Hansard Blues

Legislative Assembly

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Darryl Plecas, Speaker

5th Session, 41st Parliament

Tuesday, June

23, 2020

Morning Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Hon. C. Trevena.

Introductions by Members

J. Yap: It's my pleasure this morning to welcome a number of constituents who are following

proceedings this morning. With us virtually are Clara Chow, Jackie Lee, Pius Chan,

Cindy Chan and other members of the Vancouver Diamond Lions Club, which I'll be speaking

about this morning. Please offer them all a virtual warm welcome to the Legislative

Assembly.

B. D'Eith: I just wanted to introduce students from around Maple Ridge and Mission who would

normally be coming to visit us all in the gallery. I'd like to say, you know…. Obviously

— especially for the grads of school districts 42 and 75 — I know it's been very difficult

for you. But I've also seen some amazing efforts to try to make your grad special.

One of those in the city of Maple Ridge…. Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows school boards have

lit up our Memorial Peace Park, which is absolutely beautiful, as a tribute to our

grads. They also did a virtual grad.

Some businesses have been helping too. We have one business, Once Upon a Tea Leaf,

who have actually put all of the grad names in their front window. So that's really

great.

In Mission, they just pulled off an amazing grad for École Mission senior secondary

at the Mission Raceway Park with cars and pods, all socially distanced. Congratulations

to them.

If the Legislature could please make all of our grads, not only in Maple Ridge and

Mission but around the province, welcome. Thank you so much.

S. Furstenau: Mr. Speaker, I know I wasn't scheduled, but I did want to make a quick introduction

today. It is my daughter Eleanor's 13th birthday. Normally we wouldn't be sitting

at any times that my children have their birthdays. But it's fortuitous that today

we are sitting and also ironic that I have been with her every day for the last 3½

months, but I'm away from her today. I'm delighted that she'll be coming down and

having dinner.

I just want to wish Eleanor a very happy birthday today.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 17 — CLEAN ENERGY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2020

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

intituled Clean Energy Amendment Act, 2020.

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

[10:10 a.m.]

I am pleased to introduce Bill 17, the Clean Energy Amendment Act. This bill amends

the Clean Energy Act and the Utilities Commission Act. By this bill, we are acting

now to implement three changes so that B.C. Hydro can consider a variety of energy

resource and asset options as it develops its next 20-year integrated resource plan.

The proposed amendments will support phase 2 of the comprehensive review of B.C. Hydro

and also the government's CleanBC plan. First, the bill will enable implementation

of 100 percent clean energy standard for B.C., with the goal of being the first jurisdiction

in the west to achieve this objective. A 100 percent clean energy electricity standard

requires utilities to generate or acquire enough electricity from clean sources to

meet the needs of their customers over a multi-year period after subtracting any clean

electricity exports.

Electricity from non-clean sources can still be used when needed for reliability purposes

under a 100 percent clean electricity standard; however, an equivalent volume of energy

must then be exported into the wholesale market as non-clean energy. Both California

and Washington have passed legislation based on this approach. Aligning our standards

with those jurisdictions is important to facilitate clean electricity trade. Implementing

a 100 percent clean electricity standard also supports CleanBC by making more clean

electricity available to grid-connected utility customers within the province.

The Clean Energy Act requires B.C. Hydro to achieve self-sufficiency, which means

that B.C. Hydro must hold the rights to an amount of electricity that meets forecast

domestic demand solely from electricity-generating facilities within the province.

This bill would eliminate that requirement and allow B.C. Hydro to consider out-of-province

options when it plans how it will meet future demand. This should give B.C. Hydro

the ability to serve load at a lower cost and keep rates affordable.

Finally, the bill gives B.C. Hydro the ability to maximize the value of its Burrard

thermal site in Port Moody. Of the 180 acres owned by B.C. Hydro at the Burrard thermal

site, approximately 120 acres are currently either underutilized or vacant following

the decommissioning of portions of the Burrard facility not used for transmission

support services.

