Fifth Session, 41st Parliament

(2020) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, July 21, 2020

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 344

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

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 24 — Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 4) Amendment Act, 2020

Hon. S. Robinson

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Kelowna Farmers and Crafters Market

S. Thomson

High school graduates in Esquimalt-Metchosin area

M. Dean

Jim Good and Goodsir Nature Park

S. Bond

Raj Arneja and book on adoption

J. Sims

Mila Duke and Dravet syndrome treatment

S. Cadieux

Museum project for North Vancouver

B. Ma

Oral Questions

Impact of changes to workers compensation system

A. Wilkinson

Hon. J. Horgan

J. Johal

Hon. H. Bains

Report on biodiversity and protection of old-growth forests

S. Furstenau

Hon. G. Heyman

Impact of changes to workers compensation system

P. Milobar

Hon. H. Bains

S. Bond

M. de Jong

S. Cadieux

Petitions

Hon. M. Mungall

C. Oakes

Orders of the Day

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 13 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2020

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 6 — Mines Amendment Act, 2020 (continued)

T. Shypitka

Hon. B. Ralston

Schedule of Estimates

Hon. M. Farnworth

TUESDAY, JULY 21, 2020

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: R. Sultan.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, people will notice the absence of the Attorney General today,

who, because it’s his birthday, has been given dispensation to participate

in question period virtually. I know all members would want to wish the

Attorney a very happy, happy birthday.

We won’t be in here on Thursday when the member for Port Coquitlam

celebrates his birthday, but it’s important that everyone know that he is

much, much older than me as a result of that.

So two birthdays, one for the member for Vancouver–​Point Grey

and one for the member for Port Coquitlam. Will the House join both of them

— one getting not as old as the other one.

Mr. Speaker: I see we have a little visitor in the House, Minister.

Hon. M. Mungall: We do. Two years ago, right about at this time, I was cradling my

brand-new baby in my arms. Here he is today, two years later. So we have

another birthday in the House.

It also means that Zavier is formally aged out of being able to join

me on the floor, so this is his last opportunity to say hello to everybody

from the floor of the Legislature and to say thanks to everybody for being

so wonderful in welcoming him to this place over the last couple of years.

If everybody please could join me in wishing this little guy a very happy

birthday.

Mr. Speaker: I think you can sneak him in again.

S. Cadieux: John and Kristina Duke and their adorable daughter Mila are joining us

today virtually in anticipation of a statement I’ll be making a little

later. If the House would please make them welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 24 — MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING

AND VALIDATING

(N o . 4)

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. S. Robinson presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipalities Enabling and Validating

(No. 4) Amendment Act, 2020.

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m pleased to introduce Bill 24, the Municipalities Enabling and

Validating (No. 4) Amendment Act, 2020. This bill seeks an amendment

that is to validate and enable certain parcel taxes that were

established by the Fraser Valley regional district with a procedural

defect.

Since 2017, the regional district has applied parcel taxes on

approximately 700 properties that will fund local water and sewage

services used by those properties. While the regional district has the

statutory authority to impose the taxes, due to an oversight, it did not

establish a parcel tax review panel as required under the Local

Government Act and the Community Charter. In addition, one of the bylaws

did not fully comply with the statutory requirement to identify the

parcel tax roll in the bylaw.

The proposed amendment will correct this oversight and validate

the taxes imposed under these parcel tax bylaws from 2017 to 2020. The

amendments also enable the imposition of parcel taxes, going forward, by

allowing the regional district to retroactively establish the parcel tax

review panel in accordance with the statutory requirements.

[10:10 a.m.]

The Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act has previously been

used to validate similar procedural errors. MEVA’s purpose is to

validate and enable local government actions and authorities in unique

circumstances such as these or where the local government does not have

their own source tools to address the issue.

The proposed validating and enabling amendments will ensure that

past services are funded and that the regional district can continue to

impose the taxes supporting the essential water and sewage services to

the recipient properties.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 24, Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 4) Amendment

Act, 2020, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

KELOWNA FARMERS AND CRAFTERS MARKET

S. Thomson: Where is the best place to get breakfast on a Saturday morning and

to shop for local produce and crafts? Well, the answer is the Kelowna

Farmers and Crafters Market at the corner of Dilworth and Springfield,

one of the largest farmers markets in British Columbia, with over 100

vendors and, in my view, one of the best farmers markets in B.C. Now, I

might get a little bit of an argument on that point.

This year the Kelowna farmers market is celebrating its 25th year

of operation. I was really looking forward to participating in the

birthday celebration on June 20, but unfortunately, COVID-19 resulted in

the planned party being cancelled. I must extend my congratulations to

market coordinator Frances Callaghan and her team on getting the market

open on April 4 with all of the appropriate health and safety protocols

in place. Hopefully, we’re going to have the opportunity in the future

to celebrate and recognize their 25 years of growth and

success.

The market operates every Wednesday and Saturday at the Dilworth

location and also has a satellite Sunday market in the downtown core in

Kelowna. The Sunday market is a great complement to the expanded patio

space, with the closure of traffic along Bernard Avenue downtown, a

measure to support restaurants and local small businesses in that

downtown core.

The market has a tremendous array of local farmers and crafters

that provide a wonderful bounty of fruits, vegetables, meats, flowers

and processed products from my friends Jim and Lorena Wood at Eastwood

Organic, Penny Gamble and her family from Gamble Farms, Karma Gill and

his Karma farm products, Zelaney Farms from Coldstream. The market

creates such a wonderful opportunity for our local residents and all of

our visitors to support our wonderful Okanagan farmers and

processors.

I’d like to ask this House to recognize the great work of the team

at the Kelowna Farmers and Crafters Market and also the leadership of

the B.C. Association of Farmers Markets and farmers markets in

communities all across the province.

Buy local, shop local, and support our small businesses here in

B.C.

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES

IN ESQUIMALT-METCHOSIN

AREA

M. Dean: I am so proud to rise today to express my congratulations and

felicitations to all of the graduates from schools across

Esquimalt-Metchosin this year, 2020.

I missed watching you all at your ceremonies and hearing what your

hopes and dreams are. I know that you’ve worked hard, made sacrifices,

had to balance many demands and have achieved a lot to be successful and

reach this milestone. I also want to say thank you to everyone around

you who has supported you through the years to reach this

achievement.

My heart goes out to our graduating classes of 2020. While putting

in the effort to be successful, you’ve been studying in the midst of one

of the most stressful global events of our time. Thank you for doing

your part to flatten the curve.

[10:15 a.m.]

