Hansard Blues

Legislative Assembly

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Darryl Plecas, Speaker

5th Session, 41st Parliament

Monday, June

22, 2020

Afternoon Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

M. Polak: We are very happy in our B.C. Liberal caucus to be welcoming interns, who are working

with us this session. In communications, we have Kathryn Haegedorn and Noelle Skillings.

In research, Stephen Bagan, Erin Spence and Maliki Suppin. Would the House please

make them very welcome.

S. Chandra Herbert: I have a number of students who would normally be visiting us at one point or another

at the Legislature from King George Secondary. They're, of course, unable to do that

now. But they are joining us on line.

I'd like to congratulate them on their recent graduation on Friday, welcome them,

on line, to their Legislature and celebrate all the parents, teachers, school staff

and family that helped students get to graduation. Well done, everybody.

L. Throness: It gives me great pleasure to report that I'm a great uncle for the sixth time. On

April 10, a healthy girl named Odelle May was born to my niece Heather Nickel and

her husband, Benton, from Abbotsford. I was only able to meet her on Saturday because

COVID kept us apart, as it has done for so many families. Would the House join me

in congratulating Heather and Benton.

J. Routledge: Joining us in the gallery today, on this very historic occasion, is Paul Faoro, the

president of CUPE B.C., and Trevor Davies, the secretary treasurer of CUPE B.C. So

please join me in giving them a very warm welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — MINES AMENDMENT ACT, 2020

Hon. B. Ralston presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Mines Amendment Act, 2020.

Hon. B. Ralston: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I'm pleased to introduce Bill 6, the Mines Amendment Act. This bill introduces amendments

to the Mines Act that reflect the government's commitment to improving mining regulation

in British Columbia. The key to having a safe and thriving mining sector is an efficient

and effective permitting process, having the right rules in place and ensuring that

everyone follows the rules. My ministry is working on all of these areas.

The proposed changes were informed by the lessons learned from the Mount Polley disaster,

recommendations made by the Office of the Auditor General and the Mining Jobs Task

Force and consultation with Indigenous nations, stakeholders and the public. These

changes also support investments made in the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources in Budget 2019 to improve mines permitting and increase industry safety.

The proposed amendments will do three things. First, they will establish a chief permitting

officer, distinct from the chief inspector of mines, that will ensure that the mining

permitting process is efficient and effective. Responsibilities for health, safety

and enforcement will continue to rest with the chief inspector of mines.

Second, building on recent improvements and results delivered by the ministry, these

changes will further strengthen government's ability to hold mines accountable by

modernizing and enhancing compliance and enforcement provisions.

Thirdly, these amendments will formalize the creation of the ministry's mine audits

and effectiveness unit, which will ensure that mining regulation in B.C. remains effective

and aligns with global best practice.

These changes are needed so that mining continues to be one of the safest heavy industries

and British Columbia remains an attractive place to invest.

[1:40 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Ralston: 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 6, Mines Amendment Act, 2020, 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.

BILL 19 — COVID-19 RELATED

MEASURES ACT

Hon. D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled

COVID-19 Related Measures Act.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I'm pleased to introduce the COVID-19 Related Measures Act. The primary goals of this

bill are to ensure that the province has a smooth transition to manage the effects

of the COVID-19 pandemic beyond the end of the provincial state of emergency and to

support B.C.'s restart plan.

First, the bill enacts ministerial orders made under the Emergency Program Act in

response to the COVID-19 pandemic and allows them to be extended beyond the end of

the provincial state of emergency, some for 45 days and others for 90 days.

Second, it establishes the authority for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make

regulations to provide for a different expiry date for the orders, either immediately,

at the end of the provincial state of emergency, or extend them for a longer duration,

with a possible extension up to one year after the act is brought into force. Extensions

of ministerial orders may only be made if the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is satisfied

it is necessary to respond to or alleviate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Third, it includes the power for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations

that provide protection from civil liability for COVID-19-related damages in circumstances

to be defined by regulation.

The proposed legislation contains a sunset clause and will be repealed one year after

the act is brought into force.

Two related, targeted amendments are proposed to the Emergency Program Act. One minor

amendment provides grater clarity with respect to the minister's powers under the

Emergency Program Act. The other amendment establishes a limited authority for the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to temporarily suspend or modify the application and

provisions of enactments by regulation.

Drawing on best practices in other Canadian provinces, the authority to make key decisions

respecting suspending or modifying a provision of an enactment during an emergency

or disaster would be elevated to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council so the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

may undertake actions similar to what has been done using ministerial order powers

but with added enhancements to clearly express the scope and conditions for use of

such a power.

These amendments will not affect the ongoing work on modernizing the Emergency Program

Act that is being led by emergency management B.C.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 19, COVID-19 Related Measures Act, 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.

[1:45 p.m.]

BILL 20 — MOTOR VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT (N O . 2), 2020

Hon. D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 2020.

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

On behalf of my colleague the Solicitor General, I am pleased to introduce the Motor

Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 2020.

This bill amends the Motor Vehicle Act with respect to number plates, also known as

licence plates, and validation decals, also known as stickers, to support further

modernization of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia as part of the transformation

of vehicle insurance in British Columbia, which is being made through Bill 11.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 20, Motor Vehicle Act (No. 2), 2020, 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.

BILL 21 — WILLS, ESTATES AND

SUCCESSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2020

Hon. D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled

Wills, Estates and Succession Amendment Act, 2020.

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I am pleased to introduce the Wills, Estates and Succession Amendment Act, 2020.

This bill will provide for recognition of electronic wills and will allow for the

signing of any will to be witnessed remotely. This bill is based upon the work of

the Uniform Law Conference of Canada and builds upon Ministerial Order No. 161, which

allows remote witnessing of wills during the current state of emergency.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 21, Wills, Estates and Succession Amendment Act, 2020, 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.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

NATIONAL INDIGENOUS PEOPLES DAY

AND ANTI-RACISM MOVEMENT

J. Rice: Yesterday was National Indigenous Peoples Day, an important day that is celebrated

each year on the 21st of June to recognize the rich, diverse and unique culture and

heritage of Indigenous peoples — First Nations, Métis and Inuit. This year celebrations

are taking place in the middle of a new awakening on the issue of systemic racism

against Black and Indigenous peoples in North America.

On this very special day and in this very momentous time, it's important that we acknowledge

the historic, colonial injustices and ongoing discrimination that continue to affect

the lives of Indigenous peoples. Racism is not just an American problem. Racism, especially

anti-Indigenous racism, is a problem in all of our communities across British Columbia

and Canada. It's important that we take this day and the entire Indigenous History

Month to reflect on what we can do as individuals and communities to combat racism.

While the road to reconciliation is a long one and one that will inevitably be taken

by our children and grandchildren, I'm proud of the work our government has done to

get this journey started, including collaboration on initiatives such as revenue-sharing,

affordable housing, language revitalization and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

Peoples Act, to name a few.

[1:50 p.m.]

In my own riding, we've been making important investments to support self-reliance

and self-determination of the nations on the north coast. Just recently we opened

new homes for Elders in Lax Kw'alaams, announced funding for a renewable energy project

in Klemtu and invested in recreation projects in Hartley Bay to boost the ecotourism

economy in their community.

This is far from enough. We all have a long way to achieve reconciliation and reverse

500 years of colonization. We are celebrating Indigenous History Month all throughout

June. I encourage everyone to take some time to learn about the Indigenous history

of the province and think about what we each can do in our own lives to advance reconciliation

and address racism.

BILL BOND

A. Wilkinson: It's with great sadness and a heavy heart that I rise in the House today to pay tribute

to the life of a great man and loving husband, Mr. Bill Bond of Prince George. To

the member for Prince George–Valemount: our hearts and thoughts are with you on the

loss of your husband and best friend.

To those who knew Bill, and even those who didn't, his death hits hard. He was the

type of person who exuded kindness, compassion and absolutely loved his family and

his community. He worked so hard to support the member for Prince George–Valemount

and our entire team, and we will miss him very much.

In his memory, a memorial fund has been set up through the Prince George Community

Foundation which will support the placement of automated external defibrillators,

or AEDs, in public spaces in the community he and his wife so deeply cared for, Prince

George. I encourage all members of this House to take the time to make a donation

on the Prince George Community Foundation site.

Bill worked hard for his community and would go above and beyond to help anyone in

need. I can say easily that our province was a better place because of Bill Bond.

I'd like to ask the House to join me in paying tribute to Bill, thanking him for all

that he has given to British Columbia and expressing our sincerest condolences to

the member for Prince George–Valemount and her family as they cope with this terrible

loss. Bill will be missed.

SURREY COMMUNITY RESPONSE

TO COVID-19

J. Sims: These last few months have been challenging for every British Columbian. Terms like

social distancing, flattening the curve and virtual meetings have become familiar

to all. We have had to learn to meet, celebrate and even mourn differently.

Amidst the challenges, we have also seen awesome human spirit and individuals and

groups coming together. Today I would like to thank and acknowledge some individuals

and groups in Surrey who have gathered to help care for those most in need during

this pandemic. I have been fortunate to meet with several groups doing great things

and have been impressed with the generosity, commitment and creativity of their effort

to support the community.

Although they have not been allowed to gather in person to worship, groups representing

all religions have found ways to serve. Gurdwara Dukh Nivaran Sahib, in collaboration

with other gurdwaras and the business community, has dedicated volunteers who every

day cook and prepare meals to go for those in need as well as hundreds of front-line

workers. They have also been delivering groceries and meals to individuals and families.

In Surrey, yes, but also across the province.

The Surrey Jamea Masjid and the Fiji Centre raised a significant amount of money during

Ramadan this year to help support vulnerable members of the community. Horizon Church,

in collaboration with City Dream, have been collecting food and other donations and

preparing thousands of food hampers for those in need.

Two and a half months ago, a group of women set a goal of sewing 10,000 masks by July

1 — masks that will be distributed free of cost, coordinated through Our Global Village

foundation. They met once a week from 11 to 11. This past Saturday, they surpassed

their goal.

Together we can make a difference and build more just communities. A huge shout-out

and thank-you to all who stepped forward to support. We are all in this together.

[1:55 p.m.]

ANTI-RACISM MOVEMENT

T. Wat: I'm rising in the House today to speak in support of the anti-racism movement rising

in our province and around the world. I have been devastated to witness recent events

both within our province and outside of it, and I have no doubt that every member

of this House shares my sentiments.

Since the outbreak of COVID-19, we have seen a horrific spike in hate crimes, racism

and intolerance here in British Columbia, many of which are being targeted towards

our Asian-Canadian communities. On top of this, the world has been shaken by the recent

killing of George Floyd. The worldwide protests that have followed the death are now

serving to highlight the racism that Black, Indigenous and other people of colour

still certainly endure on a daily basis.

Recent allegations of racial profiling in our health care system, particularly towards

Indigenous people and communities, highlight that racism is taking place in every

aspect of our society. It's being experienced by every culture and minority group

in our province.

On the first day of our historic parliamentary session, I want to take this moment

to affirm with everyone present that all parties and members must stand together to

show the world that there is zero tolerance towards racism of any kind in our province.

