Fifth Session, 41st Parliament

(2020) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, July 15, 2020

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 341

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Terry Moist

Hon. C. Trevena

Stan and Maxine McRae

S. Malcolmson

Jennifer Hyland

B. D’Eith

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Impact of racism

J. Sims

Experience of viral myocarditis

T. Redies

Living Room Art in the Heights event and role of legislators during COVID-19

J. Routledge

Doug Husband

I. Paton

Doug Armour

B. D’Eith

Work of Cowichan Valley constituency office staff

S. Furstenau

Oral Questions

Economic conditions and deferral of taxes

A. Wilkinson

Hon. C. James

Economic recovery plan

M. de Jong

Hon. C. James

Economic recovery priorities and CleanBC plan funding

S. Furstenau

Hon. C. James

B.C. Hydro agreements with independent power producers and First Nations clean energy projects

A. Weaver

Hon. B. Ralston

Government purchase of hotels for supportive housing and

impact on businesses

P. Milobar

Hon. S. Robinson

Government support for tourism industry

D. Clovechok

Hon. L. Beare

Opioid crisis and prescription monitoring program

J. Thornthwaite

Hon. J. Darcy

Tabling Documents

Report pursuant to the COVID-19 Related Measures Act regarding Order-in-Council 393/2020

Crown Proceeding Act, report, fiscal year ended March 31, 2018

Crown Proceeding Act, report, fiscal year ended March 31, 2019

Orders of the Day

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 11 — Attorney General Statutes (Vehicle Insurance) Amendment Act, 2020

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 13 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2020 (continued)

M. Lee

Hon. D. Eby

B. Stewart

Reporting of Bills

Bill 13 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2020

Committee of the Whole House

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

J. Johal

Hon. D. Eby

M. Morris

Report and Third Reading of Bills

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

Committee of the Whole House

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

M. Lee

Hon. D. Eby

Report and Third Reading of Bills

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

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 5 — Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2020

J. Martin

Hon. H. Bains

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2020

Motions Without Notice

Recall of Children and Family Development Ministry estimates in response to COVID-19 pandemic

Hon. M. Farnworth

Schedule of Estimates

Hon. M. Farnworth

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 18 — Economic Stabilization (COVID-19) Act

Hon. C. James

S. Bond

WEDNESDAY, JULY 15, 2020

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Hon. C. Trevena.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure to introduce, in the gallery today, a former member

of this chamber, a former member of the House of Commons in Ottawa. He was

the MLA for Vancouver-Fraserview as well as the Minister of Tourism from

1996 to 2001. He’s since gone on to become an author and a filmmaker. Would

the House please make Ian Waddell most welcome.

Hon. D. Eby: I join my colleague in welcoming Mr. Waddell to the House and

recognize that he does have a new book out, although I wish I knew the title

before making the introduction. But I recommend it to all members. I’m sure

it’ll be compelling reading if I know Mr. Waddell and his

history.

S. Furstenau: I am so delighted to announce the introduction of a new family member

for our former press secretary and my dear friend, Jillian Oliver, and her

husband, Chris Browes, who yesterday welcomed Eric William Browes to their

family. All of us in the B.C. Green caucus want to wish Jillian and Chris

the happiest beginning to the most wonderful journey you can have, which is

becoming a parent.

Tributes

TERRY MOIST

Hon. C. Trevena: It is with great sadness that I share with the House today the

sudden death of Terry Moist. Terry was a generous, supportive, smart and

compassionate man. Like other young teachers in the early ’70s, he was

attracted to Campbell River by the innovations in education happening

there, starting at Carihi High before moving to alternative education

programs. As one of his friends said, he kept kids out of

jail.

Terry made a difference to so many people and to the community. He

was an integral part of the John Howard Society of North Island. He was

on the society’s board for 43 years, starting when there were just two

employees. Now it has more than 130 people running a huge variety of

programs, including one of the first Foundry centres. From establishing

an outdoor challenge centre in the ’80s to bringing restorative justice

to the community to establishing youth housing, Terry helped turn ideas

for troubled youth into realities.

He said: “I’ve always had an affinity for and ability to connect

with kids on the fringe.” An educator friend told me: “When dealing with

school populations, if you look after the edges, the middle will take

care of itself.” I think this philosophy applies everywhere.

In 2014, Terry received the province’s highest recognition for

community safety and crime prevention, the Anthony J. Hulme lifetime

achievement award. When he died, he was the board chair at John Howard

again.

Terry had also been the president of the Campbell River District

Teachers Association, and his collaborative approach was shown when

negotiating what teachers of the time said was one of the best

agreements they’d ever reached.

He was a sailor around our west coast waters, up to Alaska, over

to Hawaii, and on winter days, he could be found on his sailboat, with

the heater on, reading. He was a golfer. He was a runner. He was part of

the Oyster River Enhancement Society. He was a New Democrat, active in

many, many elections.

He died too soon. He leaves his wife, Patricia Trasolini, and

daughters, Sunny and Breigh. I hope the House will pass on our

condolences to them and to the many friends who are truly missing

him.

STAN AND MAXINE

M c RAE

S. Malcolmson: I want to celebrate the lives of Stan and Maxine McRae. Here’s a

piece of Stan’s obituary in the Nanaimo News Bulletin . I urge

people to track it down and read it. Stan was a contract miner, working

in hard rock underground mines across Canada in some of the poorest

safety and working conditions.

[1:40 p.m.]

There were no unions then. During the labour movement, from the

early ’50s on, an intense battle was being fought across Canada for the

right-to-mine certifications and to bring in union representation. It

was as tramp miners that Stan, Paddy “Take Five” Toner, Vince Ready,

Archie MacDonald, Norm Harsford and most other young wildcats worked

under Al King. These young, haywire organizers did such a good job that

people called them King’s Wrecking Crew.

We knew Stan here on Gabriola and in Nanaimo as the bowl turner,

and we knew his wife Maxine McRae so well. She was an artist; a

bookkeeper; and a New Democrat on many election campaigns, from Tommy

Douglas’s right up to mine. They were very generous supporters of our

community. They donated the land for the Gabriola Museum. They donated a

19-acre beautiful wildflower meadow conservation covenant to Islands

Trust, another New Democrat creation.

They died a month apart — Maxine just on Monday and Stan a month

earlier. I’m very grateful to Stan’s niece, Ellen McRae, for all the

care and the solidarity in family; to island friends, in particular,

Graham Sheehan and Joyce Babula, for caring for them so sweetly; to the

staff of Nanaimo General Hospital and Trillium Hospice; and to Leonard

Krog, who was a particular friend of theirs at all stages of their

life.

We’re going to miss them dearly, and we’re grateful to have had

them in our midst.

JENNIFER HYLAND

B. D’Eith: Today I’d like to introduce and recognize Ridge Meadows RCMP Supt.

Jennifer Hyland. She is this year’s recipient of the International

Association of Women Police award. She’s being honoured for her work

training and mentoring fellow officers. In particular, Superintendent

Hyland designed an eight-part program focusing on leadership skills for

female officers to help them to address the challenges in a

predominantly male environment. The program has been very successful for

helping female officers to advance to leadership roles within the

department. Superintendent Hyland was nominated by her fellow officers,

a testament to her commitment to her department.

I know everyone in our community and the House would be truly

thankful to have the incredibly dedicated officers like Superintendent

Hyland who keep us safe.

I want to congratulate Superintendent Hyland, and thank you to the

Ridge Meadows RCMP for everything that you do.

Mr. Speaker: Members, if I might remind you that Introductions is intended to

be a place for introducing people to the House. Other kinds of

statements people would like to make would be better reserved for

two-minute statements. Thank you.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

IMPACT OF RACISM

J. Sims: In the people’s House today, I bring a message from an amazing

young woman who shared her pain with me and wanted all of you to know

about the impact of racism on her and others like her. These are her

words that I’m going to be reading out today.

“Being biracial, I have had and still do face my fair share of

racism at my school, where I’m definitely a minority. From being called

the ‘n’ word to having my whole class talk and laugh at me in other

languages, these experiences would anger and sadden me.

“I want to make clear that it’s only a select group that say these

racial slurs, but it hurts, nonetheless. It hurts knowing that there is

nothing I can do to change the way I am viewed and looked at, that I am

being judged solely on the colour of my skin.

“As a 14-year-old girl, I am still learning about the roots of

racism, but I am certain of one thing. I know the overwhelming hurt

behind being the target of racism. If you have ever experienced racism,

we have probably shared a feeling that you and I both know feels like

nothing else. But if you are one of the lucky few that have never, it is

very important that you know what it feels like.

[1:45 p.m.]

“The first time I was called a racial slur, my body felt like a

thousand thorns had viciously hit me. The words hurt more than I can

even begin to describe. That feeling of a thousand thorns I now

recognize as shock, and every time I get racially targeted, it returns.

One might think that the feeling would lessen, but it never

does.

“If you haven’t already had a new-found experience on the impacts of

racism, then I leave you with something to think about. ‘Not everything

that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is

faced.’”

She quotes from James Baldwin.

Every one of us in this House has a responsibility to tackle

racism head on. Let us name it and work on it together to eradicate it,

so this young woman and others and like her do not have to experience

that pain of a thousand shards of glass.

EXPERIENCE OF VIRAL MYOCARDITIS

T. Redies: You don’t know how pleased I am to be rising to speak in the

Legislature today. As most of you know, about ten months ago, before

COVID-19, I had my own encounter with a nasty virus while travelling to

Brazil with our youngest daughter. I came home with what seemed like a

bad flu, which went away almost as quickly as it came, until about three

weeks later when I was suddenly unable to walk up stairs or walk from my

car to my office without stopping.

I was diagnosed with viral myocarditis or an inflammation of the

heart muscle due to a virus. Viral myocarditis affects the heart’s

ability to pump blood to the rest of the body. If not addressed, it can

lead to congestive heart failure and sudden death. Symptoms are

shortness of breath, fatigue and edema and typically follow within two

to four weeks of having a virus. If you have symptoms like this after

having had a cold or flu, consult your doctor, because this can be

life-threatening.

Viral myocarditis can affect anyone, including young adults,

children and infants, and it’s the third-leading cause of death in young

adults and children in the U.S. It’s also relatively rare. In the U.S.,

it affects 22 out of 100,000 people annually. And for the most part,

people recover fully. However, in some cases, the disease can be deadly

for reasons not well understood.

In my own case, it was almost catastrophic, taking out 80 percent

of my heart function. It’s been a long road back. I’m here today thanks

to the incredible skill of my family GP, Dr. Andries Bredenkamp, and my

cardiologist, Dr. Vicki Bernstein, as well as numerous other

cardiologists, acute care specialists and the incredible nursing staff

at VGH. Their outstanding care ensured that I would continue to be here

for my family and my community, and I’m eternally grateful to

them.

I would also like to recognize my many colleagues, constituents,

friends and the many people in this Legislature, on all sides of the

House, who reached out to support me and my family during this difficult

time.

Notwithstanding a life-altering illness, I feel very blessed to

have had your support. And from the bottom of my now, thankfully, much

smaller heart, I thank you all.

LIVING ROOM ART IN THE HEIGHTS EVENT

AND ROLE OF

LEGISLATORS

DURING COVID-19

J. Routledge: Living Room Art in the Heights brings my community together. Once

a year, local artists turn a private home into an art gallery for one

evening. This year COVID-19 kept us from gathering in the same house. So

the organizers exercised their imaginations as true artists and created

something new.

