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

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

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

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

---

Media Statement

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-30-

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

Yesterday the Premier and Prime Minister made a joint announcement promising another $680 million subsidy of the BC natural gas sector. In this, the latest example of corporate welfare for the fossil fuel sector, the BC NDP government promised substantive taxpayer-funded handouts aimed at electrifying upstream natural gas activities.

Of course, investing in electrification infrastructure that moves our province to a greener economy must be a priority, but it is a missed opportunity when it is only to potentially offset future emitters, and the rest of the economy- and our emissions targets- are left treading water. The government could, and should, have simply required electrification through regulation. Instead, this latest announcement expands upon the litany of previous subsidies doled out by the BC NDP government to try and and deliver what the previous BC Liberal government couldn’t — a single LNG export facility,

Below I reproduce the media statement we released in response to this announcement.

---

Media Statement

---

B.C., federal governments announce $680 million to support future fossil fuel development in the province
For immediate release
Aug. 29, 2019

VICTORIA, B.C. – Provincial and federal governments announced today they will subsidize fossil fuel development further by committing $680 million to electrify natural gas facilities that have yet to be built.

“By prioritizing this $330 million to potentially reduce the future emissions from fossil fuel companies, the NDP government is not only providing more subsidies for the growth of the fossil fuel sector, but are also neglecting their responsibility to this province to be making the investments for an alternative future,”  B.C. Green Party Leader Dr. Andrew Weaver, MLA from Oak Bay- Gordon Head. ”Investing in electrification infrastructure that moves our province to a greener economy must be a priority, but it is a missed opportunity when it is only to potentially offset future emitters, and the rest of the economy- and our emissions targets- are left treading water.

“British Columbians are looking for leadership that is investing in their future by supporting the industries of tomorrow, not the dinosaurs of yesterday. With this massive subsidy, the NDP are investing in the very industries whose practices for the last many decades have contributed to the climate change crisis that is affecting British Columbians every single day- the heatwaves, droughts, wildfires, and species declines. Government’s own strategic risk assessment they released without so much as a statement last month contained clear warnings to this affect- again, warnings scientists have been making for decades.

“We should seize the opportunity to be a global leader in building a clean, vibrant economy based on new industries that aren’t the source of climate change. Instead, with today’s announcement we are asked to celebrate that we may slightly reduce the pollution coming from our oil and gas sector, even as it continues to grow. I know we can do better.”

-30-

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

Yesterday, a few days before the Pride Parade in Vancouver, the BC NDP government published an open letter to the Honourable David Lametti, federal Minister of Justice and Attorney General, calling on the federal government to amend the Criminal Code to ban the practice of conversion therapy. The letter specifically states that:

“Conversion therapy is hateful and harmful and therefore should be a crime in Canada.”

While obviously supportive of this call, the fact of the matter is that there is much we can do in British Columbia. I am troubled by what appears to be the government’s response to my introduction of a bill to ban this practice in British Columbia. Rather than taking steps to deal with this issue in a timely fashion, as has been done in other provinces, our government’s response is simply to kick the can down the road and blame the federal government.

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.

British Columbia is currently behind much of Canada. Ontario banned this practice provincially in 2015, as did Nova Scotia in 2018. While the BC Greens believe that this practice should not be happening anywhere in Canada, the federal government have already announced that they expect the provinces, not the federal government, to address it.

Ultimately this is why the BC Greens introduced our bill prohibiting the provision of conversion therapy 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. And all British Columbians deserve their government to stand up for their interests and not simply pass the blame onto someone else.

Below I reproduce the media release my office issued in response to government’s open letter.

---

Media Release

---

B.C. Green Caucus calls for comprehensive protections against ‘conversion therapy’
For immediate release
August 1, 2019

VICTORIA, B.C. –  The B.C. government’s response today regarding the dangerous, nonmedical practice of conversion therapy rightfully calls for the federal government to amend the Criminal Code to fully ban the practice nationally. It also highlights current regulations within B.C.’s health system preventing health professionals from offering the service and billing for it. However, the letter from the B.C. attorney general, minister of health and MLA for Vancouver-West End shies away from tackling the full scope of the issue.