Although your prom and festivities didn’t look the same, I know

that you have been finding connections and celebrations and creating

lasting memories. In Esquimalt, for example, the community organized a

drive-by. I went down there to show my support and stood on the side of

the road with many other people from the community. At first sight, it

was actually really quite emotional. It was full of colour and sparkle

and great joy and pride as well.

I know that other school communities found other ways to hold

ceremonies to celebrate and honour their graduates. There were very

special and safe events.

Let’s hold on to the positives and look to the future. I’m sure

you will soar to wonderful new things. Graduates from Belmont, Royal

Bay, Esquimalt High, Westshore learning and Victor Brodeur: I wish you

all the very best and sincerely hope that you can fulfil your

dreams.

JIM GOOD AND GOODSIR NATURE PARK

S. Bond: I am sure that every MLA in this Legislature has a place in their

constituency that would be considered a hidden gem. That would certainly

be the case for Goodsir Nature Park, which is located a short distance

north of Prince George.

The creator of the nature park is Jim Good. Last year we

celebrated 30 years since Jim founded Goodsir. He believes in following

your dreams, and Jim did just that. His dream was to create a nature

park that showcased a collection of Canada’s plant life.

Goodsir Nature Park spans 160 acres and features over 2,000 plant

species, which Jim collected throughout his travels across Canada. There

are groomed trails to view and learn about the plants, and each plant is

carefully labelled and provides visitors with the name of the plant and

where it can be found in Canada. One of the things that inspires me the

most about the park is that each sign is handmade by Jim.

Over the years, Jim developed the trails, which feature the

different species of trees and plants from across our country. He will

likely tell you that his favourite spot is called Little Goodsir Lake,

where, if you are lucky, you might see an eagle, a beaver or a muskrat,

all in their natural habitat.

Jim began by homesteading on the property in the early 1980s, and

he worked tirelessly to create the park. Jim wrote a declaration for

Goodsir Nature Park. It says, in part: “Its purpose is to focus on all

native plant life throughout Canada…. It was built on a janitor’s

salary, and I believe it will stand the test of time for future

generations to see.” I have visited Goodsir Nature Park many times, and

each time I am moved by the passion and drive of Jim Good, which

resulted in this amazing hidden gem.

Thank you, Jim, for giving us the incredible gift of Goodsir

Nature Park. I, too, hope that it stands the test of time and gives

future generations the enjoyment that my family has

experienced.

RAJ ARNEJA AND BOOK ON ADOPTION

J. Sims: Love at First Sight: A Mother’s Journey to Adoption. Raj

Arneja is a pillar in our community. She is a businesswoman, a

philanthropist and, most recently, an author. Raj’s book is a

celebration of motherhood through adoption. She wrote this book with the

hope that it will inspire more people to adopt or change their

perspective on adoption. “My children are my jaans, my

lifelines, and my souls, and this is the story of how I found them,”

says Raj.

After struggling with fertility issues for several years, Raj and

her husband, Gurpreet, made the decision to embark on a journey that

would change their lives forever, the journey to adopt. In 1992, with a

suitcase full of pink and white, Raj headed to India to find her

daughter and bring her home. After weeks of searching and a pilgrimage

to the top of Hin Konsaib, Raj’s prayers were answered. She had a

message that a baby had been abandoned at a private hospital in Delhi.

Three months later Raj and her son Kabir were reunited with her family

in Canada.

Four years later Raj and Kabir returned to India on a journey to

complete their family. Kirti was born and became theirs.

Before returning to Canada, Gurpreet and Raj visited the Golden

Temple with their new family. In the book, Raj says that bringing Kabir

and Kirti to the temple was her most spiritual and most moving moment

ever. “I couldn’t have been more thankful than I was at that moment in

my life. I had everything. My family was complete.”

[10:20 a.m.]

A pillar of the community, a businesswoman, a philanthropist, an

author, a mother and my dear friend.

Thank you, Raj Arneja, for sharing your journey about completing

your family. It is beautiful, it is courageous, it is uplifting, and it

is filled with a love only a mother can express.

MILA DUKE AND

DRAVET SYNDROME

TREATMENT

S. Cadieux: Rare diseases affect a small percentage of the population, and

it’s estimated that there are approximately 7,000 rare diseases. Rare

diseases have many different causes. Most are believed to be genetic,

caused by deviations in chromosomes or genes. Even though researchers

have made exceptional progress in learning how to diagnose, treat and

prevent several of these rare diseases, many still have no

treatment.

Dravet syndrome is a rare genetic form of epilepsy that affects 1

in about 15,000 individuals. Individuals with Dravet syndrome experience

frequent and prolonged seizures that start during infancy, delayed

speech and language issues, sleeping difficulties, chronic infections

and more. Mila Duke, a very young constituent of mine, is one of the few

Canadians who has been diagnosed with Dravet syndrome. This beautiful

little toddler frequently has seizures which can last up to two hours

and are life-threatening.

Fintepla, an FDA-approved anti-seizure therapy for patients two

years and older, has been approved. Mila’s parents, John and Kristina

Duke, are hopeful that Fintepla might help improve Mila’s quality of

life. However, right now, we don’t know if Fintepla will be approved in

Canada, and even if it is, the affordability of the anti-seizure therapy

will likely be another hurdle, as it’s projected the average cost could

be $96,000 a year.

A service dog, trained to predict and help manage seizures, might

be helpful, so John and Kristina are working toward this. However,

Mila’s young age makes her ineligible to get a dog from the only

Canadian agency that trains dogs to handle seizures. Purchasing a dog

from 4 Paws for Ability in Ohio will cost $17,000 U.S.

Friends have established a GoFundMe page to help raise the money

for Mila. Anyone who’d like to support can visit

www.gofundme.com/f/miracles-4-mila.

I don’t know who said this, but isn’t it true: “A disease may be

rare, but hope should not be.”

MUSEUM PROJECT FOR NORTH VANCOUVER

B. Ma: Down in the bustling, vibrant shipyards district lies a poorly

kept secret, stored behind high hoarding walls and construction lights.

Lovingly refurbished and painted bright red, the No. 153 streetcar is

the last of its kind, one of the 13 original streetcars that took 1.9

million people up Lonsdale, over to Capilano and into Lynn Valley a

century ago. That’s per year, by the way.

Soon it will be viewable by the public. But for now, it hides in

the dark as the walls, floors and ceilings go up all around it within a

16,000-square-foot, city-owned amenity space inside the new Promenade

building across from the Lonsdale Quay Market and Polygon

Gallery.

When the new museum of North Vancouver opens later this year, it

will be more than simply a museum that serves the community. It will

bring people together and build community, while connecting us to the

past and encouraging us to contemplate what it all means for the future.