Living Room Art in the Heights went virtual. It was the poet

Shelley who said: “Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the

world.” Two hundred years later, I would say creative artists are the

unacknowledged legislators of the world. They’re not afraid of a blank

canvas. They put brush to paper, aim a camera, pick up a musical

instrument to create something new and beautiful.

I see a parallel between the imaginative work of artists and the

work we do as legislators. Our job is to create a more beautiful

society. But how can we if we can’t imagine what a better society might

look like? Imagination is a learnable skill. We wouldn’t tell a

two-year-old to stop trying to walk and talk because they’re not very

good at it, would we? Yet how many of us declare that we don’t have an

artistic bone in our bodies?

[1:50 p.m.]

As we slowly emerge from the pandemic and try to rebuild our

economy, we need to hone our imaginations; otherwise, we will be tempted

to return to the way things used to be. But those ways did not work for

everyone. The old normal left too many people out in the cold, literally

scrambling to make a living, exhausted, disillusioned,

disconnected.

If the pandemic has taught us anything, it has taught us that we

are all in this together. If the most vulnerable among us are not safe,

none of us are safe.

Like the organizers of Living Room Art in the Heights, let’s

bravely embrace our inner artists and go out and paint a new

normal.

DOUG HUSBAND

I. Paton: I rise in the House today to honour a local legend. Doug Husband

is a Ladner boy through and through. He is from a fourth-generation

Delta family who are well known for their dedication to community

service.

Early on in his life, Doug became an RCMP officer, at the age of

18. He stayed in the service for five years before returning to Delta.

He later went on to become a prominent insurance adjuster in the early

1970s. Through his work, Doug developed a skill set for solving

problems, a master of negotiation who was able to keep cases outside of

the provincial courts. This would prove to serve him well as he embarked

on his political career. Doug sat on Delta city council for five terms

after first being elected in 1979. Most notably, from 1987 to 1990, Doug

served as Delta’s mayor.

Post-politics, various volunteer organizations across Delta have

been fortunate enough to have benefited from Doug’s unique skill set. He

has contributed his time to organizations such as the Delta Hospital,

the Little House Society for addiction, the Delta police board, the

Delta Museum and Archives and the Rotary Club of Ladner. Unsurprisingly,

in 2002, Doug was honoured with Her Majesty the Queen’s Golden Jubilee

Medal for community service.

In recent years, Doug wrote for the Delta Optimist

newspaper as a regular contributor for the community comment column.

Over a five-year period, Doug wrote over 90 articles highlighting

Delta’s past and present, as well as paying respect to people like him

who have strengthened our community. In November 2019, Doug was honoured

with the Delta Citizen of the Year Award as a long-serving community

volunteer. He became the third member of his family to receive this top

honour. Just recently, Doug was honoured with the news that Delta’s

newly renovated museum will be named after him.

Doug is leaving a legacy to follow not only for his family but for

the community at large. He still lives in Ladner with his wife of 58

years, Maureen, and enjoys quality time with his children, grandchildren

and great-grandchildren.

Recently Doug has been dealing with some significant health

challenges. But such is Doug, he carries on with grace and

dignity.

I want to say thank you for all of your contributions to make

Delta a better place.

We need more people like Doug Husband here in Delta

South.

DOUG ARMOUR

B. D’Eith: Today I rise to mourn the loss of Doug Armour, who sadly passed

away last week from cancer. Doug was the assistant fire chief at the

Maple Ridge fire department. I’d like to extend my heartfelt condolences

to Doug’s mother, Elizabeth Armour; his wife, Danica; and his two sons,

Tavis and Cade.

Doug leaves behind a proud legacy of service. He began as an

on-call firefighter in 2001. Six years later, he received a career

position. In 2015, Doug became a training officer. After two years

there, he was promoted to assistant fire chief.

Now, Doug initially worked with his brother in a security alarm

business, and according to his brother, when Doug initially had the

opportunity to become a firefighter, he quit his job before he even had

been hired as a firefighter. In fact, he spent every moment he could at

the fire hall to demonstrate his commitment to the position.

Doug loved sports and spending time with his family. He also spent

many, many hours at the Justice Institute of British Columbia, helping

to train new recruits.

We sleep safe at night knowing that life-saving help is there when

we need it and because of the courage and selfless dedication of

firefighters like Doug. The outpouring of messages in Maple Ridge this

week are a testament to the indelible mark that Doug left on our

community.

On behalf of myself and the Minister for Tourism, Arts and

Culture, I would like to say how much he’ll be sorely missed in our

community.

[1:55 p.m.]

WORK OF COWICHAN VALLEY

CONSTITUENCY OFFICE

STAFF

S. Furstenau: Tricia Datene handles much of our casework in the Cowichan

constituency office, which has opened over 700 cases in the last three

years. Thanks to Tricia, the vast majority of them have reached a

positive resolution.

Tricia describes beautifully what it’s like to work in the

constituency office:

“Helping people actually get what they’re seeking is a joy. We get

all types of people in the office. I’ve held the door for persons with

disabilities, held babies for mothers while they tell me what they need,

and held my tongue when someone with a mental health issue starts

yelling. There are never two days the same. People will come in every

week with a question I have never heard before. I love learning new

things, and this job has given me a chance to keep growing.”

B McKenzie handles all files related to children and families. Her

compassion, determination and dedication to helping families heal is a

wonder to behold. B teaches all of us as she brings her whole self to

everything she does.

Kayla Brent, who reached out to me when she was a grade 12 student

at Frances Kelsey Secondary, triages the hundreds and sometimes

thousands of emails our office receives daily. She is wise way beyond

her years, unflappable, incredibly hard-working and an inspiration to

all of us who watch her navigate her early 20s with grace, humour and a

maturity that many of us still aspire to.

Maeve manages the office, including the wonderful volunteers,

Erin, Marianna, Shelby and Pat. Maeve also attends the community

meetings when I’m down here in Victoria and keeps lines of communication

and connection open between all other levels of government and the

incredible array of community groups in Cowichan. Maeve is the spark of

joy and humour that we all need and the fierce Momma Bear who will do

everything she can to help and protect the incredible team that have

been helping and serving our constituents.

To Tricia, B, Kayla, Maeve, Erin, Marianna, Shelby and Pat: thank

you.

Oral Questions

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

AND DEFERRAL OF

TAXES

A. Wilkinson: We’ve become aware, through the announcements yesterday about the

state of the prov­ince’s finances, that roughly $5 billion of

employers health tax, sales tax and other taxes have been deferred, with

collection expected during the fall — we understand in late September.

Now this is going to be a very onerous expectation for small businesses

all over British Columbia, which have been living on fumes, to put it

politely, for four months now.

The question goes to the Finance Minister. Does she anticipate

full collection of the outstanding amounts of all of these different

taxes from small businesses in British Columbia this fall?

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the Leader of the Opposition for the

question.

I want to begin by first saying thank you to the incredible

businesses, the workers, the people of British Columbia who’ve done an

extraordinary job when it comes to bending the curve, when it comes to

paying attention to Dr. Bonnie Henry.

We all know that the very best economic recovery that we can have

is a smart, careful restart to be able to build that confidence. The

member asked specifically about one of the initiatives that we have put

in place for businesses. I know I’ll have an opportunity to talk about

many more of those, including the tax cuts we have given. In fact, when

it comes to property tax, we have in fact made a cut of 25 percent, $700

million, that is not repayable in the supports for

businesses.

When it comes to the taxes we have deferred, we’ve deferred them

till the end of September. That’ll be reviewed as we go through the

summer.

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

A. Wilkinson: Of course, the minister is correct in terms of the Ministry of

Health’s function and what Dr. Henry has guided us to, which is a pretty

good place in terms of the level of viral load in the province of

British Columbia and the prevalence of cases, in which we lead the

continent and possibly the world. However, it doesn’t answer the

question for the hundreds of thousands of small businesses in British

Columbia who will want to know urgently whether they are expected to

remit the full outstanding sum of taxes due on September 30.

It’s a very simple question to the Finance Minister. It’s in her

ministry, not the Ministry of Health. Will full payment be expected from

all small businesses in British Columbia on September 30 or

not?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: As I’ve already said to the Leader of the Opposition, that will be

reviewed well before we get to September 30. Businesses have suggested a

number of ideas. Ideas are coming forward through the economic recovery

process, as well, to add to the supports that we’ve already put in place

for businesses.

As I said, the cut that we’ve made in property taxes, the support

that we’ve provided through hydro bill forgiveness for businesses, the

support we put in place around evictions for the commercial tenants who

were in buildings where the landlords weren’t applying for the

support.

We have a whole range of supports for businesses. The deferrals

are one, and we’ll be looking at those over the next months.

ECONOMIC RECOVERY PLAN

M. de Jong: Yesterday the Finance Minister presented an update that was

unprecedented in our province’s history, including a staggering — I

think that was her word, not mine — and record-setting deficit. For all

of that, I think British Columbians understand the circumstances that

have led us to this point today.

They also understand that the situation is not sustainable. It is

not sustainable for hundreds of thousands of families and young people

who are out of work. It is not sustainable for small businesses in the

tourism sector that are on the verge of closing their doors forever.

Actually, it’s not even sustainable for the government itself to

continue to rack up debt at the pace we are presently seeing.

Here’s what people don’t understand. They don’t understand why the

Finance Minister was silent on the issue of how we’re going to get out

of this and how we’re going to rebuild our economy.

In her presentation yesterday, she dedicated one of 25 slides to

the topic of economic recovery. What did that say, and what did she have

to say? Well, she promised more meetings, more consultation and maybe,

just maybe, an announcement sometime in the fall. That’s not good

enough. That’s simply not good enough. British Columbians can’t wait two

more months for a recovery plan to lift us out of circumstances that are

clearly unsustainable.

Where is the plan?

Hon. C. James: Well, in fact, I would say to the member, as the member well

knows, that everything we are doing is about economic

recovery.

If we did not put in place the plan to be able to keep people safe

and to address the health care crisis, there would be no economic

recovery. If we did not put in place $5 billion to be able to support

people, with immediate relief for people and for businesses, there would

be no economic recovery. If we did not put in place a safe restart plan

so that we can build confidence for people to go back out again, to go

to businesses and restaurants, and make sure that was being done safely,

we wouldn’t have any economic recovery in this process.

Is there another payment of $1.5 billion? Yes, there is. We’re

asking British Columbians to engage with us just as other sectors have.

I look forward to those dollars coming out in addition to the dollars,

as we announced yesterday, that we put in place to make sure we have a

long-term, sustainable restart process and economic recovery in British

Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West on a supplemental.

M. de Jong: Well, I’m afraid that kind of answer will be cold comfort to the

thousands of businesses that are facing huge deferred tax bills coming

due this September, for which the minister refuses to provide an answer.

Families are facing work uncertainty or outright unemployment. Actually,

if they happen to live in a condo, the situation is even worse, for

reasons we have been discussing in this House.

The government’s own ability to continue providing support to

individuals is steadily eroding. The minister knows that as well. Our

collective hope lies in successfully reigniting our economy, but on that

fundamentally import­ant issue, the government, the Finance

Minister and the Premier remain silent.