It is our responsibility to do whatever it takes to ensure every British Columbian,

regardless of race or ethnicity, feels safe, accepted and welcome.

Together we must show the world that every British Columbian should be proud to call

our province home.

7 P.M. CHEER FOR FRONT-LINE WORKERS

AND RESPONSE TO COVID-19 PANDEMIC

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, it started quietly. In fact, so quietly, few would ever know it was going on.

Just a mom and her two kids reaching out to a few neighbours by text, Facebook, what

have you, to say: "Can we join together? Can we unite every night at 7 p.m. to say

thank you?" It started in the West End when Rory Richards decided we needed to do

something more.

With so many people stuck at home due to COVID-19 restrictions and the need to flatten

the curve and look out for each other, many felt alone. Many felt scared. Many felt

they didn't have the connections in the community that they'd had before. So she and

other neighbours of ours in the West End decided to unite — to bang pots and pans,

to shout, to play trumpets, to play deejay sets, to dance, to cry, to hold each other

as family, to hold each other across the distance.

There's something amazing when you look out your tiny apartment window and see the

entire building across from you also coming out together at 7 p.m. to say thank you

to front-line workers: the health care workers at St. Paul's whose shift changes at

7 p.m. at night, but every front-line worker — grocery store worker, trucker, driver,

medical staff, anybody who is interacting with the public and had to keep coming to

their job despite their fears. This was a thank-you for them and still is a thank-you

for them. It spread across our province and, indeed, across our nation.

So I want to unite and say thank you to my constituents for thinking about all of

us and for giving us something to look forward to in the dark days of COVID-19. The

7 p.m. celebration is truly a thing that I look forward to every day — even if it's

at 6:45 p.m., as my son insists he needs to go bed early, or at 7:15 p.m., when he

remembers we didn't do it at 7 p.m. and insists we go back out and bang even if we're

banging by ourselves to say thank you.

Thank you, West End. Thank you, everybody, for joining us to celebrate our front-line

workers.

NATIONAL INDIGENOUS PEOPLES DAY

AND ANTI-RACISM MOVEMENT

D. Ashton: Today I am honoured to rise and speak on our National Indigenous Peoples Day, a day

where we honour the history, culture and contributions of Indigenous people throughout

the country. This coincides with June being National Indigenous History Month, where

we proudly acknowledge the unique culture, heritage and achievements of all First

Nations, Métis and Inuit people.

[2:00 p.m.]

Unfortunately, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many were prevented from getting together

this year to mark the occasion with public festivities and wonderful cultural activities.

That does not mean that we cannot collectively recognize the strength of all 203 First

Nations bands in British Columbia and their valuable contributions to our province

and our country.

We must also acknowledge the history of Canada's relationships with First Nations

and pledge to continue working together to build a better future for everyone. Working

on a better nation-to-nation partnership and creating economic opportunities are important

steps on the path towards strengthening these relationships. Together we can build

a path forward that will bring security and prosperity for everyone who calls this

wonderful province their home.

It is also necessary to acknowledge that the past weeks have been highlighted with

the debilitating racism that still persists with the poor and with many Indigenous

people. This has been front of mind for many in light of the anti-racism protests

across Canada and the United States and by the shocking news last week regarding serious

allegations of racial profiling and unacceptable treatment by members of our province's

health care system.

There's no place for racism anywhere in British Columbia. I know that every one of

us is united in our condemnation of these alleged actions. As we celebrate National

Indigenous Peoples Day, let us be reminded of the incredible heritage, diverse cultures

and outstanding achievements of First Nations, Inuit and Métis of our country.

Oral Questions

ECONOMIC RECOVERY AND

PROPOSAL FOR SUSPENSION OF TAXES

A. Wilkinson: It's been more than 100 days since we've been able to gather in this chamber, and

certainly a lot of history has been made during that time. It's had a profound impact

on British Columbians. There have been impacts on families, there have been impacts

on communities, and, of course, there have been those who have been stricken by the

disease and those who have unfortunately died due to the disease.

Now our task and what brings us here is to move British Columbia into the future,

to talk about making British Columbia a better place and to talk about recovery. We're

concerned, as the opposition, because we heard last week that rather than disclosing

a plan for economic recovery in British Columbia, the Premier's decided to embark

on another survey that will last for weeks.

We have to turn to the Premier and say: "We can do better. You can do better as the

government." We must do better so that British Columbians have some sense of hope

that they can recover from this without massive job loss and business insolvency.

The question goes to the Premier. Will the Premier take a simple, straightforward

step, like suspending sales tax, hotel tax and employer health tax for 90 days?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question. I want to also welcome those who are sitting

in their offices across British Columbia and those that are joining us here in the

Legislature today for what will be, I think, an extraordinary question period for

all of us.

I do appreciate the member's question. I do know he would agree with me that the past

100 days have been extraordinary for British Columbians, whether they be employees

or employers. We've been taking steps collectively to address issues as they've emerged,

whether it be in the hospitality sector, whether it be in construction or whether

it be in a range of sectors. We've been working hand in hand with leaders and with

workers to come forward with proposals and suggestions.

I'd also say that members of this House — on all sides, in all parties — have been

providing advice and counsel to government. We've been taking that greatly and putting

it into action in many sectors. What we're doing now is asking British Columbians

what their thoughts are. We have the opportunities and the luxury and the privilege

of sitting in this place, of penning letters, of making comments and engaging with

people in a way that British Columbians don't.

This is not a delay in restart. We have been going since the middle of May. We have

been adding to the basket of initiatives a $5 billion commitment that the Minister

of Finance and I made in our action plan not that long ago. I know that the member

on the other side will be supporting us as we go forward. But action does not mean

precluding British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: I've had the fortunate opportunity to speak to British Columbians all over this province

in the last 100 days in electronic town halls of up to 11,000 people, listening to

their concerns and listening to their worries. British Columbians are extremely concerned

about the future — starting now, but certainly going into the fall, when bills will

become due, including all the deferred taxes and fees from this government. They're

looking for ideas about how we can recover.

[2:05 p.m.]

It's not just about opening the doors again. That's a public health declaration. It's

not an economic plan. British Columbians are feeling impoverished. They're feeling

worried about the ability to go out and spend and participate in the economy. We see

on the streets of Victoria…. They're virtually empty during the business day because

people do not have confidence that they can get out there and participate in the economy

again. So we're asking this Premier to think about the people who have mortgages,

the people who have kids, the people who want to go to work, whether as an employee

or as an employer — or both, for that matter.

We ask the Premier a simple query that we've had on the table for three months now.

Will the Premier suspend sales tax, hotel tax and employer health tax for 90 days

to jump-start the B.C. economy?

Hon. J. Horgan: We have been working since March to put in place initiatives to protect workers, to

protect businesses — $5 billion. And $1.5 billion of that remains for a stimulus package

that we'll be rolling out in the days ahead to make sure that British Columbians stand

in good stead across the country and, indeed, around the world. I think it's important

for the Leader of the Opposition and members in this House and at home to remember

that this is not a British Columbia problem. This is an international problem that

requires extraordinary efforts on all of our parts to make sure we're doing everything

we can to ensure that British Columbians come out ahead at the end of this.

Certainly, we have bent the curve as British Columbians by listening to the counsel

and guidance of Dr. Henry and Minister Dix, as we laid out the health challenges that

people were facing. I would suggest to the member, and I'm sure he knows this, that

in order to build confidence for consumers to go back into retail, into hospitality

and other sectors that require that type of activity, we're going to have to do a

couple of things. We're going to have to make sure that the workplace is safe. WorkSafeBC

has been working with the public health officers to make sure that we put in place

guidelines so that customers can be comfortable when they go into an establishment

that they're going to be safe and the workers in there are safe as well.

This cannot be done by snapping fingers. It cannot be done by edicts brought forward

in question period. I'm happy, as I have been for the past number of weeks, to read

suggestions and hear suggestions from members of this House any time, anywhere. The

member put forward some tax changes. I suggest he take those issues up with the Minister

of Finance, who's always happy to talk about how we can make sure our economy continues

to grow.

It's going to be a challenging 100 days ahead of us, hon. Member, and you know that

full well.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a second supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: We hear the Premier talking consistently about public health measures, which actually

don't have anything to do with economic recovery. The federal government has spent

$7,000 for every living, breathing human being in this country in an economic support

and stimulus package. So far, the provincial government has spent one-tenth of that,

$700. It's a paltry contribution to a colossal problem.

We have more than 500,000 British Columbians who are not employed now, compared to

a year ago. This crisis has disproportionately damaged the careers of women and youth.

I think we all know young people who are now adrift, living on a federal cheque for

$1,250 a month, wondering where their future lies. It cries out for leadership from

this government to talk about what the future holds for British Columbians.

Once more I'll ask the Premier: is he prepared to look at a serious, simple, immediate

remedy for this problem by creating that confidence that comes from reducing taxes?

Drop the sales tax, drop the employer health tax, drop the hotel tax for 90 days and

give British Columbians a chance to get ahead, Premier.

Hon. J. Horgan: I guess perhaps we're not getting press releases through to the official opposition.

That surprises me. They're readily available on the Internet, gov.bc.ca.

The emergency benefit for workers, $1,000, is already $250 higher than the number

the member articulated there. This month another $451 through the climate action tax

credit will be going to families who deserve that. Families of up to four see $450.

A temporary rent supplement — the only province in the country to bring forward a

temporary rent supplement because of the high cost of housing in British Columbia.

The members might be aware of how that happened over time. But we're the only province

to put that in place, and we're going to advance it for a couple of more months as

we go forward.

There will be a $1,000 grant for those seeking a diploma, a certificate or a degree

come September, the first time a non-refundable grant will be available to young people

in British Columbia in 16 years.

[2:10 p.m.]

We're doing our part. We're doing our part to lay the groundwork for a very challenging

future.

I'm under no illusion. I know the member is under no illusion as well. We need to

continue to work together. I appreciate that the responsibility of the opposition

is to hold us accountable — I'm fine with that — but don't make stuff up. We've already

far exceeded the last comments in your question. I'm sure we'll hear more as the half

an hour progresses.

SMALL BUSINESS EMPLOYEE LAYOFFS

AND SEVERANCE PAY ISSUES

J. Johal: Small businesses are pleading with the Minister of Labour to change employment rules

to extend layoff time limits to the end of August, plus an additional six weeks once

emergency orders are lifted.

This is what Anita Huberman from the Surrey Board of Trade had to say: "Revisit your

recent negative response to the business community. Take action." Severance payments

will be significant, and in many cases, will lead to bankruptcy. Is that what the

B.C. government wants?

To the Minister of Labour, will he listen to the Surrey Board of Trade and fully extend

the time limit as small businesses are requesting?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question. We did hear of this issue. We put in place the

extension in the first place. There is, under

section 72 of the Employment Standards

Act, an opportunity for businesses to seek variance. I understand from correspondence

from them today that's not adequate for their needs.

We're quite happy to continue to engage in discussion. This is an important issue.