The Clean Energy Act currently prohibits B.C. Hydro from selling, leasing or otherwise

disposing of its interest in the site because it is considered a heritage asset. Allowing

alternate uses of the Burrard thermal site could provide a variety of benefits, and

this bill would allow B.C. Hydro to explore those opportunities further.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Ralston: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 17, Clean Energy Amendment Act, 2020, introduced, read a first time and ordered

to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

BILL 14 — MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND

HOUSING STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (N O . 2), 2020

Hon. S. Robinson presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2020.

Hon. S. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I am pleased to introduce Bill 14, Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes Amendment

Act (No. 2), 2020. This act proposes amendments to the Strata Property Act and the

Financial Institutions Act.

[10:15 a.m.]

The proposed amendments represent a first step to address concerns that have arisen

with respect to the availability and cost of strata corporation insurance. They are

a response to concerns from people who are seeing triple-digit increases in strata

insurance deductibles and little or no notice on large premium increases.

We know the high cost of strata insurance is placing many in difficult circumstances

and risking their ability to keep or maintain their homes. These amendments tabled

today, combined with the regulatory changes to come, will together help strata corporations

better mitigate the rising costs of insurance by bringing more transparency to the

strata insurance industry, by closing loopholes related to depreciation reports, by

taking action to end referral fees paid to property managers and giving strata owners

and corporations the tools that they need.

These changes also include clear guidelines to require strata corporations to inform

owners about any changes to their insurance coverage and provide notice of any policy

changes, including any increases in deductibles. They include changes to protect strata

unit owners against large lawsuits from strata corporations in cases where the unit

owner was legally responsible for a loss or damage through no fault of their own.

Taken together, these legislative and regulatory changes are a first step to help

strata corporations and owners now while we continue to work on this complex issue.

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 14, Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes Amendment Act (No.2), 2020, introduced,

read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading

at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 22 — MENTAL HEALTH

AMENDMENT ACT, 2020

Hon. J. Darcy presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Mental Health Amendment Act, 2020.

Hon. J. Darcy: I move that the Mental Health Amendment Act, 2020, be introduced and read for a first

time now.

I am pleased to introduce the Mental Health Amendment Act to establish short-term

stabilization care as a means of improving the care and safety of youth immediately

following a substance use medical emergency. This legislation will close an existing

care gap by enabling the admission of youth for short-term, involuntary stabilization

care with the objective of reducing the risk of immediate injury, disability and death.

This will be for a short period of time and under strict conditions.

Stabilization care under the Mental Health Act is intended to protect youth who present

in the hospital emergency department in the midst of an overdose and to keep them

safe in a designated stabilization care facility. It will allow provision of medically

necessary health care and observation for the youths to recover from their overdose,

and it will allow them to regain their decision-making capacity, which is diminished

in the immediate aftermath of an overdose.

Very importantly, it will allow the opportunity for the youth to begin to engage with

voluntary, culturally safe supports and services to treat their severe substance use

and to leave hospital with a clear care plan after discharge from stabilization care.

The legislation will allow for a pause in the young person's journey for 48 hours

while they regain their decision-making capacity, and it can be extended for up to

seven days.

[10:20 a.m.]

Our government has been working flat out to increase voluntary supports for children

and youth in the community across the province, and we are proud to be moving forward

to address this critical need for vulnerable youth. The overarching goal is to transition

these young people from stabilization care to voluntary, culturally safe treatment

and provide a bridge to that side.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. J. Darcy: I move that Bill 22, the Mental Health Amendment Act, 2020, be placed on the orders

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

Bill 22, Mental Health 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.

Ministerial Statement

BOMBING OF AIR INDIA FLIGHT

Hon. A. Dix: I'm honoured to give a ministerial statement today on behalf of the government on

this day which is the National Day of Remembrance for the Victims of Terrorism in

Canada. Today, as you know, is June 23, which is the 35th anniversary of the bombing

of Air India 182. It exploded off the coast of Ireland, and 329 people perished that

day on that flight. Two more workers at Narita Airport in Japan also died in a second

bombing, indicating the desire of the perpetrators to kill hundreds more.