How are people supposed to have any faith in a recovery plan, so

entitled, that promises nothing except more meetings and maybe an

announcement in the fall?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I would say to the member: how do you ignite the economy if people

don’t feel safe? How do you ignite the economy if you’re not dealing

with bending the curve, as we have been able to do in British Columbia

because of the people of this province? How do you ignite the economy if

people are not feeling safe to go out to businesses and businesses and

workers don’t feel safe to get their businesses going?

Everything we have been doing through the pandemic is about

economic recovery, Member. We have been focused on making sure that we

do this well, that we do this safely. We have an additional $1.5 billion

that will be put in place as well.

We certainly saw glimmers of hope when it came to the June

employment numbers. Forty percent of the jobs that have been lost since

February are now back again. Again, you’re seeing more people get back

into the workforce. The signs are positive. The people of British

Columbia are going to stand together.

I’d ask the member and the members on the other side to join us in

being positive about the economy, supporting the people of British

Columbia and making sure that we’re able to do just as we did through

the pandemic — come out the other side with a strong recovery here in

British Columbia.

ECONOMIC RECOVERY PRIORITIES

AND CLEANBC PLAN

FUNDING

S. Furstenau: At one point in time, the B.C. NDP were highly critical of the

greenhouse gas emissions from LNG. As a government, they have rightfully

criticized the Trans Mountain pipeline as being too risky a proposition

and have suggested that CleanBC will be the driving force for how the

government makes recovery funding decisions. An expanded oil and gas

industry is not where the future of our economy lies. It creates

stranded assets and disappearing jobs.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. Will she commit to not

spending any of the $1.5 billion in recovery funding on subsidies to the

fossil fuel industry?

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the member for the question.

We certainly do have a long road ahead of us. There’s no question.

The pandemic has profoundly impacted our province and profoundly

impacted the people and the businesses and the economy of British

Columbia. We also know that as we rebuild, we have an opportunity. We

have an opportunity to make sure we’re doing it with the values that

matter to British Columbians.

Of course, those values mean building an innovative, sustainable

economy for the long term in British Columbia. It means helping people

get the training and the education that they need to be able to get the

jobs that will be available in British Columbia. It means making sure

we’re investing in cleaner transportation and cleaner projects in

British Columbia.

I can assure the member that the funding is going to be used and

earmarked, in fact, for a sustainable economy. We’ve made that

statement, both the Premier and I. It certainly will, as well, be used

to be able to move ahead on our CleanBC projects. We share those values

as caucuses. We also share those values, I believe, with British

Columbians, and we have an opportunity through economic recovery to do

just that.

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

S. Furstenau: I’m going to take that as a hopeful yes. There won’t be any

spending on subsidies to the fossil fuel industry.

I’ll frame it again in more of a positive. Throughout this

pandemic, B.C. has been seen as a global leader in our response,

showcasing that when we agree to work together towards an objective, we

actually are able to achieve it.

By working together with the Green caucus, this minority

government has put together one of the continent’s leading climate plans

with CleanBC, which has been recognized as an economic plan, and the

Premier has repeatedly pointed to the role it will have in recovery.

Just yesterday the Minister of Environment said it will be at the heart

of the recovery. The Minister of Finance just said that in her

response.

These are encouraging signs, but words are not enough. The $1.5

billion earmarked for recovery must be spent on a green recovery package

that will not just revitalize but actually transform our

economy.

My question is, again, to the Minister of Finance. Can her

government commit to spending at least $500 million of the $1.5 billion

in recovery funding to directly accelerate or expand CleanBC in order to

create clean jobs across the province?

Hon. C. James: There is no question. I expect that a significant amount of the

recovery funding that we have will be used in meeting our climate goals

and in the work that we’re doing with CleanBC. I want to also express my

appreciation for the work that we’ve done with the Green caucus, with

the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, around CleanBC. There is no question

that it is world-leading when we come to the work that we’ve been

doing.

[2:10 p.m.]

We’ve invested over $1.3 billion in the CleanBC strategy over the

last couple of budgets. We know how important it is to make sure we’re

doing everything we can to move that ahead. We’re continuing to engage,

as the member knows. We’ve had extraordinary proposals come forward from

a number of groups across the province, including many, many that have

come forward around the sustainable agenda and the opportunity to look

at sustainability.

It just reinforces the fact that we are already putting CleanBC

and a sustainable economy front and centre as part of our recovery plan.

I’m looking forward to going through those proposals and being able to

act on them in the fall.

B.C. HYDRO AGREEMENTS WITH

INDEPENDENT POWER PRODUCERS

AND

FIRST NATIONS CLEAN ENERGY PROJECTS

A. Weaver: Many Indigenous communities in British Columbia anticipated being

able to sell surplus electricity to B.C. Hydro. Despite this

government’s professed commitment to reconciliation, the decision by

B.C. Hydro to cancel its standing offer program has placed these

communities in a very difficult position.

As I’m sure the minister is aware, reconciliation is a

multifaceted process that involves building genuine, long-lasting

economic partnerships with Indigenous communities. Otherwise, many such

communities will continue to struggle economically. More recently, with

the proposed changes to the self-sufficiency clause in the Clean Energy

Act, First Nations aspiring to become clean energy producers will be

dealt yet another serious blow.

My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources. How can this government claim that it is committed to

reconciliation with Indigenous peoples while at the same time

introducing measures that will restrict their opportunities for economic

development?

Hon. B. Ralston: I want to thank the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for his

question. Let’s begin by remembering that the old government signed

insider deals for power at five times the market price. That created a

$16 billion obligation owed by British Columbians. That’s $16 billion in

unnecessary costs.

We are committed to keeping B.C. Hydro rates low and building a

low-carbon economy for people. Maintaining affordable electricity is

critical to electrifying our economy and meeting our CleanBC goals. The

standing offer program was not compatible with this.

Our government understands — and I acknowledge the import of the

member’s question — that many Indigenous communities view small-scale

private power as economic development opportunities. Indeed, when we

suspended the standing offer program in February 2019, we exempted five

projects in development that had significant First Nations

involvement.

I agree with the member that it’s important to support Indigenous

communities in clean energy economic development. Just last month we

announced $13 million for four clean energy projects to help remote

communities get off diesel.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head on a supplemental.

A. Weaver: I’m not sure what the….

Interjection.

A. Weaver: There’s clearly a joke happening on opposite here. Please share it

with me later.

Over the last decade, numerous First Nations have banked heavily

on clean energy projects as an economic development strategy. Many have

entered into agreements with independent power producers to do the same.

On Vancouver Island, for example, 13 of the 14 Nuu-chah-nulth First

Nations are either current or prospective stakeholders in renewable

energy products. The Tla-o-qui-aht Nation has poured over $50 million

into clean energy projects and has plans to spend an additional $100

million.

Successful endeavours, such as the T’Sou-ke Nation’s solar farm in

the Premier’s own riding, have helped get Indigenous nations off diesel,

while others that have received financial backing from the government

promise to do the same. For many Indigenous communities across British

Columbia, the opportunity to sell excess electricity is a vital

component of their future economic plans.

My question once more is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources. Will the minister instruct B.C. Hydro to declare

force majeure on the existing Site C construction

contracts, as opposed to the IPP contracts, to save billions upon

billions of ratepayer dollars, and instead instruct B.C. Hydro to issue

calls for power at market rate for any future power needs?

To remind the minister, market rate is not 20 cents a kilowatt

hour. It’s not 15 cents a kilowatt hour. It is a few cents a kilowatt,

as is demonstrated worldwide with the price of solar and wind being

lower than the price of coal and natural gas combustion in most

jurisdictions.

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: Once again I’d like to thank the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head

for his question. As a government, we are committed to working

collaboratively with Indigenous communities on opportunities for

economic development. We consulted widely, including engage­ment

with Indigenous nations, on the B.C. Hydro phase 2 interim report, which

includes the proposal on the self-sufficiency requirement.

I think it’s important to note that the changes that we are

proposing will not happen overnight. They will allow B.C. Hydro to

consider out-of-province energy as one option — one option among many —

to providing clean and affordable energy as part of their next 20-year

plan. These changes support our climate plan, CleanBC, and they allow

B.C. Hydro to continue purchasing power from First Nations–owned

projects.

My ministry has a wide range of programs that support Indigenous

communities to transition to clean energy and improve energy efficiency.

For example, we’ve invested $5 million in the B.C. Indigenous clean

energy initiative. This initiative supports community clean energy

projects.

I appreciate the member’s questions on this important topic. Our

government will continue to work with Indigenous communities to identify

clean energy opportunities.

GOVERNMENT PURCHASE OF HOTELS

FOR SUPPORTIVE HOUSING

AND IMPACT ON BUSINESSES

P. Milobar: On Monday, we asked the Minister of Housing about two Victoria

small businesses: Paul’s Diner and All About Hue hair salon. These two

businesses have been destroyed as a direct result of the minister’s

decision to buy the hotels for housing. These businesses lease space in

these hotels, and B.C. Housing is refusing to allow them to break their

lease. When we asked the minister, on behalf of these business owners,

what she was going to do for them, she was combative and dismissive of

their concerns.

The minister has had a couple of days to come up with real answers

for owners Clif and Lindsay, so I’ll ask the minister again. To the

Minister of Housing, what is she going to do to fix these

situations?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to be very clear with the members opposite that we have

offered to maintain these leases. We were very clear that we were happy

to keep both of these tenants. We’ve done that in other buildings where

we have commercial tenants, where we’ve purchased the buildings. They’re

absolutely welcome to continue to stay.

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

P. Milobar: Wow. To be very clear for the minister, the problem is the

businesses do not want to stay. The businesses do not want to be held to

their lease. The businesses had operating businesses inside hotels, with

regular travelling clientele coming and going. Now they are homeless

shelters; they do not want to continue to operate there.

B.C. Housing is refusing to allow them to leave, which is

bankrupting them. We are asking these questions on behalf of the real

people and local entrepreneurs who’ve lost tens of thousands of dollars

and who’ve had to let go of dozens of staff. To quote Clif, the owner of

Paul’s Diner: “We employ people with meaningful work, support local

farms and donate food to the homeless and those marginalized. The

government is…ruining a business that is an important part of the

solution.”

Again to the minister — perhaps now she understands their

concerns: what will she do to solve the problem she’s created and to

compensate Clif and Lindsay?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I want to let the members of the House know that we are

prepared to work with everybody around this. If these tenants feel that

they cannot sustain their business or work with B.C. Housing, we’re

absolutely prepared to work with them to create a transition for

them.

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR

TOURISM

INDUSTRY

D. Clovechok: Every day, the Minister of Tourism says: “We’re listening and

working on a plan.” But tourism operators need a plan right now. Here’s

what John Wilson of Wilson Transportation had to say: “Seventy-five

percent to 85 percent of our revenue stream is made from April through

September, and that season is pretty much gone. To make it through the

fall and winter, so many will require continual or added support from

government.”

[2:20 p.m.]

My question yet again to the Minister of Tourism: after over 16

weeks of waiting, when can operators like John Wilson expect to see an

actual recovery plan? Give John a date.

Hon. L. Beare: I want to thank the member opposite for the question. We have the

same goals for tourism. We both want to see a strong and resilient

tourism sector here in our province. And as the Minister of Finance

spoke earlier, every action we’ve taken to date is to ensure that we

have that economic recovery in place here.