The member knows that. But I hope the businesses are not saying, through you to the

House and to workers across British Columbia, that the severance that those workers

earned, over perhaps potentially decades of employment with the companies in question,

are to give up that severance. Because if that's the proposition that you're putting

forward, we disagree with it.

The question at hand here is: can we find a way for businesses and workers to find

an accommodation so that we can get back to where we were pre-COVID? That's our objective.

But if you're suggesting that the severance that's owed to those employees should

be forgiven, that's not on.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a supplemental.

J. Johal: This is what I'm suggesting. In my community, Richmond-Queensborough, the constituency

that I represent, I have a small events company. They have six employees. Five of

them have been laid off. They are getting to the point where they'll have to pay severance.

That cost that company can't afford. They will have to declare bankruptcy. There will

be no job for those employees to go back to.

I remind the Premier…. Just think about that for a second. This small business that

employs six people has survived the COVID pandemic but isn't going to survive NDP

policy. That's the issue here.

The fact that various organizations around British Columbia had to send a letter today….

Up until yesterday — in fact, up until two hours ago — the answer was no from the

Minister of Labour, absolutely no. Instead, you have…. The Vancouver Board of Trade,

the Surrey Board of Trade, the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Federation of

Independent Business, ICBA, Restaurants Canada, Retail Council, B.C. Hotel Association

have collectively spoken in one voice that this is a clear and present issue.

Just the other day BCBC also stated that with 200,000 small businesses in this province,

they expect 10 to 15 percent to go under by the end of 2021. That's what we're talking

about here. It's the small mom-and-pop shops that are impacted, the backbone of our

economy.

The business community is also saying today: "B.C. employers will be faced with 'regulated

chaos' as the clock ticks down to deadlines beginning in early July, forcing many

businesses, by law, to terminate laid-off employees and pay out severance."

Will the Labour Minister act now before it's too late?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, we're happy to engage with the business community on these issues. They're

important issues. The issue of severance, however, is at the core of this question.

I hope it's the official opposition's position that those workers deserve that severance,

regardless of what goes forward.

We're happy to work with small businesses through their representatives, either through

the B.C. chamber or through the boards of trade. I have a meeting on Thursday with

them. We'll engage in that discussion at that time. I'm confident we'll find a way

forward that meets the interests of those businesses as well as those employees.

LONG-TERM CARE FACILITIES

AND SINGLE-SITE ORDER

FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

S. Furstenau: I'd like to begin just by commending the Minister of Health and the provincial health

officer for their steady guidance through the last 100 days. I know that the people

of B.C. are very grateful for their open and transparent communication on such an

ongoing basis.

[2:15 p.m.]

During this pandemic, we've seen outbreaks occur in many of our province's long-term-care

homes and assisted living facilities, and 585 cases, as of June 17, can be linked

to those outbreaks. Heartbreakingly, 116 residents or patients have died of COVID-19.

An important aspect of this tragedy is the part-time hours many front-line workers

are hired for. This resulted in many employees, mostly women and visible minorities,

working in multiple facilities to make ends meet, causing them unwittingly to spread

the virus between multiple homes. I welcome the fact that the government has ordered

employees to only work at one facility and provided a backstop for those who have

suffered financial hardship as a result.

The Premier has said he thinks that "you can anticipate that that will be — in fact,

you can be certain — that that will be the norm going forward."

My question is to the Minister of Health. How will government ensure that employees

are being paid a living wage so that they can afford to work at only one facility,

and when can we expect to see legislation that will make these changes truly permanent?

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you to the member for her question. The single-site order that was put in place

pursuant to the medical health officer or the provincial health officer's orders included

a very significant change that made it happen. This involved, by the way, 501 facilities

and 48,794 employees working in those facilities, 8,800 of whom worked at multiple

sites.

So what's happened? All 501 right now have single-site orders in place. All 8,874

employees have been assigned to a single site. In addition, all of those employees

— all of them, not just the 8,874 affected by the single-site order — are seeing a

top-up to their wages to bring them up to HEABC-negotiated levels, and those who have

a particular pay grade go to the highest pay grade if they're at multiple sites. So

these are significant changes.

I want to say that we made this happen by making those investments, by supporting

the process. Other provinces have talked about this. British Columbia, with the support

of all political parties, has acted, and I want to thank everyone involved in health

care who has made it happen. Those orders are going to be in place for some time and

give us the opportunity to work on the future.

But I have to say that it has been the contribution of unions such as the HEU, of

employers such as those represented by Denominational Health and the B.C. Care Providers

Association who've helped made it happen. This has been a team B.C. approach and has

to continue to be a team B.C. approach to ensure that workers are protected, but that,

most importantly, those people living in long-term care are given the care that they

need and that they deserve.

Mr. Speaker: The Third Party House Leader on a supplemental.

SENIORS CARE BY FOR-PROFIT

LONG-TERM CARE FACILITIES

S. Furstenau: Thank you to the minister for that response. Currently B.C. spends $1.3 billion per

year contracting for-profit companies and not-for-profit societies to operate two-thirds

of the province's long-term-care beds. The not-for-profit sector spends almost $10,000,

or 24 percent, more per resident per year than the for-profit sectors on direct care.

One of the biggest reasons for this disparity is that the for-profit sector underpays

their care aide staff by as much as 28 percent compared to the industry standard.

Not only that, according to the latest report from the B.C. seniors advocate, the

for-profit sector failed to deliver 207,000 hours of funded care, which means over

200,000 hours of care paid for with public funds was never provided. In contrast,

the not-for-profit sector provided every hour they were funded to deliver and then

80,000 hours more.

My question is to the Minister of Health. On March 4, 2020, the minister said in relation

to for-profit companies: "They have the responsibility to provide care. We have the

responsibility to regulate, and we will." When and how will for-profit companies be

held to these responsibilities?

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you very much for the supplementary question. I think you'll note that the report

of the seniors advocate was based on the fiscal year 2017-18. Since then a number

of changes have occurred that are important.

[2:20 p.m.]

Unanimously in this House, members supported Bill 47, which got rid of Bills 29 and

94 and empowered health care workers in a way that hadn't happen before, gave them

the same rights as other workers in society.

In addition, since that time, we've significantly increased funded care hours, particularly

for those two sectors, for the for-profit and not-for-profit sectors, who provide

public beds in B.C., such that at the end of this year, we're going to move from 3.1

care hours per resident-day to 3.37 care hours per resident-day.

Even more important than that, 75 care homes, all private or not-for-profit, were

funded at under 2.9 care hours per resident-day at that time, just to put that in

context. That is more than three hours per week, per resident of direct care under

the provincial standard. There were 75 such care homes. Now there are zero.

We have also brought in place, again working with a team B.C. approach, new mechanisms

both to enforce contracts and a new web-based tool, which we'll be moving to this

summer, to assist everybody in ensuring that the hours and the funding provided by

government are, in fact, delivered by providers.

We're doing this by working together. This is a made-in-B.C. approach. It involves

not-for-profit, it involves for-profit, and it involves associations of employers

and unions.

We are moving forward to improve seniors care in this province. Those changes — Bill

47, the hiring of new care aides, the increasing care standards — have made a significant

difference in B.C. as we've gone through the COVID-19 pandemic.

SMALL BUSINESS EMPLOYEE LAYOFFS

AND SEVERANCE PAY ISSUES

P. Milobar: The answers the Premier gave to the member for Richmond-Queensborough seem to be a

little bit all over the map.

On the one hand, the Premier is saying this is an issue that has just come up. He

makes it sound like it just came up. He makes it sound like it's something that they're

fundamentally opposed to. Yet this government had already extended it from 13 weeks

to 16 weeks for a temporary layoff. He then makes it sound as if they've always been

open and willing to discuss, even though last week his minister made it very clear

there would be no extension.

There are 133,000 British Columbians who are on temporary layoff right now, thousands

of small businesses. They need that certainty now, or there will not be 133,000 jobs

for them to come back to.

Organizations representing thousands of small businesses have written today: "Through

your inaction now, Minister, you are dismissing the gravity of the situation still

facing many businesses who have been forced to close or curtail operations and lay

off workers."

To the Minister of Labour or the Premier, will the time limits be extended today?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for the question.

As I said to the member for Richmond-Queensborough, we felt that the provisions under

section 72 of the Employment Standards Act were adequate — for companies that were

affected to take that avenue. Clearly, the opposition and those that have written

the letter today have a different view on that matter, and I'm absolutely prepared

to go back and take another look at it.

This isn't about trying to stop people from succeeding. Quite the contrary. We've

been spending the past 100 days doing the exact opposite, trying to make sure we're

putting in place initiatives that will help people, whether it be working with the

very businesses that you just articulated in convincing the federal government to

fully fund a sick pay operation that will allow people to not go back to work when

they're sick because of an economic imperative. That was driven by the very people

that the member just articulated to me.

It's not like we haven't been working closely with the B.C. Business Council, with

the boards of trade, with the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. Quite the contrary. We've

been working very closely with them to try and find ways that we can collaborate —

workers, employers, community groups — to find a better way forward. I hope the opposition

will join us.

I'm happy to revisit this issue with these groups as early as Thursday.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson on a supplemental.

P. Milobar: These groups have been voicing these concerns for quite some time now. They're not

waiting for the Premier to find yet another federal program to try to ride the coat-tails

on and make it look like it's a provincial program.

The minister's response last week to this issue was to say that employers can request

a variance. We heard the Premier reference the variances, as well, earlier.

The business community responded to that today. Here's another quote. This is a "hollow

offering," and "frankly, Minister, insulting to the many businesses struggling to

recover or simply keep their doors open."

Perhaps the Premier can enlighten all of us and tell us what the average time will

be for a business to get a variance application approved by the employment standards

branch.

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: We've been absolutely overwhelmed by the extraordinary work of government employees

over the past 100 days, doing things, going beyond anything they had imagined when

they took on their oaths of office and they signed on to work for the people of British

Columbia, whether it be to go to airports to add more resources to protect our borders,

with federal employees, or whether it be to work on issues like this.

We have regular meetings with the economic recovery task force where every corner

of government is coming together, a cross-government approach.

I just said to the member's first question…. I'm happy to revisit this question and

will do so as early as Thursday, when I have all of these people on a telephone call.

If that's not an adequate answer, he can ask me another question.

S. Bond: Frankly, to the Premier, that isn't an adequate answer.

Today the Minister of Labour received an absolutely scathing letter from organizations

representing thousands of workers across the province. We've heard several quotes,

but let me provide the Premier and the minister with another one.

This is what the business community wrote to the Labour Minister today. "Your lack

of appreciation for the dire situation facing thousands of small businesses and workers

calls into question" the Premier's sincerity. "Thousands of businesses now face what

amounts to 'regulated insolvency' because of your inaction."

So a very simple question: will the Minister of Labour do his job and commit to extending

the time limits today?

Hon. J. Horgan: I don't know if the technology is not working across the province. As I said to the

member for Kamloops–North Thompson, I'm happy to revisit this question, and I will

be speaking with many of the signatories of the letter on Thursday. If that's not

fast enough, we can set up an earlier call.

I think it's appropriate that we take the time. It's already scheduled. These are

busy people working on a whole host of issues.