“Preventing health officials from practicing conversion therapy is important, and we also know that the majority of medical and scientific associations, including the Canadian Psychological Association and World Health Organization, oppose conversion therapy,”  said Dr. Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green party. “For those outliers in the medical community, it is essential that clear regulations are in place to prevent them from assaulting youth with this treatment.

“Unfortunately,” Weaver continues, “many people are exposed to this pseudo-scientific practice by non-medical professionals – faith leaders, youth organizations, and even so-called family support groups. By trying to fundamentally change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity they risk inflicting harmful, long-lasting damage that puts lives at risk.”

In May, the B.C. Greens, alongside stakeholders and LGBTQ2+ rights advocates, tabled legislation to amend the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Protection Act and close this loophole to ban the abusive practice of conversion therapy and protect British Columbians.

“In addition to ensuring this abuse is banned from anyone in the medical field, the B.C. Green bill also seeks to protect children and youth from conversion therapy practiced by other adults in positions of trust or authority.

“Elected officials have a responsibility to support those with diverse sexualities, gender identities and expressions. We must send 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. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard the human rights of everyone within its national borders.   In the absence of that leadership, however, B.C. should not wait to protect the health and safety of our communities and our children.

“We welcome legislation from any party that will protect the human rights, health, and safety of LGBTQ2+ people by banning so-called conversion therapy in our province and hope the government will work with us to ensure any efforts to do so are comprehensive.”

-30-

Media contact

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

 

 

Today Justin Trudeau once more announced the approval of the now Canadian Taxpayer owned Transmountain Pipeline project. Those who have followed this blog over the last few years will know I have extensively commented on the fiscal folly of the federal government stepping in to buy the pipeline after Kinder Morgan abandoned the project in response to changing market conditions for expensive-to-extract, high-sulphur, Alberta-based diluted bitumen.

Below I reproduce the media statement my office released in response to the federal government’s announcement.

---

Media Release

---

Statement on Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion project approval
For immediate release
June 18, 2019

VICTORIA, B.C. – In response to the Federal Liberal Party’s approval of the Trans Mountain expansion project, the B.C. Green caucus has released the following statement:

“The Liberal government’s decision to forge ahead with the Trans Mountain Expansion project is an abdication of their responsibility to Canadians to show climate leadership,” said Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green party.

“Just yesterday these very same Ministers supported a motion that declared a climate emergency. How can this government declare a climate emergency and yet continue to invest in major expansions of fossil fuel infrastructure that will last 40-50 years?”

“Now is the time for elected leaders to be bold and courageous. We need to urgently begin the transition away from fossil fuels and toward a clean, sustainable economy — to invest in clean technology, to help workers transition, to truly protect the environment upon which a healthy economy depends.”

In addition to the climate crisis, the flawed First Nations consultation process, and the impacts on the endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales, there is also growing concern that the pipeline is a fiscally foolish project, now reliant on taxpayer money. Earlier today, Chief Leah George Wilson of Tsleil-Waututh Nation joined the former Federal Environment Minister David Anderson in highlighting evidence that there is no compelling business case for the Trans Mountain expansion project. This includes concerns that the Asian market that is so often used as justification doesn’t exist for Alberta bitumen.

“No compelling business case has been made for the expansion, with Kinder Morgan offloading the risk onto the Canadian taxpayer. Proceeding with the Trans Mountain expansion is a reckless use of taxpayer money.”

The B.C. Green Caucus has consistently been opposed to this project, including in the confidence and supply agreement with the NDP government that commits the government to using every tool available to stop the expansion project.

-30-

Media contact
Stephanie Siddon, Research and Communications Officer
+1 250-882-6187 | macon.mcginley@leg.bc.ca

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

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

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

---

Video of Exchange

---

---

Text of Exchange

---

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

The committee met at 3:29 p.m.

On section 1.

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(c) by adding the following subsection:

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

On the amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Chair: You may.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

On section 2.

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

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

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

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

On the amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

On section 3.

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

Interjections.

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

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

Commencement

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

On the amendment.

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

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

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

Title approved.

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

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:47 pm.

---

Media Release

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quick Facts

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

-30-

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