There you will be able to find a curated and secure repository for the

treasures and stories of our shared history, as it plays a vital role in

education for youth and provides an interactive alternative to the

classroom education model.

It will also serve as an exciting new venue for events in the

lower Lonsdale area. We look forward to it contributing significantly to

the tourism economy as we restart from the impacts of COVID-19, which I

hope we will continue to do, if people stay vigilant in maintaining

their distance from one another.

In a statement sent to me by the North Vancouver Museum and

Archives, they said the following: “Stories are the threads that weave

us together and form the fabric of community. Museums are where

communities discover themselves and grow strong and

resilient.”

What an exciting project for North Vancouver.

Oral Questions

IMPACT OF CHANGES TO

WORKERS COMPENSATION

SYSTEM

A. Wilkinson: Sadly, for the second time in less than a month, 21 industry

groups, representing the majority of employees in British Columbia, have

written to this government saying that tens of thousands of small

businesses are now seeing jobs put at risk.

They write: “We urged your government to do no harm and set aside

any measures that increase costs, regulatory burden and uncertainty. But

you’re ignoring the advice of B.C’s business leaders, owners, operators

and those responsible for employing most British Columbians.”

[10:25 a.m.]

To the Premier, when will he stop ignoring this advice in the

middle of this crisis and stop putting thousands of B.C. jobs at

risk?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question.

I did receive a copy of a letter from a number of business groups,

talking about legislation that’s currently before the House that will

amend the Workers Compensation Act. We believe those changes are modest.

We are certain that those changes will not lead to premium increases for

businesses in the short term. What it will do is provide more assistance

for injured workers — something that hasn’t happened in 20

years.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Well, the Premier continues to defy reality. Three weeks ago, he

stubbornly refused to accept common sense on the issue of severance pay

and finally beat a retreat when it became clear his position was

completely untenable.

This time, the business community writes: “The government’s

economic recovery plan is still unknown, and Bill 23 measures call into

question the sincerity of your government’s commitment to listen to

British Columbians, particularly small, medium and large business

employers.”

Will the Premier stop ignoring these cries for help in the middle

of the worst economic crisis in our history and withdraw Bill 23 before

thousands of jobs are lost for no good reason?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, I’m sure that the Leader of the Opposition knows that the

Workers Compensation Act was brought in to find balance between workers

and employers, to keep people out of court when there was an injury at

the workplace. That protects workers, it protects businesses, and that

grand compromise has been going on in British Columbia for a long, long

time.

Over the previous 20 years of the Liberal government, their

approach to workers compensation was to give back surplus premiums to

businesses to the tune of $1.6 billion over the time of their

government. At no time did they increase, in any way, benefits for

workers.

So what we see with this act is a modest change, and it has been

debated. I believe we’re going into committee stage on the bill. The

member can certainly participate fully in that debate if he chooses

to.

What we’ve done is increase benefits for workers without it having

any cost to business. Premiums remain the same this year; premiums

remain the same next year. There was a consultation with Mr. Parr. We

looked at all of the recommendations Mr. Parr brought forward. Any

recommendations that would have an adverse impact on business, we put to

one side. But we’re not going to leave workers at risk. I appreciate the

member from the other side understands this.

The economy is about people. If you write the cheque or you cash

the cheque, you need to work together — business and workers. That’s

what this bill will do. That’s what the Workers Compensation Act was

designed to do.

J. Johal: The Premier speaks about modest changes, but these so-called

modest changes have united 21 organizations, representing various

sectors in our economy, representing hundreds of thousands of workers,

and they’ve all united together.

The July 20 letter to the Labour Minister lays out the threat this

government poses to economic recovery in stark terms. They write:

“Instead of holding the line on further business costs and regulatory

enactments, you are doubling down on increasing business costs and

adding uncertainty to B.C.’s investment climate.”

To the Labour Minister: why is he putting workers at risk by

doubling down on more red tape and regulations?

Hon. H. Bains: The member full well knows that for too many years, workers and

their families have been complaining that the workers compensation

system isn’t fair, isn’t working for them.

What we are doing is taking some important steps to modernize the

Workers Compensation Act, ensuring that workers and their families get

the support they need while keeping premiums low.

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

supplemental.

J. Johal: There’s enough uncertainty in the world today because of COVID.

Economic recovery and how we handle economic recovery is so very

important. But right now, it’s NDP policy that is concerning these

businesses. Just three weeks ago, this very Labour Minister, once again,

had to walk it back because these various business organizations spoke

up. Not only does this government lack a business plan, but this Labour

Minister’s policies are actually making things worse.

[10:30 a.m.]

Here’s another gem from the letter. “There was no consultation on

Bill 23 measures in the context of COVID-19. It is ill-timed,

ill-considered and ignores broad-based and repeated requests from the

business community to do no harm.”

Again to the minister, why is he throwing an anchor instead of a

lifeline to thousands of small businesses across B.C.?

Hon. H. Bains: It is amazing. One day they stand up here and say that we do too

much consultation. On the other side, they stand up the next day to say

we haven’t done enough.

We have consulted. Four different reports were commissioned; all

of them were consulted. All of the stakeholders were consulted. Jeff

Parr went out and consulted on exactly the changes that we are talking

about here.

Let’s talk about some of those changes. Allowing WorkSafeBC to

provide preventative medical treatment, which could save money, in the

long term, for the system. Strengthen the ability of WorkSafeBC to

investigate workplace safety infractions. Enhancing workers’ health and

safety at workplaces. Giving injured workers and their families a

greater voice through victim impact statements. These changes are

modest, but they are important to support the workers who need help at

the time when they need it.

At the same time, we are enhancing health and safety of workers at

workplaces. I hope all of us can agree with that. Also, we expect no

increase to premiums in the next two years as a result of this bill. In

fact, businesses will continue to pay less than the actual cost rate,

thanks to the ongoing subsidies.

REPORT ON BIODIVERSITY AND

PROTECTION OF OLD-GROWTH

FORESTS

S. Furstenau: Yesterday the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resources

acknowledged: “There is a need for stronger steps to protect

biodiversity and to support workers and communities dependent on the

forest resource.” He promised that this government is taking a

science-based approach to this issue.

Today I’d like to canvass, with the Minister of Environment, what

the science is actually saying about this government’s current approach

to old growth. Very recently, three independent scientists released a

report titled A Last Stand for Biodiversity . Using the

government’s own data, these researchers have analyzed the current state

of old growth in British Columbia. What did they find? It’s that the

current levels of protection for old forests in B.C. are so low that

they actually don’t support biodiversity. The status quo “puts

biodiversity, ecological integrity and resilience at high risk

today.”