Through our economic recovery process, our government is focusing

on a strong, coordinated provincial approach, and we’re focusing on

supporting people and making sure that they’re able to access the

supports and the services that they need. We are working with industry

leaders and the public, as well, to make sure that we develop a recovery

plan that will help ensure our businesses, including the tourism sector,

come back strong, come back resilient.

I’ve been working closely with the tourism sector over these past

months. We’ve been able to provide a number of reliefs that the sector

has personally asked for, such as wholesale liquor pricing, supporting

patio expansions, creating a program to help displaced tourism workers

find jobs, flexibility in grant funding that they’ve been

having.

We are addressing the needs directly from the sector. I’m going to

continue working closely with the sector and with those leaders, as we

go through our COVID-19 action plan and we move towards recovery

together.

Mr. Speaker: Columbia River–Revelstoke on a supplemental.

D. Clovechok: Again, that’s cold comfort — no date and no plans. Many Interior

communities have seen tourism hit hard over the last few years from

forest fires and flooding. That means the number of visitors has dropped

dramatically, and small businesses have already been suffering. Now add

COVID-19, and many of these businesses may have to close their doors

permanently.

As part of the economic recovery plan, if one ever comes, is the

Tourism Minister prepared to accelerate tourism-related infrastructure

projects immediately?

Hon. L. Beare: Thanks to the member for the question. There is absolutely no

doubt that the tourism sector has been impacted extremely hard by the

COVID pandemic. That’s why our government has set aside $1.5 billion for

economic recovery. We want to support economic resilience, business

recovery. We want to help people whose livelihoods have been impacted by

the pandemic. I’m going to keep working with the industry leaders as we

work towards recovery together and listen to their ideas.

We’ve been taking action, and we will continue to take action.

We’re going to update our tourism strategic framework and Destination

B.C.’s corporate strategy. We’re going to continue to support

destination development and implement key tourism experiences and

infrastructure projects, as the member was mentioning. You know, these

can include everything from trails and cycling networks, or it could be

arts and culture installations. It could be accessible

infrastructure.

All of these pieces will drive demand, they’ll create jobs, and

they’ll help increase tourism here in our province. We’re going to

continue to be nimble with our provincial marketing funding. We want to

protect our international spaces. We want to encourage all British

Columbians to travel throughout the province, and we want to maintain

B.C.’s global competitive edge.

I’m going to keep working with the sector. I’m going to keep

working with industry leaders as we work together to find the best way

to move forward to develop this strong, resilient tourism sector as we

move towards recovery.

OPIOID CRISIS AND

PRESCRIPTION MONITORING

PROGRAM

J. Thornthwaite: Last month the official opposition wrote to the Premier about the

worsening opioid crisis. May was the deadliest month in this province’s

history, and we offered four immediate steps the Premier could take to

help make an impact. One of those steps was the implementation of a

prescription drug monitoring program to help prevent cases of addiction

in the first place.

To the Premier, will he be implementing a prescription drug

monitoring program?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. J. Darcy: Thank you to the member for the question. We are, in fact,

implementing a prescription monitoring system. We’ve been working very

closely with the College of Physicians and Surgeons for about a year and

a half now on this program and other improvements around prescription

medication in order to keep people safe. And as I have reported to this

House previously, in answer to previous questions in January 2019, we

signed a contract with the College of Physicians and

Surgeons.

We’ve learned from our experience with PharmaNet that these types

of systems absolutely need buy-in from prescribers and from pharmacists.

That’s why we’ve been doing this in close partnership with the College

of Physicians and Surgeons, the College of Pharmacists, the College of

Nursing Professionals, the College of Dental Surgeons of B.C.,

naturopathic physicians, College of Midwives and the B.C. Coroners

Service.

Work on the planning of this project is now complete. We’re moving

towards implementation. There’s a lot of work ahead to establish the

program. But we are moving forward.

I do want to be clear — and the College of Physicians and Surgeons

has certainly said this very, very clearly: there are limitations to the

prescription monitoring program and the prescription review program in

combating the opioid crisis. Primary prevention is only one line of

attack.

As the member knows, we’ve been working on a wide variety of

programs related to prevention, but he says neither the prescription

review program nor the creation of a prescription monitoring program

will be the sole solution to this complex public health emergency. But

we are working on it. We’re at the implementation stage. It is moving

ahead.

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

supplemental.

J. Thornthwaite: Well, since we first raised this issue, more than 1,900 people

have died in British Columbia. So we would like to know whether or not

the minister or the Premier is going to act quicker so that we can

prevent more deaths?

Hon. J. Darcy: Thank you to the member. Just to refer back to what the College of

Physicians and Surgeons said, that program is about prevention, but it

is not a quick fix. I’ve spoken to this issue in the House yesterday,

and I will refer to it again.

The coroner has been absolutely crystal-clear, and so has the

provincial health officer, that the principle reason for the spike in

overdose deaths in this province is because we are dealing with a drug

supply, a street drug supply — not, first and foremost, prescription

meds, which is a primary cause in some other places, some parts of the

United States. In our province, at this time, the spike is due to a drug

supply that is seeing combinations of drugs — very high concentrations

of fentanyl, sometimes mixed with benzodiazepines — that are a direct

result.

We have been working to prevent deaths. We rolled out, within a

couple of weeks of the pandemic being declared, a new risk mitigation

program in order to get safe prescription medications out to people, to

separate them from the illegal drug supply.

At the same time, we are working on building the continuum of

care, because we know that it’s critical to have all of these pieces in

place: harm reduction, safe supply, treatment and prevention,

enforcement. All of those are the pillars of our drug

response.

I want to give just one example. The First Nations Health

Authority and the coroner released a report last month that showed, for

Indigenous people, the death rate has gone up. It’s 5.6 percent of the

population at large. That’s why we are working in very close partnership

with the First Nations Health Authority on renovating and rebuilding six

Indigenous treatment centres, two new urban Indigenous treatment

centres, mental health and wellness programs, land-based healing and a

number of other initiatives.

They’re part of the continuum of care that we need to be building

and that we are building at the same time as we try and keep people safe

from overdose and prevent more people from tragically dying.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour to present a report regarding a regulation

made under the Emergency Program Act from the office of the Minister of

Public Safety and Solicitor General.

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I have the honour to present the Crown Proceeding Act reports for the

fiscal years ended March 31, 2018 and ’19.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call third reading of Bill 11, Attorney General Statutes Amendment

Act.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 11 — ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES

(VEHICLE INSURANCE)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2020

Bill 11, Attorney General Statutes (Vehicle Insurance) Amendment Act,

2020, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage, continued, on Bill 13, Miscellaneous

Statutes Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 13 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2020

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 13;

R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:32 p.m.

Sections 12 to 15 inclusive approved.

section 16.

M. Lee: I just want to ask, in terms of the status of next steps with this

change to expand the number of Supreme Court justices from 90 to 95….

What’s the expectation around timing, with the federal government, in

terms of getting these additional judges in place?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The timing is dependent on the federal government, which has the

responsibility for appointing. There are conversations, of course,

between the courts and the federal government. What this does is it

creates the possibility for additional appointments. The complement is

the number of judges in the province, and the existing provision has the

number 90. This changes it to 95, but the appointments sit with the

federal Attorney General.

Sections 16 to 20 inclusive approved.

section 21.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment to

section 21 standing in my name on the

orders of the day.

SECTION 21, by adding the underlined text as shown

and deleting the text shown as struck

out:

Section 30 is

amended

(

a) in subsection (2) by striking out

“ must make the following information contained in

transparency records available for search by any person ” and

substituting “ must make the following information

contained in transparency records available through searches conducted

under

section 35 [searches by members of

public]” ,

(

b) in subsection (2) (

a) by striking out

“ reporting bodies that are, at the time of the search,

registered as owners ” and

substituting “ reporting bodies that

are identified as registered

owners ”,

(

c) by repealing subsection (2) (b) (

i) and

(ii) and substituting the following:

(

i) individuals who are , at the time of the

search, identified as interest holders in relation

(

A) the reporting bodies referred to in paragraph (

a) of

this subsection, or

(

B) the interests in land in respect of which the

reporting bodies referred to in paragraph (

a) of this subsection are

identified as registered owners, and

(ii) in the case of reporting bodies referred to in

paragraph (

a) of this subsection that are trustees of relevant trusts,

persons who are , at the time of the search, identified

as settlors of the relevant trusts;

(

d) in subsection (2) by adding the following

paragraph:

(b.1) parcel identifiers for parcels of land in relation

to which persons are , at the time of the search,

identified as reporting bodies, interest holders or settlors;

, and

(

e) by repealing subsection (3) and

substituting the following:

(3) The administrator must take reasonable steps to

ensure that the information to be made available under subsection

(2) relates to persons who are, at the time of the search,

identified as reporting bodies, interest holders or

settlors.

(3) (4) The following information,

as that information relates to an individual who is identified as an

interest holder or settlor, must not be made publicly accessible under

subsection (2) until at least 90 days after the transparency report to

which the information relates has been accepted by the registrar for

filing with the administrator:

(

a) primary identification information;

(

b) parcel identifiers for parcels of land in relation to

which the individual is identified as an interest holder or

settlor.

(4) (5) For certainty, the

requirement under subsection (3) (4) (

b) that

parcel identifiers must not be made publicly accessible as information

that relates to an individual identified as an interest holder or

settlor does not affect the requirement under

subsection (2) (b.1) that parcel identifiers must be made

publicly accessible as information that relates to a person identified

as a reporting body.]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: This amendment amends

section 21 of the Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act, 2020, to require the administrator of the Land Owner

Transparency Act to take reasonable steps to ensure that information

that is provided as the result of a public search is current.

The amendment is in response to concerns raised by the

administrator that in a small number of cases, information in the

registry may be out of date with respect to land title and survey

records. In these cases, the administrator will manually intervene to

ensure the information is accurate, but it may impact their ability to

provide accurate information immediately as required by the current

legislation.

The Chair: Just to clarify, Members, this amendment was moved in the name

of the Hon. Carole James.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you for the correction, hon. Chair.

Amendment approved.

Section 21 as amended approved.

section 22.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment to

section 22 standing in the name of the

Minister of Finance on the orders of the day.

SECTION 22, by deleting the text shown as struck out

and adding the underlined text as

shown:

Section 35 is repealed and the following

substituted:

Searches by members of public

35 Subject to reasonable conditions that

the administrator may impose, a person may search

obtain publicly accessible information

(

a) searching for the name of a person to ascertain the

parcel identifiers for the parcels of land in relation to which the

person is , at the time of the search, identified as a

reporting body, interest holder or settlor,

(

b) searching for the parcel identifier for a parcel of

land to ascertain the persons who are , at the time of the

search, identified as reporting bodies, interest holders or

settlors in relation to the parcel of land, or

(

c) conducting a prescribed search.]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: I wondered if I might speak to the amendment just so members knew

what it was.

[2:40 p.m.]

This amendment amends

section 22 of the Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act, 2020, to help provide clear authority to the

administrator of the Land Owner Transparency Act to release information

when the public searches the registry.

The amendment is in response to concerns raised by the

administrator that the act as previously amended did not provide clear

and uncontestable authority to release the primary identification

information of beneficial owners to individuals who search the

registry.