If the opposition has come to the point where they demand you make a call today instead

of tomorrow, then so be it. Good question.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental.

S. Bond: We can save the Premier the time of making a phone call. In fact, what he could do

is commit today to extending the timelines.

That's what business organizations are asking for. This is what they said, once again,

today. Perhaps the Premier may want to have a conversation with his Labour Minister.

"The business community repeatedly brought this looming issue to your government's

attention, beginning in early April. Regrettably, you have not reached out nor responded

to our concerns until last Thursday, June 17, leaving your ministerial duties to others."

To the Minister of Labour…. Apparently, he hasn't had a conversation with the Premier.

This has been a discussion item since early April. The answer was no.

Can the Minister of Labour explain why he would force the permanent layoff of workers,

whether they or their employees like it or not?

Hon. J. Horgan: We have been discussing these and many other issues for over 100 days now. We've had

a cross-government approach. The minister and I reviewed this issue. We felt that

section 72, as I said, was appropriate. Clearly, these business organizations feel

differently. I am committing today to speak with them at a scheduled phone call on

Thursday to address the question.

J. Thornthwaite: This seems to be an NDP pattern — lots of discussions, lots of surveys, no action.

Hard hit small businesses are already struggling to survive. The minister's inaction

will now force them to pay significant unnecessary costs, which will be the final

straw for many businesses, sadly. For example, a restaurant with 30 staff would have

to pay $100,000.

Again, can the Minister of Labour explain why he is forcing small businesses to permanently

lay off workers and incur costs that they simply cannot afford?

Hon. J. Horgan: "Unnecessary costs" is how the opposition party refers to working people in British

Columbia. "Unnecessary costs."

This is a severance question. This is….

Interjections.

Hon. J. Horgan: The whole point why they're asking for relief is because they can't afford the severance.

I thought that's what one of your questioners asked, between reading paragraphs from

a letter that I've acknowledged I've received and will respond to.

[2:30 p.m.]

For a member of the opposition to say that it's unacceptable for business to be responsible

for their employees is a bit rich. It's a bit rich.

Mr. Speaker: The member for North Vancouver–Seymour on a supplemental.

J. Thornthwaite: What the NDP does not seem to understand is that unnecessary costs to businesses cost

people their jobs.

Since early April, small businesses have repeatedly begged this government to act.

What has been asked is just a simple fix to protect businesses from being permanently

asked to fire their employees. It's this minister's inaction, not COVID-19, that will

penalize small businesses and force them to shutter their operations for good.

Will the Minister of Labour explain how businesses are supposed to do this?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, we've been working with businesses on a whole range of issues. One that the

Attorney General just resolved not that long ago was wholesale pricing for the hospitality

sector. That's going to save an enormous amount of money for small businesses.

We put in place provisions to ensure that businesses wouldn't be evicted because there

were property management companies that wouldn't apply for federal relief. We've been

working hand in hand with our federal partners to find ways to fill gaps in the very

generous programs they've brought forward. It's been successful to this point in time.

I assumed that when we came back to the Legislature, when we could talk about these

issues, we would bring up more than one piece of correspondence, albeit important,

that I have acknowledged and said I will address before the week is out. Perhaps,

maybe, you should get another refrain. You've had 100 days to figure out question

period.

I've acknowledged the issue. We felt that the variance was appropriate. The opposition

disagrees with us. They don't feel that we should protect the severance rights of

individuals. But that's fine. We're going to work through this. I'm sure that the

opposition will take credit when the time comes.

[End of question period.]

Motions Without Notice

DISCHARGE OF ORDER FOR

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

TO SIT IN TWO SECTIONS

Hon. M. Farnworth: I have a suite of three motions for the House to deal with.

By leave, I move:

[That the order of the House of February 27, 2020 authorizing the Committee of Supply

for this Session to sit in two sections, designated

Section A and

Section B, be discharged.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

SPECIAL PROCEDURES FOR PROCEEDINGS

OF COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC

Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move the adoption of the Sessional Order establishing special procedures

respecting the regulation of the conduct of proceedings of the Committee of Supply

in exceptional circumstances (COVID-19 pandemic), a copy of which has been distributed

to the House Leaders of the recognized caucuses:

[1. That the Committee of Supply for this Session be authorized to sit in three sections,

designated

Section A,

Section B, and

Section C, to be subject to the rules that follow.

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY,

SECTION A AND

SECTION C

Authorizations

2. That the Committee of Supply,

Section A and

Section C, sit the weeks of June 22

and July 6, 13, 20 and 27, unless otherwise ordered.

3. That the Committee of Supply,

Section A and

Section C, be authorized to conduct

its proceedings by way of Zoom videoconferencing technology.

4. That Members who are participating in the proceedings of the Committee of Supply,

Section A and

Section C, by the approved videoconferencing technology must have the

audio and video functions enabled with their face clearly visible in order to be counted

towards quorum, to participate in debate, and to vote.

5. That, for greater certainty, the Committee of Supply,

Section A and

Section C,

be empowered to sit during a period in which the House is adjourned.

6. That the Committee of Supply,

Section A and

Section C, be empowered to examine

the Estimates – Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2021 referred to the Committee of Supply by order of the House of February 18, 2020.

Schedule of Estimates

7. That, at every Tuesday morning sitting of the House of a scheduled sitting week

during which the Committee of Supply,

Section A and

Section C, are to meet, the Government

House Leader shall table in the House the order of the of Estimates to be examined

the following Thursday and Friday by the Committee of Supply,

Section A and

Section

C, which shall be distributed to all Members by the Office of the Clerk. This

schedule

may only be altered by agreement of the House Leaders of each recognized caucus, and

notice of any such agreement shall be provided to the Office of the Clerk and communicated

to all Members as expeditiously as possible.

Meeting

Schedule

8. That the time for the ordinary meeting of the Committee of Supply,

Section A and

Section C, shall, unless otherwise ordered by the House or determined by the Committee,

be as follows:

Thursday:

Two distinct meetings:

9:30 a.m. to 12 noon

1:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

Friday:

Two distinct meetings:

9:30 a.m. to 12 noon

1:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

Composition

9. That the Deputy Speaker, the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole, or their

designate preside in the Committee of Supply,

Section A and

Section C.

10. That the Committee of Supply,

Section A and

Section C, each consist of 17 Members,

not including the Chair, being eight Members of the Government Caucus, eight Members

of the Official Opposition Caucus, and one Member of the Third Party Caucus.

11. That the Members of the Committee of Supply,

Section A be: the Minister whose

Estimates are under examination by the Committee and Jagrup Brar, Mable Elmore, Rick Glumac, Jennifer Rice, Janet Routledge, Jinny Sims,

Rachna Singh, Mike Bernier, Dan Davies, Peter Milobar, Mike Morris, Ben Stewart, Michelle

Stilwell, Jane Thornthwaite, Laurie Throness , and Sonia Furstenau .

12. That the Members of the Committee of Supply,

Section C be: the Minister whose

Estimates are under examination by the Committee and Garry Begg, Bob D’Eith, Mike Farnworth, Rob Fleming, Carole James, Bowinn Ma, Bruce

Ralston, Dan Ashton, Donna Barnett, Coralee Oakes, Tom Shypitka, Jordan Sturdy, Ralph

Sultan, Steve Thomson, John Yap , and Adam Olsen .

13. That substitutions for Members of the Committee of Supply,

Section A and

Section

C, be permitted. Advance notice of substitutions shall be transmitted to the Office

of the Clerk by the respective Whip at least one hour prior to the scheduled meeting

time.

Applicability of Standing Orders

14. That the provisions of Standing Order 45A,

Schedule 5, setting out the time limits

on speeches, apply to the proceedings of the Committee of Supply,

Section A and

Section

15. That, consistent with Standing Order 6, the presence of at least ten Members,

including the Chair, shall be necessary to constitute a proceeding of the Committee

of Supply,

Section A and

Section C, for the exercise of its powers.

16. That, consistent with Standing Order 61(1), the Standing Orders shall be observed

in the Committee of Supply,

Section A and

Section C, as may be applicable, except

Standing Orders limiting the number of times a Member may speak.

17. That, consistent with Standing Order 61(2), speeches in the Committee of Supply,

Section A and

Section C, must be strictly relevant to the item under consideration.

Proceedings

18. That, pursuant to established practice, a Minister may defer to a Deputy Minister

to permit such Deputy to reply to a question put to the Minister in the Committee

of Supply,

Section A and

Section C.

Voting and Divisions

19. That only the Members of the Committee of Supply,

Section A or

Section C, or duly

authorized substitutions, shall vote in a division.

20. That, when a division is requested in the Committee of Supply,

Section A and

Section

C, the Chair shall announce that a division has been called. No longer than 15 minutes

thereafter, unless the Committee unanimously agrees otherwise, the Chair shall again

state the question. No Member shall connect to or disconnect from the approved videoconferencing

technology after the final statement of the question until the division has been fully

taken, and every Member of the Committee present shall vote.

21. That, during a meeting of the Committee of Supply,

Section A and

Section C, if

a division is underway, the Committee shall sit beyond the ordinary time of adjournment

until the division has concluded and any consequential business has been disposed

of.

Reporting and Completion

22. That the Committee of Supply,

Section A and

Section C, shall report progress or

resolution and completion on the Estimates under consideration by it at the conclusion

of every meeting. The Clerk to the Committee shall deposit the report with the Office

of the Clerk in paper form or electronically, and such report shall be deemed for

all purposes to have been presented and tabled in the House. The report shall be entered

upon the Votes and Proceedings of the next sitting day of the House.

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY,

SECTION B

23. That the Committee of Supply,

Section B, continue to operate pursuant to established

practice as a Committee of the Whole House in whose proceedings all Members may participate.

CONCLUSION OF SUPPLY PROCEEDINGS

24. That after all Estimates have been reported as complete, Members of the Government

Caucus shall have a maximum of seven minutes cumulatively, Members of the Official

Opposition Caucus shall have a maximum of four minutes cumulatively, Members of the

Third Party Caucus shall have a maximum of two minutes cumulatively, and Independent

Members shall have a maximum of one minute cumulatively to summarize the Committee

of Supply debate on all Estimates completed. Such summaries shall be in the following

order:

a. Independent Members;

b. Third Party Caucus;

c. Official Opposition Caucus; and

d. Government Caucus.

OTHER

25. That this order expire on August 31, 2020.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE FOR MLA S

NOT IN ATTENDANCE MARCH 23, 2020

Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move:

[That pursuant to Standing Order 8, a leave of absence be granted to all Members who

did not attend the service of the House on March 23, 2020.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

[2:35 p.m.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour to present the following reports:

(1) Youth Substance Use Services in B.C.: An Update from the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth;

(2) Service Plan 2020-2021–2022-2023 from the Auditor General;

(3) Office of the Ombudsperson Public Interest Disclosure Annual Report 2019-2020 from the Office of the Ombudsperson of B.C.;

(4) Digital Communications, Disinformation and Democracy: Recommendations for Legislative

Change from Elections B.C.;

(5) 2019-20 Annual Report from the Office of the Merit Commissioner;

(6) Skills Immigration Stream of the British Columbia Provincial Nominee Program from the Office of the Auditor General;

(7) Extraordinary Times, Extraordinary Measures: Two Ministerial Orders Made Under the

Emergency Program Act in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic from the Office of the Ombudsperson of B.C.;

(8) LAMC Accountability Report 2017-18 and 2018-19 from the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 5, Employment Standards Amendment Act.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: This House will be in recess for five minutes.