Every year we typically get together at the Air India memorial in Stanley Park. Families

and friends get together to remember those who lost their lives, You remember and

see, for example, on those days Mandeep Grewal, who lost his dad, Daljit; Perviz Madon,

who lost her husband, Sam. Major Singh Sidhu — who usually organizes the event with

his wife, Gurdial, and son Amir — is usually there remembering his sister Sukhwinder

and her two children who perished on Air India flight 182.

Also there often is Eric Beauchesne, who lost his father, Gaston. Of course, Renée

Sarojini Saklikar, my wife, was there, and sometimes her mom, Bhanu, comes, and they

recognize the loss of Zebunnisa and Umar, family members lost and never found.

What I would say today, and it's an important thing to recognize, are the many thoughts

and fragments that come to mind, the things that we all remember in this period, the

period of the day, June 23, 1985, and the decades that have followed: the pictures

of the pieces of the plane in the Atlantic Ocean, the courage of the Irish rescue

teams, the failures of the justice system and the fact that only one person has been

prosecuted for this terrible crime and, of course, the public inquiry that followed

decades later.

There is one fact — one fact alone that rises above all of the other facts: 82 children

under the age of 12 lost their lives that day. It was June, school was ending, and

there were more children on the flight — something that those who committed these

crimes would have known and something that is a terrible loss for our whole society.

This is and of course was terrorism. We know this. It's a word that's often used and

sometimes misused. But this was also plain murder and cowardly murder at that. And

in 82 cases, it was child murder. That's how those who perpetrated this crime should

be remembered.

But this is a day to remember those who lost their lives — the many memories and the

extraordinary lives they lived in their times and the memories they were not able

to create — and their families who have worked courageously to both seek justice and

to live on in their lives.

[10:25 a.m.]

Irfan Jethwa, who lost his mom and dad in the flight, now has his own family and shows

the everyday courage in his life that, I think, makes all of us proud. It sure makes

me proud and Renée proud.

There won't, of course, be any gathering this year in Stanley Park. This is our summer

of COVID-19, and gatherings of that sort aren't going ahead. But we think today about

Perviz and about Mandeep and about Major and Gurdial and Renée and Bhanu and all the

other families across Canada and across the world who have lived through the grief

of Air India 182.

It's been said by many people, I think, in recent times how well we've all worked

together in this time of the pandemic, and it should make us proud as British Columbians

that here in the Legislature and across B.C. we have worked so well together. We've

cared together. We fought together to do good things for everybody in our society.

So on this day, let's remember the families together, the lives lost together, and

commit ourselves again to fight for justice in good times and in bad.

M. Hunt: As noted by the Minister of Health this morning, today we acknowledge and reflect

on one of the most horrible events in Canadian history and, before 9/11, the worst

case of aviation terrorism the world had seen.

On June 23, 1985, 329 people passed away. Mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, children

and families all had their lives senselessly cut short, and 280 of these were Canadian

citizens, many of which have family members that still mourn. Today they remember

those that they lost. The term "tragedy" doesn't even seem to begin to describe this

event.

Now, 35 years later, we remember those who were lost and acknowledge that there still

has not been true justice for these victims. Today families of the victims are taking

part in memorials honouring those family members that are missed. Though the size

of these gatherings may be limited by COVID-19 restrictions, the love and the memory

of those who are sadly missed is limitless.

I would suggest that you visit this site to hear some of these families share their

stories and reflect. Today we honour those lost and we speak of their memory.

S. Furstenau: I just want to, on behalf of the B.C. Green caucus, also acknowledge the loss on this

day, June 23, 1985, for so many families in the Air India bombing that happened and

to echo the words of both the minister and the opposition member in expressing our

deep condolences to the families who suffered such a terrible loss on that day.

I was 15 at the time and vividly recall the news and the shock of this story as something

that seemed so completely un-Canadian. I deeply mourned the loss of life of children

who were my age at that time. On behalf of the B.C. Green caucus, we want to extend

our deepest condolences to the families on this day.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

VANCOUVER DIAMOND LIONS CLUB

J. Yap: I rise to highlight the extraordinary work of the Vancouver Diamond Lions Club. I'm

pleased to acknowledge this volunteer organization now, as the club's previously scheduled

visit to our Legislature in late March had to be cancelled. Founded in 2007, Vancouver

Diamond is the largest Lions Club in western Canada and has raised close to $2 million

for various charities.