Amendment approved.

Section 22 as amended approved.

Sections 23 to 30 inclusive approved.

section 31.

B. Stewart: I just would like the minister to perhaps clarify and advise what

the process is in the event under subsection (3.1) where there are more

than six parcels. If there is no newspaper, does it revert to subsection

(3) where written notice must be provided to every person that has an

interest in the appertained land?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m just clarifying. I think that the minister responsible for the

act will be answering these questions. We’re just making sure to get him

online. It might be one moment.

If we might have a brief recess, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: This House will be in recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 2:43 p.m. to 2:43 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. D. Eby: I wonder if the member could repeat his question. I see the

minister is now online and able to answer.

B. Stewart: The question is on subsection (3),

section 94. Can the minister

advise what the process is going to be in the event under section

(3.1) where there are more than six parcels? If there’s no local newspaper,

does it revert to section (3), where written notice must be provided to

every person that has an interest in the appurtenant land?

[2:45 p.m.]

The Chair: Minister, are you ready to answer now? Please proceed. I can’t

hear you.

The House will be in recess for another five

minutes.

The House recessed from 2:46 p.m. to 2:48 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. D. Eby: Mr. Speaker, just given the challenges that the minister’s having,

I wonder if we might stand his sections down and reach out to his office

and try to get him physically here into the chamber.

The relevant sections, as I understand it, for the minister are

this

section through to

section 34, inclusive. Yes, 35 would be where we

would pick it up. So we’d stand down this

section and 34.

The Chair: All right. Members, we will then skip to

section

Sections 31 to 34 inclusive stood down.

section 35.

[2:50 p.m.]

B. Stewart: Under

section 35,

section 18, in regards to the E-Health (Personal

Health Information Access and Protection of Privacy) Act, I just would

like to clarify what is being done here in this

section and

section 36,

which is amending

section 23 of the Pharmaceutical Services Act. Was

this amendment reviewed by the Privacy Commissioner, and was the privacy

impact statement done?

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that the commissioner’s office was

involved in that they were consulted on this particular amendment, and

there was a privacy impact assessment done.

B. Stewart: Just to go back, I combined two of my questions into one there.

The first one, in

section 18, we just want to confirm that what’s being

proposed here, and

section 36, is amending

section 23 of the

Pharmaceutical Services Act.

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that this adds those relevant subsections

to the Pharmaceutical Services Act, so I believe his understanding is

correct with respect to that.

B. Stewart: To clarify that this amendment is being done to provide

consistency with the amendments that were made in the previous

amendments to FOIPPA in the bill?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is correct. In the previous

section we passed a

miscellaneous statutes bill that amended FOIPPA, and these provisions,

35 and 36, incorporate those amendments into the E-Health Act and, as

the member noted, the Pharmaceutical Services Act.

B. Stewart: I don’t think I was asking about the…. I was trying to get an

answer about the fact that this was to provide consistency with the

amendments that were made in the previous act in the miscellaneous

stats, of FOIPPA, that was brought forward previously.

Hon. D. Eby: Assuming that the member and I have the same understanding, I

think the short answer is yes. They incorporate provisions from that

previous amendment by reference. It actually brings those provisions

directly into these acts. So it would make them entirely consistent

because it directs people to those particular amendments. It literally

uses those exact amendments.

[2:55 p.m.]

B. Stewart: Of course, I mean, privacy and the fact that we have examples last

fall, recently, where there has been information that was

inappropriately shared. I think it’s important that we get this right

and that we don’t just make any assumptions here.

To be clear, the minister has confirmed that this is to provide

consistency with the amendments that were made in the previous

amendments to the FOIPPA bill. As the minister will remember, the

Privacy Commissioner had significant concerns with those amendments and

had filed communication to the government in that respect. Do these

amendments take into consideration any of his recommendations that were

in that communication?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is testing my memory about the previous amendments. The

commissioner’s comments and feedback were in relation to the previous

set of amendments that have already passed this House. With respect to

these amendments that incorporate the bill that then passed, there was

no additional work done with the commissioner in terms of those original

submissions of the commissioner’s related to the amendments.

I just want to note that those amendments do not permit storage

outside of Canada. I believe the member was referencing the LifeLabs

data breach, which was in relation to data that was stored. So this

would not have a relationship to the LifeLabs data breach. It’s for

temporary processing by a computer outside Canada, not for storage of

data or information outside Canada.

M. Lee: I appreciate the member for Kelowna West raising these questions

on this provision. That actually is the commentary, in my recollection,

when we went through this similar set of provisions on amendments

relating to temporary storage outside of Canada. There were issues and

concerns raised from the Privacy Commissioner about those amendments. So

just to clarify again, with these proposed amendments here to this

particular act, is it on the same basis for temporary storage as were

the previous amendments that were made under a different misc stats

bill?

Hon. D. Eby: That bill did pass the House, and there is a requirement that

additional statutes, to borrow the member from Kelowna’s words, are made

consistent. So these statutes are being made consistent with that which

is now law in British Columbia.

The member…. I think he just misspoke. But just to be totally

clear, those original amendments and these incorporating amendments do

not permit the storage of personal information, either on a temporary

basis or on a permanent basis. They only allow the processing of

information outside of Canada.

M. Lee: I intended to say temporary processing. It was the temporary

processing of personal data outside of Canada that the Privacy

Commissioner had concerns about and the way that that was being

expressed in the previous amendments that were being made. We had

actually proposed amendments to that to reflect the concerns of the

Privacy Commissioner.

In making these further amendments, even if it’s for consistency

purposes — coming back to the Attorney General’s previous response — has

there been any further dialogue with the Privacy Commissioner about this

particular set of amendments? And does the Privacy Commissioner still

maintain any concerns regarding the nature of these temporary processing

requirements?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I am advised that the commissioner did not raise similar concerns

this time around.

Sections 35 to 74 inclusive approved.

The Chair: The House will be in recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:01 p.m. to 3:02 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The Chair: We will be now going back to

section 31.

Hon. D. Eby: I’ll be taking those sections for the minister.

section 31.

B. Stewart: In

section 31, the repeal of subsection 94(3), we just want to

clarify that the process in the event under

section 3.1…. If there are

more than six parcels, if there is no local newspaper, does it revert to

section 3, where written notice must be provided to every person that

has an interest in the appurtenant land?

Hon. D. Eby: The answer is yes. All affected parties are notified in writing in

the case of where there’s not a local newspaper.

B. Stewart: No other questions on

section

Section 33 is the next

one.

Sections 31 and 32 approved.

section 33.

B. Stewart: In this new section, 117.1, I just would like to confirm what the

purpose of this

section is and what generated the need to add this

section?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: This is an issue where there’s a practice taking place, currently,

and

an act that requires activities but doesn’t clearly fulfil the

requirements of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy

Act. In particular, you need to have explicit authority to collect, use

and disclose certain personal information under FOIPPA in British

Columbia. That needs to be explicit within the act itself. So the

amendment fixes that omission by expressly giving authority to collect

this information.

The information is important for a number of reasons. It’s

available inside and outside of Canada and used by a wide range of

users. So certainly government, emergency services, provincial health

authorities, industry — including forestry, mining and oil and gas

companies — use this information to notify impacted users. For example,

downstream users would be notified of an incident that could impact

public health and safety, like, for example, a spill of a chemical — to

use just one example — which is why this information needs to be

collected and kept up to date.

Under the Water Sustainability Act, there are obligations where an

applicant for water use must identify and notify other potentially

impacted users. For example, if your water source is likely to be

detrimentally impacted, the ground water licence applicant has to notify

others who are using that source that they intend to use it in that way.

The only way they can know who to notify is if the information has been

collected, and the only way the government can let them know who will be

affected is if government can disclose that information.

B. Stewart: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and to the minister for that

very comprehensive answer.

Again, in the fact that this is an oversight in a previous piece

of legislation, has this been gone over by the Office of the Privacy

Commissioner and was the privacy impact assessment done just on these

changes? Can the minister advise what the response was from the Office

of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, in the case that they did

do that?

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that there were two temporary orders that

were issued by the minister engaging with the Privacy Commissioner in

order to address the omission. The commissioner advised government that

we should be ensuring that the statute was amended and that the omission

was corrected before those temporary orders expired, and they expire in

2021. So that is the extent of the feedback from the

commissioner.

I’m advised that the commissioner had on this simply that we

needed to have a provision like this in the act and not to address it

through maintaining the temporary order but to fix it in legislation as

soon as possible, which is what we’re doing.

B. Stewart: So just to be clear, the Office of the Information and Privacy

Commissioner confirms that the temporary orders by the minister

responsible for the Water Sustainability Act — these improvements were

necessary and covered off by the changes that are proposed

here?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: This fully addresses the issue, and the temporary orders will be

cancelled once this passes.

B. Stewart: Okay. Just to confirm, the Privacy Commissioner accepts that as

being a…. That’s acceptable, being that he hasn’t issued a written

report on this. We want to be clear that he is in agreement that these

changes meet the privacy requirements.

Hon. D. Eby: It’s my understanding that the commissioner requested that

government make these amendments. So they are consistent with the

commissioner’s wishes, in terms of how government addressed this

issue.

B. Stewart: The next question on

section 117.1 is: has this ability for the

minister to disclose this personal information been…? Sorry. In

section

117.1, it provides for the information to be published in a registry.

Does this registry currently exist, or is this something new that’s

being created?

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that there are two existing registries

that are intended to be captured by that section. One is the groundwater

wells or the GWELLS registry, and the other is the water licence

registry, also known as the e-licensing database.

B. Stewart: We’ve got two different registries that previously existed. Who

has access to the registry, and is it publicly available?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that the public has access to these registries. It is

online access, and they’re fully searchable. This is partly why the

provision talks about access in and outside Canada. It’s online and can

be accessed and searched, likewise, from anywhere in the world. Both are

fully public registries.

B. Stewart: In subsection 117.1(3), can the minister advise what might be

sources other than an individual in this act?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that common examples are the land title registry or

the B.C. Assessment rolls. They would be sources of information, other

than the individual, that could be looked at for access to information

that would assist in these registries.

B. Stewart: Moving on, in the same section, to 117.1(4), in the existing act,

it says that published personal information “that was collected

otherwise than directly from the person to whom the personal information

relates” must not be published unless notice is provided and consent

provided. Could the minister just confirm how that’s going to

occur?

Hon. D. Eby: I wonder if the member could just draw me to the

section he’s

referring to about the publication requirement. I’m just trying to

clarify with staff exactly which

section he’s referencing

here.

B. Stewart: This is, again, subsection 117.1(4). What I was referring to was

that the former act required that the information was not to be

published unless notice was provided and consent provided. The new

section does not apply to the publication of personal information. What

is the rationale for overriding the protection of the existing act?

That’s my question. Sorry.

Hon. D. Eby: The member is right. It’s an unusual thing to have the publication

of personal information by government, so there needs to be an

overriding objective. In this case, it’s ensuring that people have

information, in the event of emergency or another significant impact on

water use, of who would be affected and who needs to be notified. If you

have a well that you’re relying on for drinking water for your family,

it’s vital that if there is some kind of contamination or spill, you get

notified right away.