The House recessed from 2:36 p.m. to 2:40 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2020

(continued)

M. Dean: I am very pleased to respond to Bill 5, the Employment Standards Amendment Act, to

make life better for people facing domestic or sexual violence. These changes ensure

that people have up to five days of paid leave without the stress of losing income.

This is in addition to five days of unpaid leave and up to 15 weeks of intermittent

unpaid leave.

Domestic and sexual violence is a painful and traumatic experience for too many people,

and the impacts of abuse on children and youth can leave a lifetime of harm and vulnerability.

We know this can happen anytime and to anyone, but women and girls are overwhelmingly

at risk, being seven times more likely to face this type of violence on any given

day. Indigenous women are 3½ times more likely to be impacted than non-Indigenous

women, and LGBTQ2S+ people are more than twice as likely than hetero people to face

it. Three out of five children in every classroom have lived with violence.

We also know that in times of crisis, violence can really increase. That's been a

really massive concern during this COVID-19 pandemic. Domestic and sexual violence

remains all too prevalent, and in this unusual time, many women are forced to spend

more time at home, which may be the most dangerous place for them.

I've worked in the social services sector for most of my career. I remember when I

was a social worker, I worked with a mom of five kids whose second husband was incredibly

violent. But eventually she did manage to get away from him, and she tried to rebuild

her life. She got into a new house with her children, but he followed her. He found

out where she lived, and one day he set fire to the house with her in it.

Later, as an employer, I've seen firsthand how this bill will help people. One Monday

morning, a team member arrived at our offices, and she was clearly in a traumatized

state. I took her to one side, and we sat down. She told me that she'd been date raped

at the weekend here in Victoria. She hadn't known what to do, and she hadn't gotten

any help or spoken to anybody else about it.

I helped her get to the Victoria Sexual Assault Centre. There she could receive trauma-informed

support, including a medical examination and counselling. She took the following day

off in order to access services and build her own recovery plan before returning.

This bill is important because for many people, there is no choice. They cannot risk

losing even a day's wages, sacrificing economic security, even though they want to

protect themselves and family. This is, sadly, a widespread issue across all regions

of B.C., and women are making tough decisions on a daily basis. Hundreds of women

are admitted to B.C. hospitals each year with severe injuries caused by their partners.

In an average year, 12 lives are tragically lost to domestic violence in B.C.

People who have faced domestic and sexual violence need time and space to rebuild

their lives. You can imagine that you might need to go to the doctor or go and see

a lawyer, or you might have to find a new home, a new school for children to keep

them safe and supported and make sure they can sleep soundly at night.

For many women and children, their lives will never be the same. Being able to access

supports and services at the right time and take those steps that are needed to rebuild

their lives without additional barriers or penalties will give them much more opportunity

for a strong and successful recovery and future.

In Canada, most provinces, including the federal government, require some domestic

or sexual violence paid leave –– between two to five days. And thousands of B.C. businesses

and communities and advocacy groups and individual British Columbians have come forward

with their support for paid leave. This will mean that someone facing this type of

violence will know that they can have the space and time to move quickly and make

the necessary changes to ensure that they and their children are safe.

When we introduced these changes to the Employment Standards Act on March 3, we had

a number of people join us in the Legislature: employers who want the very best for

their staff, people who see the face of those who have experienced violence in the

work they do every day, and people who have experienced violence and are looking to

us to help their voice be heard.

[2:45 p.m.]

There were tears that day from several people, and I know this topic is not an easy

one. But domestic violence and sexual abuse is not a private matter to be kept behind

closed doors, which brings us to today and the second reading of this bill.

We want the women in our province to be safe at home and in their communities. We

want our girls to be able to play outside with their friends without fear. We want

our female colleagues and staff to be able to walk home at night without having to

always look over their shoulder. We want a province where people of all backgrounds

can live in peace and safety. But we aren't there yet. There is so much more to do.

With this bill, however, we do have an opportunity to provide supports for people

to find safety and rebuild their lives at a most critical time. I want to take this

opportunity to say a special thank you to Minister Bains for his work, for his leadership

and for partnering with me on this very important….

Deputy Speaker: No names, Member.

M. Dean: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: The next member is Surrey–Green Timbers.

R. Singh: This is my honour to speak in favour of Bill 5. As the Parliamentary Secretary for

Gender Equity has already…. She has said it very well how important this bill is.

We know that British Columbia was one of the only two provinces in Canada which did

not have this provision of five days of paid leave for the victims of domestic violence

or sexual violence. Having worked in the field myself, having experience, I've had

the opportunity to hear from so many women who have experienced domestic violence.

It is a tough topic. It is a tough topic for anybody. But for a person who is dealing

with it, it can be very traumatic. Along with the trauma that the person is going

through, what their family is going through, and then also having to have to worry

about going to work, not missing work and not being able to take the help of the resources,

go for medical appointments, go for counselling, always being fearful that if I miss

work what is going to happen — we can't even imagine. I heard so many such stories

while in my work as a counsellor when I was working with a non-profit organization.

When this bill was introduced, I cannot say how pleased I was and how thankful I am

the Minister of Labour for all the discussions and all the consultations that he did

with the stakeholders to come to this point. We know that we, our government, wants

to support women. We want to support the victims of domestic violence. Everybody has

the right to have a safe living. We want them to have a…. We want to provide an environment

that is safe for them.

I really hope that we can build a society without domestic or sexual violence. But

when these things are happening, those people should have the proper resources. That's

why this bill is so important. So it took us a long time, I know, to reach this point.

There's a lot more that needs to be done for the victims, but these are the steps

that our government is taking to help them.

I can tell you that since this bill was introduced in March, I have heard from so

many organizations in my community of Surrey. So many people who were victims themselves

tell me personally how important this bill is for them, how important it is for their

families. I stand to support this bill, and my hope is that all of the members who

are going to speak should be supporting it. I will take my seat now.

J. Routledge: It's my pleasure and honour to speak on Bill 5, the Employment Standards Amendment

Act.

[2:50 p.m.]

Thirty-five years ago I volunteered in what was then called a shelter for battered

women. On occasion, I staffed the crisis line, sometimes on night shift, because we

would get calls from women at all hours. Some of them were whispered calls and some

of them were very tentative calls, because they felt so ashamed and so that no one

would hear them. We would talk about their options. I remember reassuring women that

they weren't alone, that it was not their fault that they were being beaten up and

that this was not normal behaviour.

I think one of the most important things that we did in that shelter was to believe

them. Because many people in their lives did not believe them. They did not believe

that they were being abused. In those days — still, often — the police who came to

the calls didn't believe them, their friends didn't believe them, and many members

of their families didn't believe them. One of the things that we would talk about

when they called was the importance of making a plan and how to make a plan.

I remember, often, these women would arrive in the middle of the night, delivered

by police. They had nothing with them other than the clothes on their back. That was

it. That's all they had. In those days, very few of these women had an independent

income. In fact, in those days, very few women in relationships — married women —

worked outside of the home.

I remember, this many years later, from my time as a volunteer in a shelter, that

escaping a violent relationship involved lots of appointments. Often we would accompany

women to some of these appointments. It involved a lot of medical appointments, sometimes

as a result of physical injury. Sometimes women came with broken jaws, broken noses

and broken arms. To recover from that, it never just took one appointment. There were

multiple medical appointments to get past their injuries.

Many of them arrived with an incredible amount of anxiety and depression, and they

needed to go to appointments for psychological counselling. Sometimes they had to

take their children to appointments because of the trauma that they experienced.

They needed to find a new place to live. The shelters were temporary, so they needed

to move, which meant that they needed to find new housing. They often weren't able

just to go to one apartment or one house. They would often have to go and see several.

They needed appointments to take their children to get registered in a new school.

They had many, many legal appointments. They had to file police reports. They had

to prepare for family court. They had to get restraining orders. Sometimes they had

to go to trials.

So if we ever find ourselves wondering, "Why didn't she just leave an abusive relationship?"

let's remind ourselves that leaving is complicated. It takes work and it takes planning

to ensure that she and her children are safe, physically and economically.

Let's fast forward to today. What's changed? Well, sadly, women still are being physically

and emotionally abused in their relationships, but they still have to make a plan

to escape and recover. Implementing the plan takes a lot of appointments.

But one of the things that is different today is that most women, most adult women,

whether they are married or in a relationship or not, work outside of the home. That

is a huge difference from 35 years ago. Having a job, having one's own income, can

be a lifeline to someone escaping domestic violence and trying to build a new life

for themselves and their children.

[2:55 p.m.]

But that lifeline could be cut if they are denied time off work to attend one of these

appointments or to look for a new place to live, and that lifeline can be cut if they're

afraid to ask for time off to go to court or for one of the other appointments for

fear of being judged an unreliable or poor worker.

Bill 5 strengthens that lifeline. I am so proud that we're introducing it and that

we're going to make huge changes in the lives of people who are suffering from domestic

violence.

S. Furstenau: It's great to be back in debate for this important bill after our spring session was

so abruptly cancelled by COVID in March.

Unfortunately, as with so many issues over the last three months, things have worsened

amidst pandemic conditions. As reported by crisis and support centres, rates of sexual

assault and domestic violence in British Columbia increased as stay at home and social

distancing orders came into force.

While we collectively follow the guidelines of the provincial health officer, staying

isolated in our homes as much as possible, it's clear that keeping the wider population

safe from COVID-19 has increased the risk for some of our most vulnerable citizens.

Women and children have been at an increased risk of experiencing or witnessing domestic

violence during this time, with limited ability to leave an unsafe situation or access

their support networks. This risk is exacerbated by economic hardship and uncertainty.

I can speak, hon. Minister, of the commercial that plays regularly where women are

shown how to give a hand signal over Zoom or Skype to indicate that they're in danger

in their homes. Every time I see that commercial I am wrenched by that experience

of imagining what it must be like in these conditions.

Noting this, the provincial government responded by supplementing current shelter

spaces with additional accommodations in hotels, working with the sexual assault centres

and shelters to increase services and coordinating with the federal government, who

announced an additional $40 million for women's shelters and sexual assault centres,

with $10 million invested in emergency shelters meant to benefit Indigenous women

and children needing to flee unsafe situations. There has also been additional media

coverage on this issue, which is important for awareness and combatting stigma, and

crisis phone, email and text services set up to support people.

While an immediate response to these concurrent crises is needed to keep people safe

in the short term, as policy makers, we need to address the root causes of domestic

and gender-based violence. We need to create solutions not just for women and children

fleeing violence but for the perpetrators of violence themselves. Intergenerational

trauma, economic uncertainty, a lack of social networks and substance dependency all

contribute to domestic violence. We should strive to create support and perpetrator

accountability systems that help move us forward as a society and away from violence

and abuse.

