, gender identities and expressions. It sends a clear message that it is ok to be who you are, that your elected officials and those in positions of power hear you and will act now to protect your human rights.

“Conversion therapy is a pseudo scientific practice of trying to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity that has harmful, long-lasting impacts and puts lives at risk,” Weaver continued. “It is particularly important and timely to be advancing this ban today, as we hear news that the United Conservative Party of Alberta is walking back the previous government’s commitment to end the practice there.

Medical and scientific associations, including the American Psychiatric Association and World Health Organization, oppose conversion therapy. This ban prohibits the practice of conversion therapy for anyone under age 19 and MSP being charged for conversion therapy practices. It does not limit access to gender-confirming surgery or legitimate counselling and support services.

“I am honoured and humbled to be standing alongside LGBTQ2+ rights advocates, including survivors of conversion therapy, as we reaffirm the right of all British Columbians to be who they are and to live in safety,” added Weaver.

Earlier this spring, the federal government rejected a plea to ban conversion therapy at the federal level, calling it a provincial and territorial issue.

“All British Columbians deserve to be loved, supported, and accepted – not persecuted – for who they are,” Weaver said. “The time to act is now.”

Quotes

Rev. Dr. Cheri DiNovo, former Member of Provincial Parliament (Ontario) –

“It was my honour to have tabled and passed Canada’s first ‘Banning Conversion Therapy’ Bill, now law, in 2015. As other Provinces have followed suit, it’s absolutely time British Columbia acts. Have no doubt it is happening there and that means children’s lives are being put at risk. Suicide rates soar among our vulnerable when their very selves are seen as ‘sick’ or ‘wrong’ in some way. Saving children is what banning this deadly practise will achieve. The time is now.”

Dr. Elizabeth Saewyc, Professor and Executive Director, UBC Stigma and Resilience Among Vulnerable Youth Centre –

“Persuading or forcing young people to participate in conversion therapy is the opposite of caring, it rejects who they are and reinforces stigma and shame. Family and community rejection are key causes of emotional distress among LGBTQ2S youth, and have been linked to suicidal thoughts and attempts. By banning conversion therapy in BC, we join other provinces, cities, states, and countries around the world in standing against discrimination toward LGBTQ2S people.”

Peter Gajdics, survivor and author, The Inheritance of Shame: A Memoir –

“Bans on ‘conversion therapy’ are important because they destabilize a belief system, an ideology, still held by too many people that says gay or trans people are inherently ‘broken,’ by virtue of their homosexuality or trans identity, and must, therefore, be ‘fixed.’ When I left my own six years of ‘therapy,’ in 1995, before the phrase ‘conversion therapy’ was commonly used, I had no words to describe what had happened to me; at the time, all I felt was shell-shock, like a hole had been blasted through my gut. It’s not so much that I wanted to kill myself as I thought I was already dead. In truth, so-called conversion therapy is soul-crushing torture that ends up not even being about ‘changing’ sexual orientation as it is about eradicating homosexuality, silencing it from the bodies of people who are gay. Legislative intervention helps prevent torture.”

Yogi Omar, queer activist and vice president, Vancouver Men’s Chorus –

“The practice of ‘conversion therapy,’ continues to occur, particularly in smaller cities, and we need our Government to step in and protect our Community. Many LGBTQ2+ individuals, especially younger folks who are still exploring their gender identity and sexual orientation, are left with little or no choice but to go through these practices in order to feel they belong to their community. ‘Conversion therapy’ survivors have expressed that this practice does not actually convert anything, it will only lead to the feeling of self-hatred, isolation, and depression. Banning this practice provincially will not only help LGBTQ2+ community in British Columbia, it will also lead the movement to ban this practice nationally in Canada.”

Ian Bushfeld, BC Humanist Association –

“Humanism is based on a commitment to science and compassion. It affirms the worth, dignity and autonomy of every human being. We therefore categorically reject the dangerous claim that one’s sexual orientation or gender identity can be changed through therapy. We support efforts to ban the practice and urge MLAs to support this private members’ bill.”

Nicola Spurling, president, Tri-Cities Pride –

“There is no credible scientific evidence indicating that someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity can be changed, and attempts made to force someone to live contrary to their identity are abusive and trauma inducing.  There is no place for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, as outlined in the BC Human Rights Code and the Human Rights Act of Canada.  As such, I call on British Columbia’s provincial government to end this archaic, and unscientific practice, and to send the message that our province will no longer tolerate these attacks on LGBTQ2+ people.”

Background

World Health Organization/Pan American Health Organization issued a statement in 2012 saying, “Since homosexuality is not a disorder or a disease, it does not require a cure. There is no medical indication for changing sexual orientation.” It added this type of therapy poses a “severe threat to the health and human rights of the affected persons.”

The Canadian Psychological Association weighed in on the practice in 2015, saying it “opposes any therapy with the goal of repairing or converting an individual’s sexual orientation, regardless of age.”

Earlier this month the federal government indicated it believes the governance of conversion therapy was a provincial and territorial issue. Some jurisdictions have already taken action on this human rights issue.

• • Ontario: In 2015, Ontario made the practice illegal by initiating an outright ban.
  • Manitoba: In 2015, Manitoba also outlawed health professionals from offering conversion therapy.
  • Nova Scotia: In fall 2018, Nova Scotia made it it illegal for health professionals to provide conversion therapy for minors.
  • Vancouver: Summer 2018, City of Vancouver passed a law restricting businesses from offering it.

• Canada: In March 2019, Ottawa rejected a plea for a federal ban on conversion therapy, calling it a provincial and territorial issue.

-30-

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

The Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services Committee’s Budget 2020 Consultation is taking place in June, 2019.

British Columbians can share their priorities and recommendations for the next provincial budget by speaking with the Committee at a public hearing in-person or via teleconference, making a written, audio or video submission or completing an online survey.

Registration to reserve a speaking time will be available beginning Monday, May 27 on the Committee’s website.

Teleconference opportunities are available by calling 250-356-2933 or 1-877-428-8337 (toll-free in BC).

Speaking times will be 10 minutes – 5 minutes for the presentation and 5 minutes for questions from Committee Members.

The Committee will be holding public hearings in 15 communities from June 10-14 and June 17-21:

Colwood, Kimberley, Castlegar, Kelowna, Kamloops, Courtenay, Qualicum Beach, Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Kitimat, Prince George, Fort St. John, Quesnel, Abbotsford and Surrey.

In accordance with the Legislative Assembly’s commitment to accessibility, public hearings take place in accessible settings. Every effort will be made to accommodate any additional accessibility requirements, including the need for interpretive services.

The opportunity to make a written, audio and video submission, or complete the online survey will be available beginning June 3, 2019 on the Committee’s website.

The public consultation takes place every year and the Committee considers the priorities expressed by the public and develops recommendations for the next provincial budget. Your input and the Committee’s recommendations are included in a report to the Legislative Assembly that is publicly released on or before November 15. This year, the Committee intends to release its report by late July/early August.

For full details on how you can participate, visit the website

To receive updates on the consultation, email FinanceCommittee@leg.bc.ca to be added to the email distribution list.

The deadline for all input is Friday, June 28 at 5:00 p.m.