My question is to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change

Strategy. Does he agree that our current levels of old forest protection

are inadequate to protect biodiversity in B.C., and if so, what is he

doing to immediately improve the amount of old forest

protection?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the Third Party House Leader for the question. I

think it’s very clear from my colleague the Minister of Forests, Lands,

Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development, both his activities

and answer yesterday, that his focus on the important role of old

forests for a multitude of values, including biodiversity, led him and

led our government to appoint the panel to do the review.

As he answered yesterday, he is very much in the process of

reviewing the report, which included a significant submission from the

independent report by three forest researchers that the member

references. I’ve engaged with the minister in discussion about the

old-growth panel’s report, about the report of the independent

scientists, about his thoughts going forward. I’ve joined the minister

in meetings with concerned environmental organizations to talk about

their ideas, as well as the review process that the minister is

undertaking.

I’m confident that the minister’s response to these reports will

be meaningful and will help us chart a path forward, along with the

activities being undertaken in my ministry.

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

S. Furstenau: While all of this review and the panel are doing their work,

unfortunately, old forests are disappearing, and they’re disappearing

forever. Returning to the scientists’ report, they found, again using

the government’s own data, that less than 1 percent of our total forest

area in B.C. is made up of big-tree forests.

[10:35 a.m.]

These are the forests that people think of when they think about

old growth. They are highly productive ecosystems. They produce majestic

trees, and they provide unique, rare habitats, but they have almost

vanished. To quote the authors: “These ecosystems are effectively the

white rhino of old-growth forests. They are almost extinguished and will

not recover from logging.” We don’t get a second chance at this. If this

government is truly committed to protecting biodiversity, they will act

to stop the bleed in these rare old forests.

My question is again to the Minister of Environment and Climate

Change Strategy. Will he work with his cabinet colleagues to put a

moratorium on logging our last remaining, productive old growth in

British Columbia?

Hon. G. Heyman: Our government is very committed to protecting biodiversity and to

finding a way forward that is respectful of workers, of communities, of

Indigenous nations and of the flora and fauna which provide such an

important set of ecological services to all of us and which ensure that

the water we drink, the air we breathe and the abundance of life around

us maintain the biodiversity that is so critical for all of us going

forward.

That’s why we’ve been reviewing and working with environmental

groups and others on different ways to improve species at risk as we

move toward legislation. We’re taking some significant policy measures,

including consistent implementation of mitigating and offsetting

measures for development activities as well as renewal of our approach

to prioritizing and listing of species at risk.

We’re also working with the federal government and Indigenous

Nations. We’ve protected rare inland temperate rainforest in the

Darkwoods Conservation Area with the federal government and the Nature

Conservancy of Canada.

Working with my colleague the Minister of Forests, we protected

from further logging the Skagit Valley Donut Hole. We’ve also protected

habitat for other species at risk by moratoria, set-asides and

conservancies. My colleague the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural

Resources, I know — because I talk to him on a regular basis — is

applying himself to ensuring that the report is considered and

implemented in a meaningful way, including measures that need to be

taken in the short term, as well as measures in the long

term.

He’s doing that in a way that is respectful of

government-to-government relationships and true consultation. He’s doing

that in a way that’s respectful of workers and communities. He’s doing

that in a way that will guarantee that we have good protections and good

protection of biodiversity and rare species, including old-growth

forests, going forward.

IMPACT OF CHANGES TO

WORKERS COMPENSATION

SYSTEM

P. Milobar: In the Labour Minister’s answers so far today, it feels like he’s

just reading his answers from Hansard from three weeks ago,

when he eventually walked back that failed plan for the business

community as well. The reality is that the business community, including

members of the Premier’s own task force, are pleading with this

government to do no harm.

In fact, they sent a letter yesterday that was nine pages long.

This is not just a quick little note that they scratched out with some

objections. It’s nine pages. They write: “Simply put, now is not the

time to add more costs and uncertainty to B.C.’s workers compensation

system.”

Again to the Labour Minister, why is the Labour Minister so intent

on adding costs and uncertainty, which will put thousands of jobs at

risk, when the 21 signatories have very clearly signalled that that is

exactly what will happen with Bill 23?

Hon. H. Bains: For the reasons that have been canvassed here, our approach has

been very measured and follows significant review by Mr. Parr. We

decided not to proceed with all of Mr. Parr’s recommendations. In fact,

if we had, it would have cost $700 million to the WCB’s accident fund.

Because of COVID-19, because of circumstances we are going through, we

decided not to proceed with those recommendations. We put them

aside.

As I said before, our approach is fair to businesses, who will not

see an increase in their premiums in the short term as a result of this

bill. Also, it’s fair to the workers, who have not seen any improvement

to the workers compensation system in 20 years. In fact, striking the

right balance, businesses will continue to receive a subsidy on their

premiums, paying only $1.55 when the cost is $1.67.

[10:40 a.m.]

I stand with our decision to make long-overdue changes and

modernize the workers compensation system, while keeping the premiums

for the businesses low and stable.

P. Milobar: I’m assuming — and it wouldn’t surprise me — that the minister

seems to think that because businesses’ remittances have gone down,

they’re saving money. But the remittances have gone down because they

don’t have employees working right now. They have no payroll to remit

against. At a time when hundreds of thousands of British Columbians have

lost their jobs, this government is making things worse.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the member for Kamloops–​North Thompson has the

floor. Thank you.

P. Milobar: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. I seem to have struck a nerve

there.

I quote about how they’re making things worse. Again, from the

nine-page letter: “These added costs will impact businesses of all size

and their ability to restart, rehire and contemplate new investment in

the province. Ultimately, additional costs for Bill 23 will harm people

from all walks of life who have lost or are on the brink of losing their

livelihoods.”

This is the second time in three weeks that the minister is

failing to listen to small businesses and putting their jobs at risk.

Why does the minister insist on continuing down this path of added costs

and uncertainty for business?

Hon. H. Bains: Let’s talk about who we are actually talking about here. These are

our front-line workers. These are the people working in health care.

These are the people that are working in the grocery stores, cleaners,

construction workers, doctors, nurses, care aides. These are the people

that they and all of us stand at seven o’clock every night and support

them for the work that they do.

When those….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, the minister has the floor.

Hon. H. Bains: When it is to follow with our actions, they’re gone missing again

— true to their form.

We’re proud of the work that we are doing, proud that we are

taking a measured approach due to the circumstances that we have —

support the workers, enhance their health and safety. At the same time,

provide them support when they become sick or injured in the workplace.

It’s a balanced approach, and it’s keeping businesses’ premiums low and

stable.

I don’t know what else is what is called balanced. That exactly is

a balanced approach.