In that regard, I support this bill because it works to address a structural aspect

of this issue — that survivors of violence and abuse can be further harmed by a system

and a society that do not support or facilitate their recovery.

Bill 5 amends the Employment Standards Act to provide a new employer-paid leave of

up to five days for employees experiencing or who have specific family members experiencing

domestic or sexual violence. It builds upon the unpaid job-protected domestic or sexual

violence leave this government introduced for employees last year and represents further

progress on our commitment to support individuals experiencing this type of violence.

This change will help people who have faced domestic or sexual violence by giving

them a bit of time and space to address their most pressing needs, as so wonderfully

articulated by the member for Burnaby North describing her personal experience as

a support worker. This may mean getting medical, psychological and legal support,

or it could mean that they have the time to find a new place to live or a new school

for their children without having to lose their job or financial security in the process.

These amendments will modernize B.C.'s employment standards and bring our laws to

protect workers in line with other jurisdictions.

[3:00 p.m.]

The immediate aftermath of an assault is horrific enough as it is. Survivors should

not have to also worry about sacrificing their livelihood to attend to a crisis that

someone else created.

I would also like to recognize that the shift to include victims of sexualized violence

in addition to domestic abuse survivors was instigated last year by the official opposition

and is central to the strength of this policy.

As we advance solutions, we must always be careful to not inadvertently create a hierarchy

of victims that leaves those who are assaulted by someone other than their partner

without the services they need and deserve just as much as people in relationships.

And while today's progress is worth celebrating, we must continue to work to reduce

and better respond to instances of sexualized and gender-based violence in our province.

The decision by multiple governments over many decades to consistently underfund the

medical and justice services needed by survivors of sexualized violence is inherently

sexist and dangerous to women. We have a long way to go. According to government's

data, roughly two-thirds of those who have faced domestic violence in Canada are women.

One in four sexual assault victims were children aged 13 and younger. Three to five

children in every classroom are exposed to domestic violence. Indigenous women and

girls are 3.5 times more likely to face violence than non-Indigenous. And LGBTQ2S+

people are more than twice as likely to experience violence than the rest of the population.

I would like to also acknowledge two related tragedies that have happened since we

left this House in March: the horrific mass murder inflicted in the Maritimes in April

and the appalling crime committed in my caucus colleague's riding earlier this month.

The day after the news about Nova Scotia broke, my heart sank when I learned that

the perpetrator began with an attack on his partner. This means that one of Canada's

worst tragedies is yet again connected to domestic violence. Misogynistic beliefs

underlie all of the worst mass shootings that have taken place in Canada in my lifetime.

The 1989 Polytechnique shooting is the most infamous. The Toronto van attack perpetrator

was radicalized by an online incel subculture. In addition to his racist, anti-Muslim

views, the Quebec mosque shooter routinely attacked feminists online.

The latter two have not been widely discussed in the context of violent misogyny.

This is a mistake. By failing to examine the underlying toxic views of the perpetrators,

we are ignoring a critical aspect of these crimes. Larger-scale analyses confirm this

pattern. An analysis of FBI data on mass shootings found that 57 percent of mass shootings

between 2009 and 2015 included a spouse, a former spouse or other family members among

the victims.

We need to be vigilant and uncompromising, even when the behaviour doesn't yet constitute

outright physical abuse. Violence exists on a spectrum. People who know the Nova Scotia

shooter say that his jealous treatment of his girlfriend was a red flag. Indeed, experts

say that misogynistic treatment of women and other family members by a perpetrator

is often observed before it escalates to mass violence. Before the perpetrator has

terrorized society, they terrorize those who are closest to them.

The responsibility for combatting misogyny must be shared by everyone. We all need

to speak out when we encounter instances of misogyny, educate ourselves and build

the underlying conditions that support gender diversity and inclusion. We need to

do all of this urgently, and we need to do it all the time, not just in the wake of

a tragedy.

In particular, we need to see more proactive efforts from men. People of marginalized

genders have long been at the forefront of fighting to address gender-based violence,

taking on the work of advocating for policy change and building victim support organizations.

Men need to show that they are united in the fight for equality, especially by fostering

alternative visions of masculinity that are not tied to the control or domination

of others.

This need not be a daunting task. The majority of men already model equitable treatment

of others, and much progress towards equality has been made. As we all embrace more

learning and open dialogue, we will build a society where everyone can enjoy a healthy

sense of identity that doesn't diminish or threaten anyone else.

[3:05 p.m.]

Likewise, women with privilege must go above and beyond to centre the experiences

of women who face compounding threats, such as those associated with racial discrimination

and poverty. By sharing the responsibility for combatting gender-based violence and

discrimination, we will all share the rewards of a more peaceful, equitable province.

I thank the members of this House for their collaboration on this important bill,

and I trust we will continue working together to advance systemic solutions to the

systemic discrimination facing women.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Seeing no further speakers, the minister will close the debate.

Hon. H. Bains: I want to begin by thanking all the members of this House who participated in the

debate and shared their stories and talked about how strongly they feel about this

very, very important bill that we are discussing here today. I want to especially

thank the Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity for all her hard work, advocacy,

dedication to gender equity and especially her work on peer, domestic or sexual violence.

I'd also like to acknowledge the work of the MLA for Surrey South for her passion

and support of this legislation. And I want to thank the Leader of the Third Party.

I want to say thank you for supporting this bill as well and also sharing your thoughts

and stories that you've brought forth. I think those are tremendous pieces of information,

and the comments, that we could all take from you and from others as we move forward

to make this province and the lives of people in this province much better.

The paid leave will support workers experiencing or who have specified family members

experiencing domestic or sexual violence by allowing them to relocate or to pursue

legal and medical counselling or other support services without the risk of losing

their income or their jobs. I'm grateful for the public employers, labour representatives,

Indigenous women organizations, the groups supporting individuals and families who

have experienced domestic or sexual violence, and gender equity groups for sharing

their views and perspective on how to improve domestic or sexual violence leave.

It's an important bill. I'm so proud that I am the one sponsoring this bill in this

House. I want to say thank you for the tremendous amount of support that I received

from members from all sides. It's not a political issue. It is an issue that affects

all of us as a society.

I now move second reading of Bill 5.

Motion approved.

Hon. H. Bains: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at

the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Bill 5, Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2020, read a second time and referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 11, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act.

BILL 11 — ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES

(VEHICLE INSURANCE)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2020

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be now read a second time.

[3:10 p.m.]

I think most members of this House know the current auto insurance system in our province

doesn't work. We have a system where ICBC is both required by law to provide benefits

to people but also required by law to provide a robust defence to drivers who are

at fault in the system. That's what they bought insurance from ICBC for in the first

place. That dual role of providing benefits while also, at the same time, showing

up in court against the same person they're supposed to provide benefits to results

in an incredibly problematic situation where costs continue to go up, benefits are

not keeping up and we need to do better.

We also have an issue where those injured in a vehicle crash aren't necessarily getting

the care they need. This is especially true in a situation of a one-car collision

where someone runs into a moose, for example, or hits black ice and goes off the road

— a situation where someone is at fault for a crash, whether due to inexperience,

a moment of inattention or otherwise. But also, people who aren't at fault in a collision

who go to a multi-year court battle and have a significant portion of their award

eaten up by various costs — expert witness reports, disbursements, legal fees and

so on.

In addition to the legal fees paid by those who have to go to the court system, government,

through ICBC, is spending a great deal on legal costs as well. All of this while rates

continue to go up. Obviously, we need something that works for British Columbians

and puts the recovery of those who are injured in crashes at the forefront. We also

need a system that provides affordable rates.

Fortunately, we have two systems in Canada that have been operating for many years

that are doing just that with public auto insurance systems. It is on those systems

that the proposal in front of the House is modelled.

Now, I know that there are many people who say that the solution to the issue is simply

to privatize the system or to "open it up to competition." We can look at other provinces

where they've done that. We did. The results are not good.

In Alberta, where the insurance system is fully private, drivers are facing rate hikes

as high as 30 percent, and they see those rate hikes with significantly less care

coverage than British Columbians have in our basic insurance. In Ontario, their own

Finance Minister said they have the highest auto insurance rates in Canada. Even when

private insurers issued a report about what private insurance, in what they call a

full-competition scenario, would look like in our province, they had double-digit

rate increases for every driver under the age of 40.

Now, obviously, we need to fix the situation. It's just not obvious to me that any

of those provinces have much to offer us by way of solution. Those are all private

jurisdiction provinces with full competition, what I've heard some people suggest

is a solution for our province. The provinces with public insurers and enhanced care–type

systems like we're proposing here…. Manitoba, for example, just asked for the largest

rate decrease in their history. Already one of the lowest-cost provinces, and the

rate decrease that they're asking for is 10.5 percent. So just imagine that.

With the amendments to the Insurance Corporation Act, this bill fulfils our government's

commitment, as well, to ban the transfer of ICBC profits to government by eliminating

the authority of government to direct ICBC to make payments to government from profits

from the corporation's optional business. This means that in future, ICBC profits

will only be used for the purposes of public auto insurance — for drivers in the province,

to benefit them, because it is their money that they paid in premiums.

With the amendments to the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, this bill will restrict actions

and proceedings with respect to bodily injury caused by a vehicle for accidents occurring

on or after May 1, 2021. Actions for certain damages will still be permitted in limited

circumstances, such as when you have, for example, a negligent vehicle manufacturer

— the brakes on the car don't work the way that they're supposed to —negligent vehicle

repair shops, where a repair that was supposed to be done to the brakes results in

a collision, or a liquor licensee overserves someone, for example, and that contributes

to bodily injuries. Those are all actions that will continue, or are proposed to continue,

should this bill pass.

Dangerous drivers will continue to be held accountable for their reckless behaviour,

so there will, of course, be the existing criminal and administrative sanctions at

the federal and provincial levels. But it's important to note that those that are

convicted of certain driving-based Criminal Code offences, like impaired driving and

dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, may also still be personally sued for certain

damages under the proposed system. These limited actions would be in addition to what

the injured driver would be able to access under the enhanced care benefits under

the proposed system.

The amendments to the Insurance (Vehicle) Act also set out the entitlement of B.C.

residents to enhanced care benefits when they're injured in vehicle accidents on a

highway anywhere in Canada outside of British Columbia or in the United States, as

well as for certain off-highway vehicle accidents. The amendments also set out the

entitlement of non-residents to enhanced care benefits when they're injured in vehicle

accidents in British Columbia or when injured by a B.C.-licensed vehicle outside British

Columbia.

[3:15 p.m.]

The amendments to the Insurance (Vehicle) Act impose a legal duty on ICBC to advise

and assist an individual with making a claim for enhanced care benefits and to endeavour

to ensure that the individual is informed about and receives the enhanced care benefits

that they may be entitled to. We're doing this to ensure that the culture at ICBC

shifts away from one of adversarial battles in the courts to one where ICBC's job

is to work with care providers to provide people with the care they need to get better

after a collision.