That urgency and the need for people to be able to access this

information as quickly as possible, including even a longer-term project

where there’s construction proposed that’s going to affect groundwater

in an area…. The contractor or the proponent needs to be able to find

and identify who will be affected by that activity and provide notice to

them.

That is the justification for removing this publication or consent

process. The overriding value here is of urgent notice and upfront

notice so that people can register objections or concerns or otherwise

be notified of a potential issue with the water that they’re

using.

[3:20 p.m.]

B. Stewart: I can appreciate the sense of urgency that is needed with some of

the things that the minister described earlier. Being that this

section

is now going to override and remove the

section about the personal

information — it’s going to be available — was this section, again,

reviewed by the Office of the Privacy and Information Commissioner,

particularly allowing publication of the personal information without

consent?

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that the whole of 117.1 was reviewed by

the Privacy Commissioner. I have advised him of all of the feedback that

I understand we have received from the Privacy Commissioner about

it.

B. Stewart:

Section 117.1(5): “Nothing in this

section is intended to limit

the authority of the minister to collect, use or disclose personal

information under an enactment.”

Can the minister give an example? The fact that this is such a

sweeping statement, very broad — can we just get an example on the

record, please?

Hon. D. Eby: There are other acts and other provisions within this act that

discuss the minister’s or the ministry’s ability to collect or use

different types of information. The goal of this subsection, of this

section, is to be clear that this particular

section is not meant to

limit other authorities that might be out there, in terms of the

minister’s ability to collect, use or disclose personal

information.

It applies to the scenarios that relate to this section, but not

to other sections. The concern would be this

section being applied to a

section that it was not drafted to apply to. It’s just meant to provide

clarity to someone trying to understand how they would be affected by

the act — that these authorities are limited to the circumstances

described and not meant to affect other sections.

B. Stewart: I think that what we’re looking for is…. Actually, with the

minister’s answer, it broadens the whole question about the enactment

and the term and how broad that is. Is there an example, specifically,

where this has been a barrier, in terms of past actions, so that the

public can better understand this?

And I guess the last part on this is: because of the sweeping

powers of this, is there going to be a clear policy within government to

make certain that this information is restricted within government and

only used for the purpose that’s been described here today?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is looking for a clear statement of the purposes of the

collection of the information that are stated in subsection

(2).

[3:25 p.m.]

The provision specifically says: “The minister may, for one or

more of the purposes listed in subsection (2)….” So when it says that,

then you have to go to subsection (2) and see when the minister can

collect, use and disclose the information.

The purposes are as follows, and they’re a limited set of

purposes: purpose (

a) to administer the act; purpose (

b) to publish the

information in a registry — we talked about those registrations — where

the registry relates to one or more of the following matters. So it’s

not just any registry, but it has to relate to these: (

i) authorizations, change approvals, permits or drilling authorizations;

(ii) works, like construction; (iii) water, streams, groundwater or

aquifers; and (iv) is a prescribed matter that can be set by

regulation.

And then there’s also a subsection (c), of course, which is to

manage significant harm to public safety, the environment, land or other

property; and (

d) to monitor compliance with this act and the

regulations. So the minister is constrained by this

section around what

purposes he is allowed to collect, use and disclose the information, and

it is only those purposes that are permitted.

Subsection (5) is important — to note that, you know, there may be

other sections of the act…. And I apologize to the member. I don’t have

one at hand. But what it’s meant to say is that this

section is not

meant to apply to other sections of the act. It’s not intended to….

Where there may be another provision that somehow has a broader ability

to publish or has different requirements or different purposes, it’s not

meant to limit the authority of the minister to collect or use that

information. It’s not an unusual provision in that regard. It doesn’t

enable some sort of widespread data collection. The minister is still

limited by subsection (2).

Sections 33 and 34 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete as

amended.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:28 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 13 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 13, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2020, reported

complete with amendments, to be considered at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Hon. D. Eby: Mr. Speaker, I call committee stage of Bill 20.

[3:30 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 20 — MOTOR VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT

(N o . 2), 2020

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 20;

S. Gibson in the chair.

The committee met at 3:31 p.m.

section 1.

J. Johal: I just have a couple of broad questions for the Attorney General.

Can the Attorney General explain the overall purpose of Bill

20?

Hon. D. Eby: The amendments proposed relate to number plates, also known as

licence plates, and validation decals, those little stickers with the

month and year you get from your ICBC broker when you renew your

insurance. They provide for the possibility for decals to last for

periods longer than the term of the vehicle licence plate and are

non-expiring — you get your sticker, and it doesn’t expire — and also

for the possibility of there not being a decal at all.

It enables a number of pieces that flow from this — in particular,

during the pandemic. We had phone renewals and email renewals for

people, for their insurance, when it’s expiring, to be able to provide

social distancing and assist them to interact with their broker.

Certainly, they still had to receive the sticker for their licence

plate.

With online renewals and phone renewals and email renewals, it may

be — depending on engagement with, for example, law enforcement — that

it’s better not to have a decal at all. There are many jurisdictions

that don’t have decals like this. So it’s an example of the kind of

reform that could flow from this.

This is enabling. It’s not prescriptive. It depends on our

engagement with groups, like law enforcement, that depend, potentially,

on the decal to know whether a car is insured or not. Or maybe they use

their licence plate readers and a database, and they don’t look at the

decals at all.

We’re going to be engaging with those stakeholders. This enables

the possibility that changes could flow from that.

J. Johal: The Attorney General touched on the impact of COVID and how ICBC

has responded on behalf of the company and, of course, the people of

British Columbia. Were these changes that the Attorney General is

talking about inspired because of what happened with COVID and how ICBC

responded to the pandemic? Why now?

Hon. D. Eby: We’re engaged in a modernization project with ICBC. Part of that

includes an online renewal system. We are continually moving the pieces

down the board to turn ICBC into a modern insurance company. Obviously,

it’s a significant piece of work. The members have all been here for the

work that we did around the enhanced care model. This is part of our

continuing modernization.

We’re asking questions. Do we need to do the things that we’ve

always done? Are there different ways to approach issues and ways that

reduce costs and increase convenience for British Columbians?

[3:35 p.m.]

There are many entities that have an interest in how ICBC does

business. These include law enforcement, brokers, other stakeholders

and, of course, most importantly, British Columbians. We’re going to do

that work. We know that there’s a great deal of interest in online

renewals, as one example. This facilitates that kind of modernization

work.

J. Johal: Just to confirm, this process, for some of the things that the

minister is talking about, started prior to COVID?

Hon. D. Eby: That is correct.

J. Johal: Can the Attorney General give us a sense of the history of this

bill in regards to the idea that came and how it made it to the floor

today?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s certainly our goal to be responsive to the wishes of British

Columbians around their public auto insurer. There are, obviously, some

priority areas for British Columbians — that rates be lower and that

benefits be better — and there are concerns around convenience, things

like online renewals.

Certainly, as I was receiving that feedback from many British

Columbians — actually, I think I received that feedback from the member

who asked the question — in relation to online renewals, we were looking

at…. What would it take in order to facilitate that? Are there things

that we do right now that might limit the ability to do online renewals

and that might make it less convenient? That opened up a line of

questioning around the decals.

There’s not a huge amount of history or depth beyond that. It’s

our goal to modernize the company. That includes online sales. To my

mind, this is very closely linked to that goal around delivering those

online sales.

When it was originally conceived of, we did not imagine the COVID

situation, where everyone, overnight — all of the brokers and ICBC —

would transition to telephone and email renewals. That experiment, in

real time, was a great credit to the brokers and to ICBC staff working

together, very closely and very quickly, to enable that to happen. It

was a very successful project.

This bill has…. Although the work started before, it’s very

complementary to the direction that we’re clearly going.

J. Johal: The Attorney General talks about eventually getting to online

renewal. I don’t recall the government mentioning online renewal up

until about last year. I could be off by a few months.

What change was in the mindset of the Attorney General and the

government to now bring this bill forward and move towards online

renewal?

Hon. D. Eby: I think that what was really the focus of government’s attention

in the first couple of years on the file was the hemorrhaging of $1

billion a year by ICBC and the need to urgently address that. Online

renewals, although certainly a priority in terms of convenience for many

British Columbians, really paled in comparison to the financial state of

the corporation and the need to address that very urgently.

With our first round of reforms around the limit on pain and

suffering awards for minor injuries and the use of the civil resolution

tribunal, stabilizing ICBC’s finances and now the enhanced care model

work proceeding along, it creates the possibility for what I would

describe as second-stage modernizations and initiatives that we would

have liked to have prioritized but that had to, essentially, take a back

burner because of the financial state of the corporation.

[3:40 p.m.]

This work is proceeding along in the background. I do have to

acknowledge it hasn’t been as significant a priority, given the priority

of the financial reforms we’ve had to make to improve benefits and

reduce prices for British Columbians and get ICBC on a stable financial

footing.

J. Johal: Online, as the Attorney General said, is the eventual goal with

this bill. Can he provide a road map of when British Columbians can

expect…? After the passage of this bill, there’s a lot of work still to

do. But can he provide a timeline of when we can get to that point of

British Columbians actually being able to renew their licence

online?

Hon. D. Eby: Well, the good news is I can advise the member that people, right

now, can renew by email and by phone, through their brokers, and that

work is in place.

In terms of being able to go to a website, the back-end work for

the enhanced care model needs to be complete first. That is due in May

of next year. There’s engagement with stakeholders — like law

enforcement, brokers and others — around the issues of the decals that

also need to take place. So until that work is done, people will not be

visiting a website to do their renewals. However, I am optimistic that

we will get there sooner rather than later.

The challenges, though, are…. Again, the priority is getting rates

down for British Columbians and delivering the benefits of the enhanced

care model, which requires an overhaul of the technological back end of

ICBC, and that overhaul will facilitate the additional work. There are

unbelievable challenges with the existing computer system that makes

some really important work quite difficult.

The happy news is that by May of next year, the infrastructure

will be in place that will facilitate things like online renewal and

other important work that ICBC, and most people, would expect that ICBC

would be able to do in the year 2020. But we are playing

catch-up.

J. Johal: It’s safe to say that with the passage of this bill, we probably

won’t see online renewal within the next 12 months.

Hon. D. Eby: British Columbians have online renewal available right now, but in

terms of doing that through a website or an app, it’s unlikely to be

within the next 12 months. The focus is on enhanced care implementation

to reduce rates for British Columbians.

J. Johal: I should have clarified. I was talking about a website and an app.

Is it fair to say that we can expect online renewal before the end of

this government’s mandate?

Hon. D. Eby: Well, hidden in there is a very important question about when the

end of this government’s mandate is. We’re in a minority parliament. I

wouldn’t set that as a date in a minority parliament for anything. But

the member’s first question, I think, was one that I feel better

equipped to respond to.

I don’t expect that, outside of email renewals, British Columbians

will be visiting a website or using an app to renew their insurance

within the next 12 months. The focus within the next 12 months will

continue to be the enhanced care project and delivering those lower

rates and better benefits for British Columbians. In the interim, we

have email and phone renewals.

J. Johal: There’s a significant amount of consultation that’s still coming

with this bill, after the passing of this bill. We can get to the law

enforcement question a little bit later.

But can the Attorney General educate this House in regards to what

the consultation process is going to look like moving forward for

various stakeholders, including brokers, and how he sees that moving

forward?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that an initial outreach has already been

made to the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police and that their initial

feedback is that this is an important modernization effort. They are

heartened that in other jurisdictions where they have made this

modernization of getting rid of stickers, they were able to address law

enforcement concerns. That work continues.