[10:30 a.m.]

Over the years, Diamond Lions has assisted with relief projects for major disasters

such as the Australian bushfires, the Haiti earthquake and the Japan tsunami. During

the COVID-19 pandemic, the club has contributed surgical masks and nitrile gloves

to St. Paul's Hospital and delivered 250 bags of jasmine rice to assist isolated seniors

needing support in Richmond.

Striving to uphold the Lions' motto, "We serve," members of this club have conducted

many fundraising activities for various local charitable causes, including the B.C.

Cancer Foundation, the Canadian Diabetes Association, Covenant House and both the

Vancouver and Richmond Food Banks. Notably, in 2018, the club raised over $500,000

in donations for the Vancouver General Hospital and UBC Hospital Foundation to acquire

a state-of-the-art surgical navigation system to save and improve lives. In 2017,

$300,000 was raised for a much-needed laboratory cell analyzer for the Canadian Breast

Cancer Foundation and Richmond Hospital.

I'd like to extend thanks to the Lions' current president Clara Chow, incoming president

Jackie Lee and charter president Pius Chan — all of them constituents of mine — for

the club's remarkable contributions. Their commitment to charity and good works is

admirable. I ask all members of this House to join me in recognizing and thanking

the Vancouver Diamond Lions Club.

LISA MARIE YOUNG

S. Malcolmson: Lisa Marie Young was last seen in Nanaimo 18 years ago. As my girlfriend said this

morning, I could have been Lisa. I was Lisa. A lot of us in our teens or early 20s

took a late-night ride after a party with maybe someone that wasn't the best idea.

It's relatable.

Her family never stopped looking for her. Her family from Tofino, a Tla-o-qui-aht

family, came out and searched week after week, year after year in Nanaimo, Parksville

and Qualicum. Lisa's mom, Joanne, organized a march in Lisa's memory for 16 years

straight, until Joanne's death in 2018. Joanne's father, Lisa's grandfather Moses,

thinks his daughter died of heartache.

If you're in Nanaimo, you can still see the posters: "Lisa Marie Young, last seen

June 30, 2002." We know more now as a country, as a province, about the tragic epidemic

of murdered and missing Indigenous women. We hear so often in these disappearances

that somebody knows something. There's never been an arrest in the case of Lisa's

disappearance. Her body has never been found.

You can act in support of her family. You can join this year's march on June 28 at

11:00 at the RCMP station in Nanaimo. Her grandfather Moses and her aunt Carol invite

you all — physically distanced, wearing masks, in groups of less than 49.

There's a porch light campaign on June 30 at 8:00: leave your lights on for Lisa.

It's a sign of hope. You can contact Cpl. Markus Müntener at the RCMP, 250-755-3223,

if you know something. You can listen to the podcast that's had huge takeup. It's

called Where is Lisa? , and Laura Palmer is the journalist.

All of these actions are a way to keep Lisa Marie's memory alive, to support her brave

family and to jar our community's memory.

WORLD RUGBY SEVENS IN VANCOUVER

S. Thomson: What combines a great sporting event, non-stop action, athletic prowess, Mardi Gras

and Halloween all rolled into one great weekend in Vancouver? Well, it may seem like

a decade ago, but I must congratulate Rugby Canada, BC Rugby and the Vancouver organizing

committee for another huge success in hosting the World Sevens in Vancouver in March.

This was Canada's and B.C.'s fifth time in hosting the series, bringing 16 teams from

around the world and over 75,000 fans over two days in B.C. Place.

This year, the Canadian team, led by captain Nathan Hirayama, thrilled the hometown

and Canadian fans with a tremendous performance. With wins over perennial crowd favourites

Fiji and then France and Wales in the pool stages, our team moved to the quarter-finals,

beating Spain, and then on to the semifinals against Australia.

[10:35 a.m.]