The benefits people are entitled to and proposed under the act include medical rehabilitation

and related benefits, which are increased to at least $7.5 million. That's 24 times

more care than current accident benefits, which I note our government increased in

April 2019 for the first time since 1991 — to give you an example about how long ago

it was that these benefits were increased and how dramatic the increase under the

new system will be.

New benefits will be in place for compensation for permanent impairments and injuries.

The amount will depend on the severity of the injury. It's expected for catastrophic

injuries that the compensation for permanent impairment will be up to $250,000. This

is in addition to the medical rehabilitation and related benefits and is intended

to replace the so-called pain and suffering awards given currently in the court system

at a similar level for the most serious injuries, which is what British Columbians

expect.

Extended benefits for those with catastrophic injuries are also new benefits that

will be available. They're up to $1.2 million for those who need it most as they transition

to living with their automobile-related injuries.

There's an income replacement benefit for earners — including the self-employed —

and non-earners, as well as for students and minors. There's a loss of studies benefit

for students and minors when they can't go to school because of their injuries from

the collision. And there are also family and caregiver benefits and death benefits

to support those closest to those injured in a collision as the whole family struggles

to adapt to a new life.

All in all, we are significantly increasing benefits so all British Columbians who

are injured in a vehicle accident can have peace of mind that they will get the care

they need for as long as they need it. That we can do all of this while proposing

to reduce rates, on average, by 20 percent tells you how much we're currently spending

on legal expenses in the system.

I want to point out to the members that the amendments to the Insurance (Vehicle)

Act also set out the limits on actions and proceedings with respect to vehicle damage.

It will create a new first-party coverage for vehicle damage which further simplifies

auto insurance, improves fairness — so that those with the most expensive vehicles

are paying the most expensive rates — and eliminates unnecessary litigation with respect

to vehicle damage.

Amendments to the Insurance (Vehicle) Act also provide for pre-litigation payments

with respect to vehicle accidents occurring before May 1, 2021, to increase the portion

of an award that goes to an injured person rather than towards legal costs. These

are amounts where there is no dispute that the person is entitled to it, ICBC should

pay it, and they shouldn't have to pay a lawyer to access that money.

The bill makes other consequential and related amendments to the Insurance (Vehicle)

Act in the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act.

With these amendments, British Columbians injured in a vehicle accident will get the

care they need for as long as they need it, and we will continue to hold bad drivers

accountable. Determinations of which drivers are at fault or responsible for vehicle

accidents will still occur, and if you cause a vehicle crash, your premiums will still

go up.

These changes are fundamental and overhaul a system that was too focused on the litigation

process and associated costs. With these changes, we're creating an auto insurance

system that provides significantly improved benefits that British Columbians need

to recover from a vehicle accident while ensuring stability, predictability and fairness

with more affordable premiums. I hope all members will support this badly needed reform.

J. Johal: It's a pleasure that I get to rise here today and provide my thoughts on Bill 11,

the vehicle insurance amendment act, 2020.

Now, it goes without saying that the ups and downs and tumultuous story of ICBC is

not lost on anyone in this room or joining us virtually from home or the office. The

back and forth on the subject is such a hallmark of this space that recently some

members of the media were even blessed with a fully playable board game satirizing

the whole ordeal. ICBC Monopoly, which I'm sure will become a bestseller, perfectly

encapsulates the issues.

[3:20 p.m.]

First and foremost, the title says it all. It is a monopoly controlling the province's

auto insurance options, giving little leeway for a competitive market, even though

other jurisdictions seem to operate just fine with the access to choice. The whole

game is really just a big tongue-in-cheek joke, but I guess that's the real point.

The operations and decisions of this Crown corporation have, in their own right, become

a joke. However, in this case, the reality isn't so funny.

Comparative to other provinces, British Columbians pay the most for their auto insurance

— and not just by a little bit either. Our province holds the distinction of overcharging

its citizens for auto insurance with little or no option for change. We all witnessed

last fall, when the new pricing scheme came into play and rates skyrocketed for thousands

of drivers, some by thousands of dollars a year, forcing heart-wrenching decisions

for many young British Columbians as to whether they attend post-secondary or insure

a car.

Those types of ultimatums should not be placed on people. The question remains: what

provides the best solutions for British Columbians? Is it decades of monopoly that

is generally tolerated but certainly not well liked by most of this province? Or is

it a more modern framework that provides the right balance of options and opportunities

to give the people of this province choice and a secure thought that their rights

are protected and respected. With the introduction of this bill, I question whether

things will be getting any better at all for your average driver here in British Columbia.

Now, we all saw, earlier this month, when the Attorney General touted the elimination

of the previous cancellation fee that came in with reducing or exiting your current

coverage. Now, I'll agree that was a welcome rebate for those that saw themselves

no longer in need of insurance or their current form of insurance during the previous

few months of stay-at-home orders, home offices and business closures. But that still

does not equal anywhere close to the reductions seen in other jurisdictions — insurance

companies that provided $685 million in relief to Ontario drivers or about 70 percent

of policyholders who are receiving some form of relief with an average savings of

about $150. This correlates to roughly 5 percent of the total annual premiums Ontario

drivers pay.

This type of reduction was similar to some other provinces that saw insurance companies

giving back to its residents that had been facing so much hardship during the COVID-19

pandemic. This was backed by government. Where is that type leadership here in B.C.?

No rebates in sight, just raised premiums. B.C. has also seen a large reduction in

accident claims due to a reduction in driving, yet none of these savings will be passed

on to taxpayers.

I find it truly discouraging that this government is going to hike rates to the degree

they have and then deny a warranted reduction or rebates at a time when British Columbians

are facing a uniquely challenging financial challenge outside of their control. The

Insurance Bureau of Canada has laid out its own issues with how this government has

handled the changes forced upon drivers due to the pandemic. They have highlighted

how ICBC is not only still paying for ads trying to convince British Columbians that

a move to no-fault is great but that they are also not engaging British Columbians

to discuss how they can reduce their rates or change their plans as their driving

habits changed over the last few months.

This, again, comes back to the issue of choice. The IBC said in a release last month:

"Where drivers have a choice, insurance companies are compelled to return premiums

because, if they don't, their customers are free to shop around and find a company

that does."

Why are British Columbians forced to accept this? This is just the latest example

of ICBC business practices that would never be tolerated in a system where there was

choice and competition. That is the crux of the argument — choice. We do not have

that luxury here, as ICBC controls the auto insurance market and, accordingly, nearly

all of the optional coverage market. Choice is not even a reality here. We are at

the whim of whatever ICBC decides. How is that fair?

As we touch on the conversation of rebates that we are not receiving, it is well known

that this government has claimed that drivers will see rebates starting next spring,

which, coincidentally, lines up with election season. Understandably, the Attorney

General will toss that coincidence aside, but we know what that is about. It is a

shiny carrot to dangle at election time. But I truly believe that the people of this

province are becoming wise to the fact that this system is simply not working for

the bulk of the province.

Choice is something that should be readily available to residents as it is in other

jurisdictions. Choice brings competition. Competition creates the incentive to act

in ways that will benefit drivers.

One of the ways that ICBC has really separated itself from better functioning programs

is the failure to innovate its practices or improve efficiencies. You can see this

in regards to how long it has taken for us to move to online access and to deal with

the virtual world. These are commonsense 21st-century adaptions that are needed. Innovation

and ease of use is a hallmark of the private sector as it needs to compete.

[3:25 p.m.]

The lack of competition and choice means that this Crown dinosaur can just continue

along at its sluggish pace without stepping its game up, and unfortunately, that means

costing British Columbians more.

Now, given the points that I've made, it's important to touch on where this government

is moving this insurance scheme. This bill is bringing in the enabling legislation

for no-fault insurance, though they're not calling it that. But we all know this is

the introduction of no-fault insurance here in B.C.

The Attorney General has spent enough time denouncing the very framework he is bringing

in to call it its real name, hence the charmingly worded "enhanced care model."

The claim is that the move to no-fault will also see ICBC make a move from an adversarial

and defensive operator to one that prioritizes the care of all injured in an auto

accident. Given the reputation and history of how ICBC has fought claimants tooth

and nail for settlements, I will agree with that statement when I see it.

Even with the move to no-fault, on which the details are yet to be outlined in this

legislation, it's important to know that we still will not see the same rates as other

jurisdictions. In fact, public insurers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Quebec operate

in no-fault regimes. In Manitoba, drivers pay, on average, $1,150 per year in premiums.

In Saskatchewan, they pay just over $1,200 on average. This government itself estimates

B.C. drivers will pay $1,900 for auto insurance. That is an almost comical difference,

but again, not a single ratepayer is laughing.

Where I find concern is that cabinet retains a regulatory ability to establish requirements,

procedures and an evaluation process for settling disputes, as well as grounds for

exemptions from the process. Where are those details, and how will we know where the

Attorney General is landing with the regulations that will follow the passing of this

bill?

The AG himself says: "Regulations are a significant part of this new system…so it's

certainly a framework." So I hope that the member opposite can shed light on this

in a more meaningful way.

This broad regulatory authority has, understandably, invited skepticism from critics.

Pre-COVID-19 pandemic the initial consultations were expected to be between February

and May of 2020. Where this is at now is unknown, though I do hope we will get a better

understanding of this in the weeks ahead.

Understandably, there have been stakeholders who have argued that there is a conflict

of interest between meeting ICBC's financial goals and cabinet ensuring that they

provide adequate compensation. On this note, one thing is clear: there is still a

substantial piece of the puzzle missing. ICBC still hasn't come clean on its finances

and exactly how many billions it has lost on its investments. Where is the current

update on its books? This, of course, is something that we have been asking of the

Finance Minister — as well as any budgetary projections or models are basically trash

in the wake of the pandemic.

It goes without saying that the province's coffers have taken a sizeable hit in the

wake of the last few months, and as you know, we as opposition have asked for an update

on this. This bodes the same for ICBC. What is the state of the books? Has it lost

money like WorkSafeBC has? Has it retained more funds over the past few months? Has

its investment been affected? Given the V-shaped recovery of the stock market, I would

hope that the bottom line has not been too negatively affected, but we will wait to

hear the results of that.

Now, on this topic, it is prudent to point out that the Finance Minister has stated

that first-quarter financials won't be available until September, after the session.

This seems like an obviously intentional deflection of accountability. In some ways,

it is redundant to think of debating and discussing financials when there's no clear

snapshot of the current state of the government's books.

Waiting until the Q1 report, which will be right in time for an election, does not

sit right with me, and it shouldn't with British Columbians. We need a true and full

fiscal update of where ICBC's finances are at.

Additionally, given the closure of legislative proceedings over the next few months,

the evidence act wasn't passed before March 31. This means that government won't be

able to fix its $400 million loss in the previous fiscal year, meaning last year had

a larger loss than anticipated. So it is hopeful that the disparagement can also be

commented on. The point being that there are a lot of unknowns at play, and I am pleased

that we are back and able to ask these important questions and get a clearer understanding

of just what is going on.

I have made it clear that the current operations of ICBC denies British Columbians

a choice, but it also affects the rights of accident victims and puts them at the

mercy of ICBC's decision-making process. There is story after story of ICBC lawyers

trying to limit settlements, reduce compensation and, in some cases, go out of their

way to deny the rightful claims of victims of motor vehicle accidents. To me, that

carries with it an inherent issue. Where is the recourse to ensure that the rights

of British Columbians are protected?