S. Bond: Well, to be clear, this is a pattern for the Labour Minister. He

rejected the request to extend the temporary layoff extension, and he

was called out for it. Now job creators are saying, in a nine-page

document: “There was no consultation in the context of COVID-19, calling

into question the sincerity of your government’s commitment to listen.

Minister, this has been a recurring challenge with your

approach.”

To the Labour Minister, those aren’t my words; those are the words

of job creators across the province. When is he going to stop being

dismissive of small businesses and listen to their serious

concerns?

Hon. H. Bains: When COVID-19 hit, we all understood that we needed to act

quickly, and we did. The Minister of Finance came up with a $5 billion

aid package — $1.8 billion to the businesses, $700 million in tax breaks

to the property taxes for businesses.

Deferred taxes. WCB has allowed them to defer their premiums for

six months without interest or penalty. They have waived premiums for

certain employers as well. They are making decisions that the businesses

will continue to get a subsidized rate. It costs $1.67, versus $1.55

that they continue to pay.

This is the right balance. We must improve the health and safety

of the workplace. We also must support them when they are

injured.

Mr. Speaker, what they’re talking about is if a nurse or a care

aide contracted COVID-19…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. H. Bains: …at a workplace, she does not need support by improving the

workers compensation system.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. H. Bains: That is exactly what we are doing — supporting those workers who

are supporting us and risking their health right now. I hope they will

get over this ideological block that they always have and support those

workers who are supporting us in tough times right now.

[10:45 a.m.]

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

supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, hundreds of employers across British Columbia are saying to

this minister that they have concerns that they want him to listen

to.

Let’s be clear. This government has not yet articulated a jobs

plan. No economic recovery strategy. On top of that, we now have the

Business Council, the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, the Vancouver Board of

Trade, the Retail Council, COFI, the tourism industry and many others

all saying the same thing, that this Labour Minister is making things

worse.

The bottom line is this bill. Again, I quote from their nine-page

letter to the Labour Minister. “The bill calls into question whether you

are interested in facilitating a lasting economic recovery for all

British Columbians.”

Perhaps to the Premier, when is this government going to respond

to these significant concerns and put forward a jobs plan instead of

putting thousands of B.C. jobs at risk?

Hon. H. Bains: If we look at what’s in the bill that they are talking about — for

example, diagnostic and preventative treatment before a WCB decision….

In some cases, workers may require diagnostic and preventative treatment

before the WCB decides on their claim. Provide such health care services

on a timely basis, including before a decision is made, because it could

become a serious illness for that worker. Also, it could cost the system

more money.

This one is striking the right balance by trying to help the

worker, at the same time, when they need it and by keeping the premiums

for the employers low.

M. de Jong: What the Labour Minister doesn’t seem to want to acknowledge is

that the people responsible for employing the majority of British

Columbians don’t see this as a balanced approach.

We were reminded yesterday just how fragile the public health

situation is in B.C. and how we all have to conduct ourselves with that

fragility in mind. But does the Labour Minister understand how fragile

the economic situation is in British Columbia? Does he understand how

many businesses are hanging on by their fingernails and how the decision

about whether to rehire an employee or shut the doors forever is hanging

in the balance?

Instead of offering a helping hand, he decides now, when those

small, family-owned businesses are at their most vulnerable, to impose

additional uncertainty, to impose additional costs. It has become a

recurring theme with this Labour Minister.

Why does he insist on proceeding with changes that are, to quote

those employers, “ill-timed and ill-considered” and ignore repeated

requests from businesses to do no further harm?

Hon. H. Bains: I think our record is very clear. We have shown…. When businesses

were going through tough times because of COVID-19, government acted — a

$5 billion aid package, deferred taxes, cut taxes and $1.5 billion set

aside for economic recovery. We fully understand the economic challenges

that businesses are going through. That’s why all those support systems

were in place in a timely fashion.

We need to understand that the workers also need support during

these tough times. Their health and safety cannot be compromised. Their

health and safety must be enhanced.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. H. Bains: They need support when they become sick in the

workplace.

This system is 20 years old.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. H. Bains: They have not seen any improvements in 20 years.

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

[10:50 a.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: They need our support as well. That’s why we did not go with Mr.

Parr’s recommendations. Those were costly. We know times are tough for

businesses. That’s why we did not proceed with them.

What we are proceeding with is a measured approach where workers’

health and safety will be improved. They will get the support when they

need it, when they are hurt or injured in the workplace, and, at the

same time, keeping employer premiums stable and low.

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

M. de Jong: What those employees want is a job to return to, and this minister

is putting those jobs at risk. Here’s what he’s being told: “You are

doubling down on increasing fixed and variable business costs and adding

uncertainty to B.C.’s investment climate. Your bill will undermine

employers trying to survive and rehire people.”

When is the last time we have seen groups representing the vast

majority of workers, employees in British Columbia, come together to

deliver this kind of condemnation of this Labour Minister? Well,

actually, it was only two or three weeks ago.

What is it about the current situation, the current public health

uncertainty and the current economic fragility that exists today that

convinced this Labour Minister that now is the perfect time to introduce

measures that will negatively impact businesses of all sizes and their

ability to restart, rehire and make further investments in B.C. when we

need it most?

Hon. H. Bains: If you take a look, the employers have been getting support from

the government, from WorkSafeBC. They have allowed them to defer their

premiums for six months. They will continue to get subsidized premiums,

$1.67 cost to $1.55 as what they pay. They will continue to enjoy that

subsidy as a result of the workers compensation accident

fund.

At the same time, we must support the workers that we support at

seven o’clock every day. I don’t know why they cannot stand up and say

to those workers that we are showing that support with our actions in

this House. They’re denying the support that they need, when they need

the WCB system. They’re saying no to that.

We are proud of the work we are doing to support those workers’

health and safety at workplaces and, at the same time, keeping

employers’ premiums low and stable. For once I’m asking that they will

stand up and say to those workers in this province, who are an important

cog in that wheel of our economy: “We support you. We support your

health and safety.”

That’s what’s needed from all of us during the tough times that

we’re going through. But no, true to their form, they show total

disrespect to the workers. As a result, I’ve seen, in the last 12 to 16

years, total contempt towards the working people.

We are proud of the work that we are doing to support those

workers, because they need our support, and, at the same time,

supporting employers, keeping their premiums low and stable.

S. Cadieux: I’ll tell workers that I will stand up for their right to a job.

Workers need jobs. The unemployment rate is at 13 percent, and 95

percent of the job losses have been in the private sector. They are

struggling to recover, but instead of helping, this government is taking

actions that, to quote business leaders and business owners, will

undermine the employers trying to survive and rehire people. “Bill 23 is

ill-timed, ill-considered and ignores broad-based and repeated requests

from the business community to do no harm.”