Bringing agony and heartbreak to the hometown and Canadian fans, they came a centimetre

short in a television match official-reviewed decision that would have seen them beat

Australia and move on to the final. But the team recovered from that heartbreak and,

in a closing strong performance, beat out an experienced, world-class South Africa

side to claim third place.

I am proud of the decision of our government in 2015 to fully support Rugby Canada's

bid to host this event and to provide the necessary upgrades to B.C. Place turf to

meet international rugby standards. This has paid off in huge economic benefits for

the province, raised awareness of the game and introduced new fans to the game, including

the member for Prince George–Valemount.

It put Vancouver and B.C. on the map as a great host and a premiere destination for

major sporting events. The Vancouver Sevens has been voted as the best stop on the

circuit, and that's up against some pretty tough competition of other major cities

around the world. B.C. is also recognized for hosting the world's women's series in

Langford, and our Canadian women's team is amongst the best in the world.

Congratulations to Rugby Canada, the men's and women's teams and all involved in hosting

this great event. I hope it will continue for many years to come.

PRIDE MONTH AND LGBTQ2S+ ACTIVISM

M. Dean: June is Pride Month, an event steeped in history that carries with it joy, pain, anger

and profound importance for so many people in B.C. each year. Recent protests are

a critical reminder of the ongoing struggle for equality and how Pride Month came

about from a history rooted in protests led by Black and Hispanic LGBTQ2S+ activists.

Pride is a celebration of love. For many, Pride is also a protest for equality and

a time to honour trans activists of colour such as Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera,

who led the Stonewall protests, fighting to modernize LGBTQ2S+ rights and pushing

justice, equality and love for all to the forefront.

Even as we acknowledge the progress LGBTQ2S+ people have fought for, I appreciate

how far we still have to go to make sure that all of us have the right to be who we

are without fear and stigma, regardless of the colour of our skin, gender identity

or sexual orientation. To start, we need to recognize that LGBTQ2S+ people continue

to face discrimination, violence and harassment disproportionately, which also generates

much higher rates of poverty, mental health issues and other complex challenges. For

people of colour and Indigenous peoples, there are even more systemic prejudice and

barriers to overcome.

Joining together, we must condemn acts of intimidation and violence fuelled by prejudice.

Together we can show our commitment to inclusion and diversity. Today I ask you to

reimagine what you can do to honour and celebrate Pride and diversity in your community.

VIRTUAL MEETINGS BY LOCAL

REPRESENTATIVES IN

WEST VANCOUVER–SEA TO SKY AREA

J. Sturdy: Amongst the many adaptations necessary in the last few months, I'd like to share one

with a positive outcome from West Vancouver–Sea to Sky. One of the key issues relative

to working from home in this time of incredible fluidity is the need to stay informed,

connected and of assistance to local government, which, in a region as large and diverse

as West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, includes six municipalities and two regional districts.

With the federal and provincial announcements taking place almost daily, particularly

in the early weeks of the stay-home directive, my team established a weekly Zoom meeting

with mayors, RD chair, the federal MP and myself. Because of the significant diversity

of our urban and rural communities in West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, we have northern

and southern virtual meetings so issues can be focused on the most relevant item.

At times, it was necessary to

schedule multiple meetings a week.

These virtual meetings have been essential for all of us to stay connected. Over the

last months, we've appreciated the value of quickly being able to seek clarity and,

together, strategize and provide feedback about funding and support programs, the

state of emergency, travel restrictions and, of course, the plans, considerations

and concerns of restarting our regional and provincial economy, especially in our

tourism-dependent region.

[10:40 a.m.]

My colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano and our MP, Patrick Weiler, both joined

many of these calls with mayors from West Vancouver, Bowen Island, Lions Bay, Squamish,

Whistler and Pemberton and the chair of the Squamish-Lillooet regional district. It's

become clear to all of us that there has been tremendous value in these regular meetings,

and we intend to continue them beyond this crisis.

While the opportunity to collectively face challenges as three orders of government

— to exchange ideas, to share collegial concerns and to be in this together — has

been good for all of us, it has ultimately been best for our constituents.