There’s also engagement with the Ministry of Transportation

commercial enforcement team and enforcement teams under Public Safety

and Solicitor General, as well, to determine how or if they use these

stickers for any reason. Then, in addition to the law enforcement

outreaches that are taking place, I expect to hear a report from the

brokers in the next 16 to 20 weeks. They should complete that process

and have provided a list of feedback on online

implementation.

The member will know that I am not particularly enthusiastic about

hiring on a significant number of people at ICBC to manage online. My

preference is that the brokers take on that work of managing online. In

order for that to happen, we need their feedback, and I’m expecting a

full report from them with recommendations, certainly within the next

four months.

And then, with respect to other groups, I’d certainly welcome any

suggestions that the member might have about other stakeholders who

should be consulted. But those were the two main groups that staff have

identified: policing and law enforcement groups, and the

brokers.

J. Johal: Is there a cost savings for ICBC in regards to the decal

arrangement?

Hon. D. Eby: It depends very much on what the final model looks like.

Certainly, we do expect some savings to flow to ICBC, but I don’t have

any numbers. There’s been no modelling, because the actual model of what

it will look like is not finalized yet.

I do note that it’s hard to know how British Columbians will take

up online renewals. In Saskatchewan, it’s about 15 percent of people who

renew online, despite there being an online renewal model. So if we have

a modest sort of uptake like that, the impact will be relatively low.

But if there’s a greater impact, there might be greater savings for

ICBC.

J. Johal: As the Attorney General is saying, he doesn’t have a desire to add

on more employees at ICBC. He wants to work with the brokers. But when

customers go online, they expect some savings with the convenience of

going online. Does the minister see any impact on broker fees — in this

case, brokers making less money — and any compensation? Is that part of

that conversation too?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: That will very much be determined by the kind of model that comes

forward. The recommendations and feedback from the brokers will be

considered, as will any feedback from law enforcement and enforcement

teams within the provincial government around the stickers and so

on.

Certainly, my hope is a more efficient process for everybody,

where everybody wins, resulting in lower fees and reduced cost for

consumers, and we do believe there will be some savings for ICBC. But at

this stage, it is too soon to say, given that we have not yet settled on

a particular model of how this will be delivered.

I think the goal here is to externalize as much as possible, from

my perspective, the support and follow-up, if people have trouble with

the online system. I don’t particularly wish that ICBC has to hire up

new call centres to deal with and provide support to people who are

having trouble with that. I would much prefer that the brokers take on

that work, but that is all part of the conversation.

J. Johal: As I had stated, the people do expect some savings when they go

online. Is it safe to say that the Attorney General hasn’t ruled out

compensation for brokers? Because as he knows very well, they have

applied for this licence. They have spent a significant amount of

dollars building their business and training their staff. At the same

time, customers do want reduction in what they’re paying at times — 5

percent, 10 percent. That’s got to come from somewhere.

Does he see at least some sort of potential conversation in

regards to compensating brokers who may lose some business?

Hon. D. Eby: You know, I think the COVID experience of the telephone and email

renewals has eased, maybe, some of the concerns from brokers around what

it would look like, potentially, going forward. It was a net positive

experience for customers, brokers and ICBC, which is always a nice thing

when everybody is happier with the outcomes.

I think if we can successfully implement a system that reduces

costs for everybody, then that will be the mark of a successful online

project. But the only way we can do that is through engagement,

consultation and designing the best system, and that’s where we are in

the process. It’s too early to say what the final process will look

like. My hope is that we realize savings for everybody here, and we’ll

see.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

M. Morris: Just with respect to subsections 12(2) (

b) and (

c) on there…. I

guess I have to make a comment first that this appears to be rushed. I

haven’t seen legislation come out like this where there’s been no

consultations on…. Some of these are fairly significant issues. I’m

curious to see what law enforcement has to say with respect to

this.

You know, I go back to my law enforcement days, and those

validation stickers provide a valuable, inexpensive tool for police

officers in their day-to-day activities. Just a mere glance, they can

tell whether a vehicle has got legitimate or valid plates or not and

valid insurance at the time. It’s a good tool to take uninsured vehicles

off the road.

I’m just wondering, again, what the minister has in mind that’s

going to replace the validation stickers so that the police officers

still have significant access to a tool that has proven very beneficial

in the past.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: In 2007, the province had a pilot program of automated licence

plate readers for law enforcement. It was made permanent in

Through the automated licence plate reading program, law

enforcement has access to the ICBC database of currently insured and

registered vehicles. That program enables them to scan licence plates

and have the computer flag when a licence plate that is scanned

automatically is not insured — the member can advise me, actually, if he

has any experience with it — which, I understand, is a helpful tool for

law enforcement around detecting uninsured vehicles.

I don’t, for a second, dispute the member’s assertion that it’s

helpful to look at a sticker and identify whether a plate is expired or

not or whether insurance is expired or not. I can advise the member that

we have already reached out to the Association of Chiefs of Police and

have received a positive response from them. That engagement work

continues.

I’ll have to take with a grain of salt the comments of one member

in the media that we are moving too slowly on online and the comments of

the member that this legislation seems rushed. We’ll try to fall

somewhere in between and do this as carefully as possible to prevent any

adverse impacts on law enforcement, either within the provincial

government or within police, but also to satisfy the wishes of British

Columbians to have an efficient online renewal process.

M. Morris: The automated licence scanners are great technology, but it comes

at a cost. I’m just wondering whether the minister has looked at the

projected costs to law enforcement agencies, whether they’ll be

compensated for that or they’ll be expected to cover those costs

themselves.

How much money is going to be required to ensure that all our

police agencies are equipped with these licence scanners, which will

replace the visual validation stickers?

Hon. D. Eby: The member, I mean, really identifies why we’re engaging with law

enforcement on this, in terms of the number of these readers that are

available in vehicles already — this is a program that’s been in place

now for a decade — and any concerns they have about a shortage of ALR

devices. Certainly, we’re engaging with law enforcement, and those

concerns will be raised. I have no doubt.

I don’t have solutions for a problem that hasn’t been raised yet.

So in terms of the member’s question about expansion of an ALR program

for vehicles that don’t have it, the issue has not yet been raised. I

suspect, based on the member’s experience, that at some point it will be

raised. The extent of it or how many vehicles, and so on, I don’t know,

again, because it simply hasn’t come up yet.

M. Morris: This will be my last question here.

[4:00 p.m.]

Again, it goes back to where I feel it’s rushed legislation here.

The consultation hasn’t taken place. We have no idea what the costs of

rolling this legislation out will be, not only on government and ICBC,

perhaps, but on law enforcement agencies that are already overstretched

with the resources that they have.

Is it going to cost a couple hundred thousand dollars? Is it going

to cost a couple million dollars? At the end of the day, it remains to

be seen.

It is rushed, and it’s a shame that government hadn’t taken the

steps to fully consult with law enforcement agencies — and all

stakeholders, as a matter of fact — on this before they rushed into

that.

Thanks very much for your time.

Hon. D. Eby: I just wanted to…. For the member’s assistance, he mistakes how

this bill operates. It is an enabling statute. It creates the ability to

do these things. It is not actually doing these things. It’s not getting

rid of stickers. It is not expanding the current period of their

expiry.

It creates the authority for regulations that could do those

things. The regulations themselves will be based on the engagement with

law enforcement.

I’m not sure if that assists him in whether or not he feels it’s

rushed, but I did want to say that we certainly will be engaging with

law enforcement, and their feedback will be informing the

regulations.

Again, I’ll note the profound irony of two members from the same

party, one saying, “Not fast enough,” and the other saying: “How could

you rush so quickly?” Fair enough, I’ll take both critiques.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

J. Johal: This

section replaces the term “licence year” with “licence term”

section 13 of the act. Will the Attorney General explain how this

term, “licence term,” is to be used and understood?

Hon. D. Eby: This refers to a licence year. The licence it’s referring to is

the licence for the vehicle, and although it says “licence year,” not

all vehicles are licensed for a full year. The term can be as little as

three months, up to a year.

This is a housekeeping amendment that does a couple things. One is

it recognizes that already, licences are issued for less than a year.

But it also enables the possibility that you could license your vehicle

for longer than a year. It is a housekeeping amendment to make sure that

section 13 is consistent with the rest of the act, which is now using

the words “licence term” rather than “licence year.”

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

[4:05 p.m.]

J. Johal: On

section 4, this

section makes some substantive changes to

section 20 of the act, which is on the notice of removal or destruction

of a motor vehicle. Can the Attorney General explain the purpose of

section 4? Why was it needed to change the existing

section

20?

Hon. D. Eby: There’s sort of a housekeeping piece of this which is

consequential to the

section 12 amendment.

The more significant piece of this

section is that it provides

additional discretion to ICBC to determine what an owner or licensee has

to do when they’re cancelling their vehicle licence and applying for a

refund of insurance premium or their licence fee. They’re saying: “Look,

I don’t need this anymore.” The old

section said explicitly that you

have to surrender the vehicle licence and the licence plates — the

plates on the vehicle — for the motor vehicle or trailer.

This gives a little bit more discretion. It says that ICBC can

provide direction to the person about what to do. It could still be to

surrender the plates and the licence, but it could be something else —

provide evidence that you’ve destroyed it and so on, or during a

pandemic, you’re allowed to hold on to them and then reapply them to

your vehicle.

It just provides a little bit more discretion about what ICBC can

require when someone is trying to get a refund of their insurance or

licence fee because they no longer are using their vehicle.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

J. Johal: Regarding

section 5, it amends subsection 51(2) of the act.

Currently ICBC must issue a new decal to a licensee who has made the

requirements of proof application and is paying the fee. However,

section 5 would change this so that ICBC may issue a new decal. That’s

an important difference for just one word. What is contemplated by this

change? What is the real effect as well?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: It might be helpful to think of it as a transitional provision, in

the event that, in fact, we no longer issue validation decals in British

Columbia.

The scenario that this anticipates is one where somebody has a

decal on their vehicle and, during the term of their vehicle licence,

the system changes and decals are no longer issued but something happens

that causes the decal to be lost, mutilated or destroyed.

If the existing provision stood, ICBC would have to issue a new

decal to the licensee. Now it says may issue a new decal or, instead,

issue whatever the new document is that shows that your vehicle is

licensed and insured.

It assists with that transition where some people might be caught

under the old system and some are under the new system.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

section 7.

J. Johal: Bill 20 provides for regulations that would authorize ICBC to

issue other documents or to take other actions respecting the validity

of a vehicle licence instead of using validation decals. Can the

Attorney General explain what that would look like in

practice?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s too early in the process to have any particular documents or

process to share with the member.

I can tell the member that this has been drafted in a manner that

enables flexibility, based on our engagements with stakeholders, in

terms of what the documents might look like or how they would be issued

or their term of the licence and so on.

What the actual process looks like will be governed by the

regs.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:15 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 20 — MOTOR VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT

(N o . 2), 2020

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

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Eby: I call committee stage Bill 21, Wills, Estates and Succession

Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 21 — WILLS, ESTATES AND

SUCCESSION AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 21;

S. Gibson in the chair.

The committee met at 4:19 p.m.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

M. Lee: Just subsection 35.1(2). I wanted to ask, in terms of the term and

the usage of the word “inhibits,” in what manner that would

occur.