[3:30 p.m.]

Now, as I've said, the NDP are marketing the no-fault insurance to British Columbians

as the enhanced care model of insurance. They have touted it as being able to provide

higher care, treatments and income benefits, all of this being paid for by an apparent

reduction in legal costs.

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

However, this is all being accomplished by largely removing the ability of victims

to sue an at-fault driver for a vehicle accident. There are a few exceptions to this

rule, but they are quite limited and specific. There will still be the option to sue

at-fault drivers who are convicted of specific Criminal Code offences, like impaired

driving, for additional compensation. In addition, for those who have committed the

set-out criminal offences, people retain the right to sue certain non-motorist parties.

In actuality, these exceptions do not amount to a large portion of cases, which is

why the government believes that ICBC will be able to save as much as $1.5 billion

due to the elimination of litigation costs associated with accident claims.

My reservations about this bill fall into two broad categories. First, my doubts about

no-fault itself, which I believe strips British Columbians of certain rights, while

also likely failing to accomplish its goal of making insurance more affordable for

the people of British Columbia.

Second are my reservations with the bill itself, which leaves so much to be determined

by regulation, and in doing so, means that much of the details of the transition to

no-fault are yet to be determined. This means that we do not yet have a full picture

of what it will look like in practice, while also creating a possible situation for

a conflict of interest for cabinet.

But let's first take a closer look at no-fault. The NDP are making the case that the

major reason ICBC is losing money, and in turn, charges such high insurance rates,

is because of the cost of litigation and settlements. They believe that a switch to

no-fault will mean a nearly 90 percent decrease in legal costs.

However, this fails to take into account the other factors that contribute to rising

claims costs. These include inflation and increase in policies, as well as an increase

in the cost of vehicle repairs, which have increased by 56 percent over the last ten

years and are only expected to increase over time. While the government points to

other provinces as guidelines for this switch, it doesn't highlight that few have

pure no-fault systems in place. Saskatchewan even uses a hybrid system, where drivers

can choose between no-fault and the current system. Why have they decided against

offering this option to British Columbians?

But at the heart of the problem with no-fault is that it strips rights away from B.C.

drivers. It abolishes the right to sue for compensation for pain and suffering, and

instead awards compensation to victims based on a meat chart of pre-set amounts for

specific injuries, not allowing for unique experiences and impacts on individuals

and their families. No-fault will also force those who have a significant injury to

deal with ICBC for the rest of their lives, adding increased hassle and the complications

of bureaucracy.

The switch to no-fault will also fail to address other existing problems with ICBC,

having no impact on its failure to innovate or improve efficiency. It will only continue

to give more power to this out-of-date government monopoly while simultaneously taking

more choice away from the people of B.C. This is directly in contrast with what we

have been hearing from British Columbians. They want choice in auto insurance. They

want to be able to choose what works best for them and their unique circumstances.

Taking away their right to sue an at-fault driver for appropriate compensation does

not allow for this.

After all this, there is still no guarantee that the switch to no-fault will mean

more affordable rates for B.C. drivers. The NDP are estimating that there will be

savings, but this is not a sure thing. The government is asking B.C. to trust that

they know best — this after they spent years in opposition arguing against this very

system and even promising that they themselves would not introduce it in B.C. Yet

here we are today.

In addition to those overarching problems with what this bill will usher in, there

are also significant concerns with the structure of the bill itself that are worth

discussion, and we'll certainly be asking questions about this when we move into committee

stage.

The biggest issue is how much of this bill is left to be determined by regulation.

Cabinet has the power to make regulations establishing the amount of income replacement

benefits, benefits for non-earners, loss-of-studies benefits for students, benefits

for minors and benefits for people incapable of holding employment. These are a lot

of important details that will not be put up for debate in this House, a lot of details

that can be changed quickly based on the discretion of cabinet.

The minister himself has referred to this legislation simply as a framework, admitting

how significant regulation will be to this new system. This broad regulatory authority

is why many people have argued that there is a significant conflict of interest at

the heart of this bill. It leaves it up to cabinet to weigh the interests of meeting

ICBC's financial goals against the needs to provide adequate compensation for British

Columbians.

[3:35 p.m.]

The people of B.C. deserve to know the details of how their compensation will change.

They deserve to know exactly how this bill will affect them. Yet there is so much

that is still not known.

Now, I understand the government's desire to make insurance rates more affordable

for British Columbians. In fact, affordability is a significant issue here in B.C.,

and people should not have to work three jobs to be able to pay for their car insurance.

However, it's still unknown if no-fault will really bring significant savings for

the people of B.C. While the proclaimed benefit of this change may not pan out, it

will certainly diminish the rights of British Columbians in the process.

I understand that under the current system, versus where the NDP is taking B.C., there

will be some presumed cost savings on the books. But does that reduction in cost equal

a better system for British Columbians? Where is the recourse to not go the no-fault

route like other jurisdictions have? Again, choice and rights are the issue. This

is just another example of the NDP's "government knows best" approach.

Will this Crown corporation fight for every victim's best-case scenario or aim for

settlements that benefit their bottom line? That is still unclear, and it worries

me to think that choice is simply not a factor. It is a case of ICBC's way or the

highway, and that does not bode well. Competition breeds choice and forces institutions

to fight for customers, which in turn could provide serious cost savings for drivers.

Frankly, this is about choice and rights. I worry that British Columbians will not

see a benefit in either avenue with this legislation. This bill will move us in the

opposite direction of where we should be going in B.C. — removing choice in car insurance

when we should be increasing it.

In committee stage, I hope that we'll be able to get more clarity about what these

changes will mean for the people of B.C. But if they are looking to see massive savings

in their car insurance, I don't think they should hold their breath.

S. Furstenau: I'm pleased to stand today and support Bill 11, the Vehicle Insurance Amendment Act.

This bill will fundamentally reform ICBC from its current litigation-based system

and adopt a public care-based model. The B.C. Green caucus has long advocated for

the need to fundamentally reform ICBC, and we welcome the decision to adopt a public

care-based model.

ICBC, in its current form, hasn't served the needs of British Columbians very well.

It's become extremely clear in recent years that the status quo is financially unsustainable

for ratepayers around the province. At the centre of our conversation about reforming

ICBC needs to be the health and well-being of British Columbians, particularly those

who are injured on the road. Looking at the evidence, I'm convinced that a care-based

model, if implemented correctly and carefully, can provide significantly better care

for anybody injured on our roads, particularly those who face catastrophic injuries.

It's why I'm pleased to stand today to welcome this transformation of ICBC. In correspondence

and meetings with people since the legislation was first introduced, I know there

were many questions about how this change is going to work. One theme that has come

through again and again is a widespread lack of trust in ICBC. For these reforms to

be successful, government and ICBC will need to earn the trust of British Columbians

as they work to implement this new system.

It is absolutely critical that the government lead the way in creating a significant

cultural shift in ICBC in order for the public to trust that they will receive the

care and financial supports they need if they are injured. Government needs to lead

the shift away from our current adversarial model and towards a collaborative approach

between ICBC and our health care system — one that puts the recovery of people at

its centre.

ICBC's mandate must be reformed to leave no doubt that its focus is supporting British

Columbians to get the care they need to be well. ICBC, like all insurance, should

be there to support people when they need it. Adequate coverage to get well should

not be something people have to fight for in the courts.

Our current litigation-based model provides some support for injured drivers, but

beyond a relatively modest level, they are forced to sue for what they need in the

courts. You can only access additional compensation if you successfully sue someone

at fault. This means that in cases where you're injured but there's no one to sue

— like if you run into black ice or hit an object — you can be left with completely

inadequate care. This will change with the transition to a care-based model.

[3:40 p.m.]

It is critical that under this new system, people are able to smoothly and quickly

access the support and compensation they need for their recovery. A care-based model

only works if British Columbians can quickly and reliably access the care they need.

This includes making sure the new system works well for the many British Columbians

who do not have a family doctor.

Throughout the province, particularly in rural areas, people already struggle with

access to medical professionals. The success of the proposed care-based model hinges

on health care professionals working with ICBC to ensure people will get sufficient

care. It is critical that the system equally serve the needs of the many people in

our province who don't have a family doctor. Otherwise, people without a family doctor

risk being left behind by this system.

ICBC's finances, year after year, have led to escalating rate hikes for drivers, worsening

the already crushing impact of our affordability crisis on people across B.C. The

billion-dollar-a-year write-offs we have seen in recent years are also fiscally unsustainable

for the government.

Fundamental reform to ICBC has clearly been needed for years. In fact, the 2017 Ernst

and Young report that was written for the government, where they provided four options

to reforms to provide more affordable and effective insurance, found that numerous

and substantial changes to the current system were required, even just to slow the

trend of year-on-year rate hikes, let alone provide any rate relief.

They found: "This suggests the current system is not working as intended. B.C. drivers

are having to pay significant and increasing auto insurance premiums to fund a system

that is returning less than 60 percent of premiums to the premium payers as claimant

benefits."

"In order to achieve the goal of being able to reduce basic premiums," they wrote,

"one option is to fundamentally change the design of the product from its current

expensive and adversarial nature to a treatment-focused comprehensive care model."

That is what we are debating today.

Ernst and Young estimated that savings under this objective could be approximately

$1.4 billion. They found that a similar scheme design achieved stable costs and highly

affordable premiums in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and New Zealand. All are publicly managed

auto insurance schemes.

Indeed, ICBC expects to save more than $1.5 billion in legal fees and other costs

associated with the current litigation-based system. These projected cost savings

are what allow for substantially higher levels of care and financial support to all

injured drivers.

Currently B.C.'s premiums are amongst the highest in Canada. The government believes

that in addition to delivering better care, this change could lower ICBC premiums

by approximately 20 percent or an average of $400 per driver.

It's also important to note that drivers are still held accountable in this new model,

as ICBC premiums are still based on driver risk and driving record. So if you cause

an accident, you are still held accountable and will be paying higher premiums.

The other option that has been raised by the opposition and select stakeholders has

been the move to privatize ICBC. While we've been clear from the beginning that all

options for reform should be on the table, a move to a private system would carry

many risks for B.C. It seems unlikely that the private system could provide better

care and improve health outcomes for people injured on our roads. I'll be discussing

the extent to which government modelled other alternatives in committee stage and

look forward to this discussion.

The potential of the reforms in this bill to deliver substantially better health outcomes

for injured drivers and more affordable rates for all is why my colleague and I are

happy to support this transformation of ICBC. This change, if done properly, can ensure

that all those who are injured on the road will get the care they need to recover,

without having to go to court to sue for what help they need.

M. Lee: I wish to also rise to speak on second reading of Bill 11. I will be the designated

speaker for this bill.

[3:45 p.m.]

First, I would like to walk through the roles of the Attorney General and the conflict

that he is in as the minister responsible for ICBC. This conflict taints this bill

in the same way as with Bill 9, the Evidence Amendment Act. In the Bill 9 second reading

and committee debate so far, the Attorne