RESPONSE TO COVID-19 PANDEMIC AND

TRAVEL AND TOURISM ON NORTH COAST

J. Rice: COVID-19 has tested the resiliency of our communities in an unprecedented manner.

While our community stood up to face the crisis and succeeded in flattening the curve

together, the public health emergency has brought additional challenges, including

a major hit to our economy and new questions on how to keep our communities safe going

forward.

Many people, especially those working in the tourism sector, worry that checkpoints,

reduced ferry and airplane traffic and declarations of community closure are putting

their businesses and livelihoods at risk. I want the communities I represent to know

that I hear you. This is not an easy issue to resolve, and it will take all of us

working together and understanding each other to come to a solution that meets the

needs of all community members.

The checkpoints and restrictions put in place by First Nations were made with the

best interest of entire communities in mind. We need to remember that First Nations

people have already suffered the effects of multiple pandemics since colonization

began, many of which decimated entire communities. This experience, combined with

the fact that people living in First Nations and remote communities suffer from many

of the risk factors associated with COVID-19 complications, has made many communities

hesitant to allow visitors into their community.

At the same time, we need to recognize that these restrictions are putting the livelihoods

of many people, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, at risk. As the province gets

ready to enter phase 3 of B.C.'s Restart Plan and reopen the province to internal

travel, many tourism operators are hoping to welcome visitors for the summer to save

their businesses and their livelihoods.

I know the situation has sparked tensions between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities

in the north coast. During this time, however, it's important that we heed the words

of public health officer Dr. Bonnie Henry — to be kind, to be calm and to be safe.

We can't let this crisis divide us. Working together, we will find resolution.

Oral Questions

SMALL BUSINESS EMPLOYEE LAYOFFS

AND SEVERANCE PAY ISSUES

M. de Jong: Well, governing is not easy, and least of all in times of emergency. But yesterday

the Premier was confronted by an issue that I believe his Labour Minister and his

government have — so far, at least — badly mishandled. And in attempting to sidestep

the issue or buy some time to deal with it more properly, the Premier made some comments

that I think were terribly unfair and even insulting.

No one — and I'll say that again — no one, least of all the hard-working women and

men that operate small businesses in British Columbia, is attempting to avoid legal

responsibility to employees. Quite the opposite. The operators of those small businesses

want to stick around so that they can continue to employ those people. And to suggest

or impugn their motives was, I think, terribly unfair of the Premier.

The organizations representing small business wrote to the Premier on June 5. They

laid out the challenge, and they proposed a solution. They also acknowledged that

the government had granted a three-week extension previously, but they said that with

the continuation of the state of emergency, a further extension is going to be required.

If they don't get it, they are going to have what they called regulated insolvency.

That's a polite term for government-imposed bankruptcy.

The mechanism for providing relief exists. Other governments have used it. The federal

government, apparently, used a similar mechanism today. The Labour Minister has said

no. Yesterday the Premier seemed to say: "Well, maybe this is not a great time to

be imposing additional uncertainty on small businesses that are struggling to survive."

[10:45 a.m.]

Will the Premier end that uncertainty today and direct his Labour Minister to grant

the extension that's been requested, and while he's doing so, will he apologize to

the hard-working men, women and families that feel very badly for having heard the

Premier impugn their motives yesterday?

Hon. J. Horgan: I appreciate the question from the member opposite, and I certainly do understand

the challenges British Columbians are facing, perhaps more than most others in this

place. I feel it every day — every day — when challenges come my way; when, over the

past 100 days, we had been working cooperatively. Every day, another challenge. So

forgive me if I don't take the sincerity of the member as genuine at this point in

time.

What I will say is that we felt that there was a mechanism within the act that was

appropriate — we, the minister and I — and we sent that message to the community.

The community responded. You helped me read the letter I'd already read, by reading

bits of it that were salacious and in your interest as opposition members. I thanked

you for that and said I would deal with it this week. I don't know what more, hon.

Member, you want me to do, other than to agree that more discussion is required.

But I want to take us back to the beginning here, because this is uncharted territory

for all of us — government, opposition, businesses, workers, people. Yesterday — if

we want to talk about people who made statements that were unreasonable — the Leader

of the Opposition said this wasn't about public health measures.