To the Labour Minister, he has a choice. Will he choose to save

thousands of jobs and pull this legislation?

Hon. H. Bains: That’s why, right from the beginning when this pandemic hit,

government moved quickly. That’s why there’s $1.5 billion set aside to

restart our economy. That’s why we did not shut the economy, as other

jurisdictions did: so as to keep those people employed.

[10:55 a.m.]

They’re forgetting one key part of the economy: people. Those are

the workers who help move that economy along. They need our support.

They also need to make sure that their health and safety are protected,

make sure that the worker who goes to work in the morning comes home

safe and healthy.

That’s what we are doing. We’re proud of doing it. This is right

thing to do, and it is the right time for it.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

Hon. M. Mungall: I’d like to present a petition today on behalf of my constituents in

the Salmo area. They have a petition here wanting to reaffirm the priority

need to replace Salmo Elementary School.

C. Oakes: I present a petition on behalf of all of the constituents of the

affected area of Quesnel-Hydraulic Road. The petition has been forwarded by

mail, and the Clerk’s office has it. The residents are asking for immediate

steps to be taken to reopen the Quesnel-Hydraulic Road as a result of the

slide this spring. The continued closure of this road is severely

jeopardizing the safety and industry of the affected residents. All of the

residents, 72 people, have signed the petition.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call third reading of Bill 13, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 13 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 13, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2020, read a third

time and passed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued committee stage, Committee of the Whole, Bill 6,

Mines Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 6 — MINES AMENDMENT ACT,

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 6;

R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 10:59 a.m.

section 2 (continued) .

[11:00 a.m.]

T. Shypitka: Just a quick recap on yesterday. I’ll just go through six items

here. The minister can agree or comment if he wishes.

One, the reg counts, the minister indicated, will go up by

nine.

Two, the minister will designate a person under the Public Service

Act that will not necessarily require any practical mining experience or

technical skills.

Three, the budget for this new CA and audit unit is under the

Ministry of Energy and Mines. The salary for the CA is somewhere between

$90,000 and $118,000, depending on experience.

Four, it is unclear how many FTEs will be required to round out

the audit unit and what the budget is, but what is noted is that it will

all come from the $20 million allocated to the ministry, and it will

come from the compliance and enforcement side and not from permitting

and authorizations.

Five, industry professionals will be allowed to work for the audit

unit, but it will be more contract work than a paid house

employee.

Six, conflict will not be an issue, as industry professionals that

do work for the chief auditor will not work for the chief inspector or

the chief permitting officer.

It leads to my first question, I guess. Will the minister commit

to ensuring that there is minimal competition for the existing pool of

experts in this province and that appropriate procedures will be in

place to ensure experience is available to all offices and industry

participants?

[11:05 a.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: The member has offered his own recapitulation and

summary of

yesterday’s debate. He went through that very rapidly. We had full

debate on all of those items yesterday. It seems to be a version of

chewing his cabbage twice.

I don’t think it’s productive for me to go through each of the

summary points that he makes, because some of them, frankly, I don’t

agree with. They’re not accurate. It’s an unusual way to proceed given

that we had very full debate on these sections yesterday.

If he hopes to gain some kind of rhetorical advantage by offering

his own

summary, a biased

summary, of what took place yesterday, I don’t

think it’s very helpful in advancing the bill. So I reject his

recapitulation and

summary of what took place yesterday.

If he wishes to go through those, then we will go through them,

one by one, and we’ll repeat what we did yesterday. If that’s his plan,

if that’s his idea of spending the time of the Legislature and the

citizens of British Columbia productively, so be it. I’ll endeavour to

respond. But for the moment, I don’t agree with his

summary, and I’m not

going to respond to it.

To the question that he posed, hirings will take place according

to all the statutory mechanisms that the public service is required to

follow — the Public Service Act, the oversight of the Merit

Commissioner. The best people will be hired in accordance with all the

necessary internal procedures, and I’m confident that there are

qualified candidates out there who want to come forward and serve the

public service of British Columbia and the citizens of British Columbia

with merit and distinction.

T. Shypitka: Well, I’m not sure what to say. If the minister is opposed to any

of the summations I made — there were only six of them — maybe he could

indicate which he doesn’t agree with.

But going forward, there is a limited pool of experts in this

province. So the question was: will the minister commit to ensuring that

there’s minimal competition? The audit unit is independent from other

regulatory functions, such as permitting and compliance and enforcement,

so there is only so much to go around. The question and concern is a

limit of professionals that are out there in the field that can do this

work and not be in fear of conflict.

The question once again is: will the minister commit to ensuring

that there’s minimal competition for the existing pool of experts in the

province?

Hon. B. Ralston: I’m wondering if the member could specify what he means by

“minimal competition.” He has used that expression a couple of times.

I’m not sure what he means by that, so perhaps he could explain it. To

limit competition in a way that would violate any of the statutes would

be, I think, problematic. I’m not sure what his intention is and what

direction he’s going with his question when he uses that phrase “minimal

competition.”

T. Shypitka: Well, the audit unit is independent from other regulatory

functions. To eliminate any type of conflict, industry professionals

can’t move around within those regulatory functions or they will be in

conflict, as the minister said yesterday. So would the minister ensure

that the limited pool of resources that we have is not grabbed by one

regulatory function or the other and that the pool, which is a finite

number…?

[11:10 a.m.]

Will the minister ensure that that pool of resources can be

equally distributed within the different regulatory functions so that

one doesn’t have them all and some others don’t?

Hon. B. Ralston: Yesterday I did state that the rules that will pertain to the

ability of people within the industry to move from one job to another,

from one contract to another, will not unduly hamper that movement.

There is certainly every confidence that while there are the required

prohibitions against conflict in some circumstances, generally, that

will not inhibit movement from one job to another or from one contract

to another.

Certainly, the idea that…. The experience of the ministry is that

whenever there is a competition posted, there are many qualified

applicants for those positions, and there is no shortage of people with

the right qualifications seeking employment with the public service of

British Columbia.

T. Shypitka: So the minister declares there would be no shortage of

professionals. Okay.

We’ll go to another

section here. Well, not another section,

sorry. Another part of

section 2. This is on delegations and

accompaniment onto mine sites. Are these delegations — these people that

can assist or walk on mine sites with an inspector — under the added

section 2.4 consistent with the Public Service Act?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: I’m advised that proposed

section 2.4 is consistent with the

Public Service Act.

T. Shypitka: Does the appointee need any mining experience or

education?

Hon. B. Ralston: The act specifies the powers of the chief auditor and his or her

power to delegate power. It does not set out the qualifications. Those

qualifications would be included in the job description. Just as in the

case of the chief auditor, the process of selection would follow the job

description, and the person with the requisite measure of auditing

qualifications and mining experience who best qualified for the position

would be the person selected.