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: So the mischief here that we’re seeking to address is somebody

sending a link to the will, essentially, and providing the will in the

way that the person who receives it isn’t able to store a local copy or

store, print or reproduce a copy on their own, wherever they

are.

The goal here is to make sure that we are enabling the person who

needs to see the will to get it and have it, and have it available to

them. Someone trying to inhibit them from doing that could do that

through saying: “Okay, here’s the link to the will. You can click on

it.” There are ways to prevent people or make it difficult for them to

get their own copy of it. So we want to be really clear that they should

be able to get their own copy of the will, even if it’s

electronic.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

M. Lee: Just under subsection 35.2(4), the term used is “non-substantive

differences.” To the Attorney General, could he explain what that term

is intended to mean?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: This

section is to underline that the text of the will — all of

the words — needs to be the same. But if when you print it out, it

prints out on a different number of pages or the margins are different,

or this kind of thing, or maybe the bullets show up in a different way,

that is still deemed to be identical even if there are these

non-substantive or insignificant differences in how the copies are

formatted.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

M. Lee: Under subsection 35.3(3), the test around whether it is apparent

that the will-maker intended to give effect to the entire will is a

threshold-type test. In what manner will this be determined?

Hon. D. Eby: In a paper will, typically you’d have a physical signature on the

will. But for an electronic will, there may be no physical manifestation

of an electronic signature. So there may not be a replication of a

written signature on it. It may be a code that somehow locks or

otherwise validates the electronic document.

So the current technological example of that would be a blockchain

key. I think the member is familiar with that. But for those who aren’t,

it is a manner of authenticating a particular document by having a

particular code stored in the blockchain which is otherwise accessible.

So it’s not a signature as you would expect. It is another way to verify

that it is an electronic signature, but it’s not a physical reproduction

of somebody’s handwriting.

So that’s what is meant to be addressed here in sub 35.3(3) — that

the will is still deemed to be signed even if there’s not that sort of

physical reproduction of the electronic signature. It may be done in

some other way as long as it’s apparent that the will-maker intended to

give effect to the entire will.

Sections 4 to 8 inclusive approved.

section 9.

[4:30 p.m.]

M. Lee: Just in

section 55.1(1)(

a) and (b), the term “intention” is used

in both cases. Could I ask the Attorney General to please clarify the

use of that term and what it’s intended to mean, literally?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. D. Eby: With respect to intent, the interest here of the drafters in

government is to have a clear indication by the will-maker that they

intend to revoke the will, that they mean to do it, that it’s not an

inadvertent destruction of the will. So for an electronic will, you

might delete a local copy of the will from your computer, but you don’t

intend to revoke the entire will. You’re just deleting the local

copy.

There’s also a sort of confirming subsection (3) that talks about

inadvertent deletion, where maybe you’ve accidentally deleted it. That

also is not meant to be captured.

Subsection (

b) talks of a sort of symbolic act where you rip up

the will or you burn it; you have the intention of revoking all or part

of the will. You might also have a situation where someone shreds a copy

of a will because they just don’t want that copy of it anymore. But it’s

not their intention…. They don’t mean to revoke the entire

will.

It’s critical that the intention, the meaning of the person’s

action in deleting the electronic will or in ripping up or burning or

shredding the physical will is to revoke it. That’s why the word

“intention” is used throughout.

Sections 9 to 13 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:34 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[4:35 p.m.]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 21 — WILLS, ESTATES AND

SUCCESSION AMENDMENT ACT,

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

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Eby: I call committee stage on Bill 5, the Employment Standards

Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 5 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 5;

R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 4:37 p.m.

section 1.

J. Martin: Can I ask the minister what the rationale was for landing on five

days of paid leave as opposed to another amount?

Hon. H. Bains: Thank you very much for the question. I would remind the member….

I think we did consultations. There were five in-person consultations.

There were 6,261 online survey responses and 32 written

submissions.

Ninety-two percent of the workers supported an employer-paid

leave, and 83 percent of the employers supported an employer-paid leave.

Ninety-two percent of the respondents want at least five days paid

leave. When you summarize all that, 60.4 percent of people that were

surveyed suggested five days. Others were quite a smaller number; that

was the suggestion.

We looked at the other jurisdictions as well. We believe…. Looking

at the other jurisdictions and according to the surveys we conducted —

that’s how we arrived at five days.

J. Martin: Thank you very much for that, Minister.

[4:40 p.m.]

Again to the Minister of Labour, I have no doubt whatsoever that

each and every one of us in this House wants to ensure that businesses,

particularly small businesses, can provide the support needed to workers

to ensure that they have the time and space to heal. Did the government

give any consideration to tax credits related to the amounts paid out to

workers on paid leave?

Hon. H. Bains: We did not consider a tax credit for the employers for this. We

looked at the other jurisdictions. As I have said, many other

jurisdictions already have that. When we went through the survey — we

consulted widely, as I said; the businesses were consulted — as I

suggested, 83 percent of the employers support an employer-paid

leave.

So I think we fully understand the small businesses’ issues,

especially right now. I think it’s one thing that kind of a majority of

the people we talked to agreed. This is one area that we’d help in

changing the employment standard. That’s why the wide consultation —

reaching out to the workers, the small businesses, the business

representatives, the labour, the community activists, the women’s

groups. I think all of them suggested that this is something that is

lacking and we must move on, and that’s how we made this

decision.

J. Martin: But given that we are dealing with a societal problem, not just a

workplace problem, why wouldn’t the government want to get involved in

the rest of the community — society, the government — in supporting such

a noble effort rather than the employer having to shoulder the entire

cost of such a program that we all support in this House?

Hon. H. Bains: When we went through the consultations, a number of different

suggestions were being made. What kind of a program can we have? Can

something like the EI program work? It was looked at. In order to have

that type of program, or attached to the EI program, it would require

the federal government to agree, because that is a federal government

program. As we already know, for the EI sick leave, there is a one-week

waiting period. So even that part didn’t work.

I think that all those discussions took place during the

consultation process. Then we looked at what the other jurisdictions

have done. If you take a look at Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and New

Brunswick and the federal jurisdictions, they all provide five days

employer-paid sick leave, so that’s how the decision was

made.

[4:45 p.m.]

It wasn’t an easy decision to be made, because we understand that

there are very, very small business owners who may have difficulty in

adopting this and incurring the costs. But when you look at what is

available, what are the possibilities out there in order to deal with

the real issues? We understand the victims or those people who are

suffering sexual or domestic violence, the devastation that they go

through. I think that it’s our duty as a society to support them so that

they can leave that circumstance, for the safety of themselves and of

their children, and look for a new job, a new home, a new school — and

to do the banking, if they need to change the banking.

There’s a whole host of things that go through the minds of those

people who are suffering domestic violence or sexual violence. I think

that the last thing that you want them to go through is to worry about

the economic hardship that was placed on them by not getting paid. They

need time off in order to do all those things, but if they are burdened

with worry about paying their bills — because the income is not coming —

in order to do the necessary thing that they need to do during that

time, I think that’s why the government moved.

I’m happy that the members of the opposition also supported this

at that particular time. It’s something that I think is the right thing

to do, and that’s why we moved in the direction that we did.

J. Martin: The last inquiry on this particular section. To the minister, will

this have any impact whatsoever on workers compensation

insurance?

Hon. H. Bains: No, I am advised that it will not have any impact on the

WCB.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

J. Martin: When we look at leave for victims of domestic and sexual violence

in the Employment Standards Amendment Act of 2019, the Employment

Standards Amendment Act, 2020, there’s been very much a non-partisan,

collaborative spirit on both sides of the House. However,

section 2 of

this amendment act leaves the specifying circumstances and the

calculations mainly up to regulation. What is the purpose of this when

we have largely been able to make these changes legislatively in the

previous circumstances?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Again, what we passed in

section 1 describes the area — who

qualifies for this leave and, also, how that person shall be paid and

how the wages will be calculated.

What this

section talks about is that in the event there are some

gaps left, through regulations, you can fix it. For example, the

previous

section talked about the average pay calculations. How do you

get paid? There are a variety of different ways different people are

getting paid. They may have a certain period where their wages are

higher. The other times, the wages may not be as much. It’s

seasonal-based. There could be a variety of different situations where

regulations might be needed in order to fix the gap there.

I think that’s the purpose here. In case we miss something in

section 1, we are able to fix it through regulations so that it’s clear

to the employee who will be impacted by this and also to the employer.

So we have fixed the gap in case the gap was left out of

section

J. Martin: Thank you for that, Minister. You’ve basically answered my next

follow-up to that. But is it the intention to possibly also expand or

change

definitions in the event of that?

Hon. H. Bains: The answer is no. The only authority under this

section to make

changes through regulations is how the wages are calculated, not the

definition of who qualifies.

J. Martin: One final question to the minister. If there are changes made via

regulation — whether it’s to the specifying circumstances, minimum

amounts or anything else — will there be consultations made before these

changes come into effect, and who would the parties be that would be

consulted?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I think the likely scenario is that some stakeholder will identify

some gaps — how the wages are calculated, whether we are doing it right

or not, and whether there are some changes needed. I think that’s how we

will then consider, with the direction of the employment standards

branch…. Then it will be brought to our attention. Then we will make a

decision whether we want to proceed with those changes, to fix that gap

and to, first of all, consider whether there is a gap and whether that

is in line with the intention of this bill.

I think that’s how the system will work. There could be a focused

consultation, talking to those people who are impacted and those people

who brought it to our attention. It could be other people involved. I

think it’s going to be a quite focused approach through those kinds of

regulation changes. It all will be driven by if someone identifies that

there’s a gap and it’s not working the way the intention is in this

section of this act. I think that’s how it will be handled.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. H. Bains: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:58 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[5:00 p.m.]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 5, Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2020, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Motions Without Notice

RECALL OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY

DEVELOPMENT MINISTRY

ESTIMATES

IN RESPONSE TO COVID-19 PANDEMIC

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

[That, notwithstanding the usual practices of the House and the

report of resolution and completion on Vote 19 of the Committee of

Supply of March 5, 2020, and further to the Sessional Order of June 22,

2020 regulating the proceedings of the Committee of Supply for this

Session, the Committee of Supply,

Section C, question the Deputy

Minister, Ministry of Children and Family Development on July 17, 2020

on ministry operations in regard to COVID-19 related

expenditures.]

This has been discussed by all three House Leaders.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Schedule of Estimates

Hon. M. Farnworth: With that, I will also table the revised

schedule for Committee of

Supply budget estimates for Thursday, July 16 and Friday, July

I call second reading, Bill 18, Economic Stabilization Act.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 18 — ECONOMIC STABILIZATION

(COVID-19)

ACT

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 18, the Economic Stabilization (COVID-19) Act, be

now read a second time.

This bill implements tax relief measures previously announced by

the government in response to COVID-19. These measures will bring

financial relief for people and businesses as we address the ongoing

effects of the pandemic.

The bill consists of five parts.

Part 1 extends the tax return

filing and payment deadlines under the Carbon Tax Act, the Motor Fuel

Tax Act, Tobacco Tax Act and Provincial Sales Tax Act until September

30, 2020.

When our governm