Well, for goodness' sake, of course it is. If we're going to build confidence in the

community, not just for going out for a walk or expanding our bubble but engaging

in economic activity again, they need to be confident that the public health measures

are genuine and we're all adhering to them. That's the approach that we've been taking.

That's the approach we'll continue to take.

When we come up to an obstacle where people disagree, we will sit down and try and

work it out. That's what we're going to do this week. I thank the member for bringing

it up, but I really think that there are other issues that we could talk about. We

talked about it yesterday. I agreed with you — that we will talk to the business community

about this. I don't know what more we can do beyond that.

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

M. de Jong: At a time when unemployment in the province is rapidly escalating, I can hardly think

of a more critical issue. I can hardly think of another issue that wouldn't be a priority,

or the priority, for the government.

The government has been aware of this for several months. To describe what was in

the letter as "salacious" is puzzling. I'll use that word. Where an agency has written

to the Premier, outlined an issue — a challenge — proposed a solution, received a

reply from the minister that shuts the door completely on what seems to be for other

jurisdictions a reasonable response…. Four of the signatories to that letter — four,

by my count — are members of the Premier's own economic recovery task force. So to

today to stand and describe the letter and its contents as salacious is an interesting

characterization.

The assistance they are seeking from the government doesn't cost the provincial government

a dime. It is a mechanism that has been used elsewhere. The minister's lame reply

is one the Premier has now repeated on two occasions: "Well, apply for a variance."

Well, that could take months. This is not a time to impose additional uncertainty

on small businesses. These are family-owned businesses that are struggling to survive.

Will the Premier…? I'll ask him again, and I suspect he'll say again, "Well, I'll

get to it when I talk to some of these people later in the week" — despite the fact

that the issue has been before us for several months now.

Take the entirely reasonable step and grant the extension that other governments have

granted, that the federal government has granted, and throw a lifeline to small businesses

who don't want to permanently terminate employees. They want to survive so that they

can continue to employ those employees.

Hon. J. Horgan: I'll remind the member how we responded to the challenges of COVID-19. We took advice

in counsel from public health officials. We worked with the business community. We

worked with organized labour. We worked with not-for-profits. We worked with Indigenous

communities to find a way we could all work together to address issues as they emerged.

[10:50 a.m.]

Previous to today we extended the period for businesses to apply. Giving an opportunity

to have a discussion, we said: "You could seek a variance."

We're going to be moving to phase 3 of a four-phase restart. We're seeing more and

more economic activity every day. That's all good news. Fundamental to that is public

confidence in our system of regulation. In fact, the very businesses that the member

speaks to have been saying repeatedly that they want to ensure that public health

officials, WorkSafe officials, are certifying their businesses as safe for consumers.

That's the essence of a public health response to a public health crisis.

How do we grow the economy back to where we want it to be? By working together. When

issues come up, we discuss them. We put forward solutions. We thought we had a viable

solution. You disagree. Members of the business community disagree. The appropriate

response to that, hon. Member, is to have a discussion. That's exactly what I propose

to do come Thursday, when we have a scheduled meeting to discuss these issues.

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

M. de Jong: Well, that does not appear to be the approach taken by the government, by the Labour

Minister, who simply said no. He simply said no.

Small businesses, those family-owned businesses, aren't in any way, shape or form

quarrelling with the adoption of the public health protective measures that have been

advocated by Dr. Henry, by the government. Far from it. What they are saying to the

government is: "With the stroke of a regulatory pen, you can prevent us from doing

something we don't want to do and employees don't want us to do. That is to permanently

terminate our employees."

Many of these businesses have not been able to operate. They are at their fiscal wits'

end, and the triggering of a legally binding severance obligation will put those businesses

under. There won't be any work for the employees to go back to. It is an amazingly

straightforward request and a logical one in these uncertain times. I'm disappointed,

quite frankly, that the Premier's response seems to be: "Let the uncertainty continue.

We'll talk, and we'll see what we can come up with."

Right now all those businesses know is what the Labour Minister has said on behalf

of the government, which is: "No. Make a variance application, and we'll get back

to you when we get back to you."