T. Shypitka: Chair, if I could make a little point of order here. The last

couple of questions haven’t been really difficult. The last question, in

particular, was something I asked the minister yesterday on the chief

auditor’s appointment through the Public Service Act, and essentially,

it’s the same answer for here. In the spirit of good process here, maybe

the minister could deliver on the answers a little bit more

quickly.

[11:20 a.m.]

I’ll move to the next one here. How much notice must be given on

an appointment?

The Chair: Member, that was not a point of order, but your comments are

appreciated.

Was there any question to the minister?

T. Shypitka: Yes. How much notice must be given on an appointment?

Hon. B. Ralston: No notice is required.

T. Shypitka: So no notice is required. If that’s the case, then how is the

ministry or how would the chief auditor…? How would they know if there’s

a mines manager on site or the proper people to do an inspection with

that’s representative of the company?

Hon. B. Ralston: No notice is required in a legal sense. The mine manager — who

that person is — would be known by the people visiting the

site.

In a practical sense, in some cases, there might be advance

discussion of the presence or the arrival of the people delegated by the

chief auditor, but it’s not legally necessary.

T. Shypitka: Well, I just would think that to do a proper audit, you would need

the proper people to ensure that the audit is complete and done

correctly. Certain things, like files or access would be required, and

if most people aren’t there, then that audit won’t be done

professionally.

I’m concerned about that. Is the minister concerned about giving

proper notice?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: The decision of whether or not to give notice is left to the

discretion of the chief auditor. That would depend on the nature of the

audit, the reputation or the problem that was being investigated, and

there may be reasons not to give notice in some cases so that that

discretion is left to the chief auditor.

T. Shypitka: The only problem is…. What I see is a chief auditor comes in

unannounced with an appointee in tow, and they make an inspection

without some of the people that know that operation the best to give

explanation or rationale for some concerns that the auditor may have.

That gets written down, and there is no opportunity, at that point on

the site visit, to give rebuttal or explanation. Does that not concern

the minister at all?

Hon. B. Ralston: An audit is an investigation of a type that, in order to be

successful and to be thorough, would have to be fair. So the opportunity

to respond to anything that is discovered or commented upon by the chief

auditor or her delegate would always be given to the subject of the

audit. That’s pretty much the nature of the audit process.

It requires the opportunity to thoroughly examine, look at the

findings, give an opportunity to the auditee to respond in a timely way

and as thoroughly as they deem fit in order for the audit to have

validity and to achieve the purposes that its intended to achieve under

the act. So that’s the nature of an audit. I’m confident that with the

selection of the right people, with a combination of mining experience

and audit experience, audits that are conducted by the chief auditor

will exhibit those qualities.

T. Shypitka: My only concern is — and I’ll say it again — if the company has a

chance to respond. If it’s after the fact of the site visit, it becomes

essentially hearsay at that point. The best opportunity to address any

kind of concerns or questions would be at that time when the inspection

is taking place.

For example, the chief auditor doesn’t have to have any particular

mining experience, and he’s on the reliance of his appointee that’s

coming in to the mine site for inspection. He relies on that person, and

then maybe that person has a different view of what mining is all

about.

Hazardous material near an ecological sensitive area could be 20

metres, explained, but it could actually be 50 metres, and this becomes

this grey area during an audit. The respondent, the representative from

the company, has to make this response after the fact.

[11:30 a.m.]

Conditions may change between that time and when he gets a chance

to respond, and it all becomes what the auditor and the appointee say

and not so much on what the mines manager or whoever is representing

that company says.

In all fairness, to be fair in the process, all parties should be

present during an audit. I don’t see how it can work any better than

that. Is the minister prepared to make any other further comment on

that?

Hon. B. Ralston: The member has given a fairly fanciful hypothetical with a number

of what-ifs and avenues that the question meanders down. What I can say

about any audit — in order to be a valid audit under the act, it would

have to follow the principles of administrative fairness. That’s pretty

standard — the right to a fair investigation, the right to be heard, the

right to respond to anything that is asked by way of a

question.

I don’t think it’s useful for me as the minister to be prescribing

to the chief audit officer or the chief auditor how she or he should

conduct the investigations. The member has a predetermined idea of how

an audit should take place. I think I would rather leave that to the

professional judgment of the person selected and their delegates to

conduct that in accordance with the principles that are set out in the

act.

T. Shypitka: I’m kind of speechless that the minister doesn’t want to

participate in any way to try to ensure there is fairness on a mine

site, on a mine inspection, during an audit. It’s this minister’s

responsibility to ensure these practices are proper and fair for

everyone. To brush it aside and say, “Well, that’s the chief auditor’s

job….” I’m not too sure I’m confident with the minister’s approach to

mining in this province.

We’ll get on to another one. The next question is: can the

delegated appointee be working in any public or private mining operation

or office, or would they be an existing public servant?

Hon. B. Ralston: First, I want to deal with the member’s comments about some

suggestion that somehow he thinks my role as the minister is to

interfere in the conduct of an audit or to set rules for the conduct of

an audit. The legislative scheme that we’re advancing here delegates

those powers to the chief auditor in a quasi-independent way and relies

on her or his discretion to carry that out.

[11:35 a.m.]

The person selected will have the requisite judgment, experience

and skills to conduct a fair audit. It’s not a lack of concern. That’s

the very reason we are advancing this legislation. So to suggest that

somehow I don’t care about the quality of the audit seems to me to be

absurd, if I could use a descriptor.

The delegates will be employees of the audit unit. They will be

public servants who are employed full-time.

T. Shypitka: What was the process for developing the chief auditor’s mandate?

At the same time, who was consulted in the development of the

mandate?

Hon. B. Ralston: Well, the debate about how best to achieve the purposes that are

set out in the provisions of this proposed act really begins with the

Auditor General’s inquiry into the Mount Polley mining

disaster.

Following that — and much discussion, consideration by the Public

Accounts Committee and internal discussions within the ministry — the

next major venue of discussion was the Mining Jobs Task Force. It is —

and I’ve stated, and this is the fact — a wide selection of people

intimately involved in the industry, whether industry people, labour,

Indigenous people, experts in many areas relating to mining, chaired by

the assistant deputy minister, Peter Robb, who continues in that

position in the ministry — the assistant deputy minister responsible for

mining.

So there has been a very, very thorough and lengthy discussion

over a number of years about how best to accomplish these legislative

purposes that are being advanced here today.

The Mining Jobs Task Force did recommend that a compliance and

health effectiveness unit be established. That was one of their

recommendations. So the legislation follows all of that discussion and

consultation in order to achieve the objectives of the recommendation of

the Mining Jobs Task Force.

[11:40 a.m.]

T. Shypitka: It’s good to see the minister abiding by the Auditor General’s

recommendations. Yet they failed to follow up on the primary

recommendation, which was to separate compliance enforcement out of the

ministry.

However, did any stakeholders…? Does the minister…? He mentioned

the Mining Jobs Task Force as being a component of the consultation.

Were there any other stakeholders consulted?

Hon. B. Ralston: The member makes a passing comment in relation to the Auditor

General’s report about the government failing to follow the principal

recommendation. I had understood that the then Mines Minister, Bill

Bennett, had dismissed that recommendation and that the member supported

that, so I’m a little bit mystified by that reference. I’m not quite

sure how it’s relevant to our discussion.

But in terms of consultation, there was a public process in the

fall of 2019. There were 135 submissions made in that process. The

industry associations — Mining Association of B.C. and AME BC — and

selected companies, such as Teck, were consulted. There has been a very

thorough and wide discussion of the proposed content of this

bill.

T. Shypitka: The comment was what it was. Yes, former government did argue that

compliance enforcement should stay within the ministry. We were

criticized by the current government on that stance. I guess it’s just

more of a comment to say that I’m glad to see government land where we

wanted to land years ago.

I guess the next question is: why were no economic or

competitiveness components included in the mandate of the chief

auditor?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: Indeed, the Mining Jobs Task Force did say the following. I’m

going to read a quote from the task force report:

“This action supports an increased focus on B.C.’s competitiveness

and advocacy for new mining investment, while supporting independence

for mining oversight and positioning B.C. to be a leader in industry

safety. Clear separation of these functions will help increase public,

Indigenous and industry confidence and trust, as well as improve

permitting timelines — all of which are critical to a thriving mining

industry in this province.”

The legislation that’s before the House that we are debating now

reflects those values and follows that conclusion of the Mining Jobs

Task Force of the effect of adopting these provisions.

T. Shypitka: Thanks to the minister for the answer. Sounds good. Can the

minister comment on how this bill actually increases permitting

timelines, as he just stated?

Hon. B. Ralston: The member’s question said: how would this increase permitting

timelines? What the goal is, is to improve and reduce permitting

timelines. The purpose and design of the bill is to separate permitting

from health and safety and enforcement. It creates a stand-alone

statutory decision-maker dedicated to permitting. There is one person

responsible for permitting, and they won’t be in the position of having

to make trade-offs between doing inspections, hearing appeals, following

up on dangerous occurrences and the many other responsibilities that all

currently reside with the chief inspector of mines.

That’s the goal of the legislation. The goal is not, as the member

has said, to increase permitting timelines; it’s to decrease them and

reduce them.

T. Shypitka: My apologies to the minister. I did misspeak there. It was to

improve permitting timelines, not to increase.

As the minister says, this process here is to formalize that

separation of compliance and enforcement from permitting and

authorizations. We’ve been in this process for a couple of years. As the

minister stated, the purpose is to improve permitting timelines, yet

we’ve been in this process for a couple of years, as I’ve said, and

we’ve seen permitting timelines actually increase. We’ve seen all kinds

of applications, notice of work — all these types of things that get

business up and running — increase their timelines. Notice of work has

gone anywhere from two to three months to eight months or even a year in

some cases.

I’ve mentioned this before in estimates. What is going to change?

What is going to change to improve these permitting times?

[11:50 a.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: The view of the people consulted in the Mining Jobs Task Force and

their deliberations was that this action, among many others, will assist

in reducing permitting times. So the goal of this legislation and a

number of other measures, which we canvassed extensively in the

estimates process…. Really, I don’t think they are strictly relevant to

the legislation that’s before this House at this moment, although if I’m

directed by the Speaker to recapitulate the estimates debate, I can do

that.

This particular action is one strongly recommended by the Mining

Jobs Task Force. That’s why we’re bringing it forward. I’m confident

that it will be one piece of a series of measures, one of many measures,

to reduce permitting time in the future.

T. Shypitka: But the argument is that this bill that’s in front of us has no

wording on permitting. We’ve already heard the minister state that the

chief auditor reports to the director of compliance and enforcement.

Everything is on the compliance and enforcement side. It’s budgeted

through compliance and enforcement. It almost seems that permitting is

removed from anything to do with this bill. I’m just trying to

understand how this is going to help improve permitting. How are we

going to be able to get applications faster and more streamlined through

the hopper, so to speak?

Right now it’s just not working. I don’t know who the minister

talks to, but I talk to a lot of the folks — sand and gravel association

of British Columbia, B.C. chamber of mines, all our placer miners. All

these folks are having a real hard time getting permitting processed and

through the system.

I don’t see anything here in this bill that suggests that

permitting will be addressed, and the mandate of the audit unit is to

determine the effectiveness of the regulatory system for mining and

protecting workers, the public and the environment. Once again, nothing

in there about permitting and helping those folks.

Can the minister try again and help me understand how this is

going to help us?

Hon. B. Ralston: I want to perhaps go back and restate the answer that I gave

previously. Separating permitting from health, safety and enforcement

creates a stand-alone statutory decision-maker dedicated to permitting.

We’re not dealing with permitting directly here, but we are taking the

jumble of functions that was all assigned to one person and separating

them out so that there will be a stand-alone person dealing with

permitting and then a separate person who will be dealing with the

health, safety, enforcement and that general audit function as a

separate function as well.

There’ll be a division, a separation within the ministry, not

outside it. Previously, that one person had responsibility for all of

those things, resulting in making trade-offs, as I said, between doing

inspections, hearing appeals, following up on dangerous occurrences and

many of the other responsibilities. All of them reside with the

inspector of mines.

[11:55 a.m.]

The idea is to…. The legislative scheme would separate those two

out so that the permitting side would focus on that and the chief

auditor and that unit would focus on the health, safety and regulatory

efficiency as well.

Together, taken as measures, the recommendation of all those in

the industry, all those that were consulted and participated in the

Mining Jobs Task Force, is that this will be a much more effective way

to (1) accelerate permitting and (2) achieve the health and safety

objectives that we all value and aspire to for making British Columbia

the safest jurisdiction in the world in which to conduct

mining.

I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:56 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Mr. Speaker: Government House Leader, I understand you want to table a

report.

Schedule of Estimates

Hon. M. Farnworth: I will table the

schedule for Committee of Supply budget estimates for

Thursday, July 23, and Friday, July 24.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:57 p.m.

Copyright © 2020 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

chamber proceedings are available at www.leg.bc.ca .

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.