Hon. J. Horgan: What those businesses know, or at least the umbrella organizations know, is that we

reached out to them yesterday and said: "We'll put this on the agenda for Thursday,

and we'll talk it through and come up with a solution that meets the needs of everyone."

That's what they know now.

What they also know now is that the official opposition, rather than identifying a

problem, bringing it forward and getting an appropriate response to that, has brought

it back for a second day. I can only imagine that they're doing that for purposes

beyond getting a resolution, because I committed yesterday to that very course of

action.

I appreciate that the member is no longer in government, but he seems to have forgotten

the complexities of the challenges that we face, not just in normal times but in a

time of a global pandemic. We have been working tirelessly, all of us in this place,

to make sure we're meeting the needs of the people in our communities.

The economy is all about people. Without people, we have no economy. Without businesses,

people don't have a place to go to work. Without workers, businesses don't have a

business to operate. Working together is what we've been doing. Working together is

what we'll continue to do to get resolution to this issue.

J. Johal: The Premier just said that they reached out to the business community yesterday. His

minister has known about this issue for weeks, and they just reached out yesterday.

The Premier then says, referring to the letters, calling them salacious…. As my colleague

has said, of the 15 that signed the letter, four of them are on the Premier's economic

recovery task force, including the Business Council of B.C., Vancouver Board of Trade,

the Surrey Board of Trade and the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. So the groups that he's

tapped to guide this province towards economic recovery are complaining about his

leadership and the Minister of Labour.

The Labour Minister was clear last Thursday when he said he has no intention of extending

the temporary layoff time limits. Yesterday, while the minister sat in silence, as

he is doing today, the Premier gave a very different answer, which sounded like a

maybe. Saying "maybe" provides no certainty to small businesses or workers.

The request is simple. Extend layoff time limits to the end of August, plus an additional

six weeks once emergency orders are lifted. As our leader has said, many other governments

across the country have done so.

The Labour Minister has had another day to think about it. He's sitting right there.

Does he now intend to extend the temporary layoff limits or not?

[10:55 a.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: I speak for the government. It is a cross-government approach that we've brought to

this issue and a host of other issues that have emerged over the past 100 days — in

fact, over the past three years.

It has always been my approach to make sure that we're cooperating on this side of

the House. We reach out to those who want to work with us on the other side of the

House. Most importantly, we connect with people in communities and in sectors to make

sure we're on the right track.

That's what….

Interjection.

Hon. J. Horgan: No, it is this time, Member. It is this time.

They raised the issue. We responded to it initially by extending the period. They

raised the issue again. We said there's an opportunity for variance. They don't like

that. So we're going to have more discussion later in the week.

I reached out to them yesterday as I've reached out to them the day before that and

the day before that and the day before that.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Horgan: For weeks, for months, we've been having conversations, hon. Member. I appreciate

that may offend you, but that's how we roll on this side of the House. We need input.

We got input. You've aided us by elevating it to a point of crisis when, in fact,

it is not.

We are going to protect those businesses. We're going to protect those workers' rights

to severance if they deserve it. That's how we're going to get through this process,

by working together — employers, employees, community and legislators — to help everybody

get out of this mess that we did not create.

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

J. Johal: The fact that 15 different organizations got together and sent a letter to this government

clearly tells you the process isn't working. They weren't being listened to by that

minister. He has said, and you are saying, that the process within government at the

moment can deal with some of these issues. The minister's suggestion was that variance

applications are the solution. That comment is absurd. The business community has

said it's insulting.

There is currently a 3,000-application backlog, and the current situation creates

the potential for up to 30,000 businesses filing at once in early July. This is a

bureaucratic nightmare, in regard to paperwork, for stressed-out small business owners

who are on the brink of bankruptcy. Yet the minister continues to pretend it's a viable

option.

To the minister, how long will it take a small business to get a variance application

approved?

Hon. H. Bains: I'm really happy to stand and answer these questions here today.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the Minister of Labour has the floor. Thank you.

Hon. H. Bains: As we have canvassed over a number of days, we do understand the challenges that the

workers and employers are facing due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We listened. Actually,

we demonstrated through our actions….

When we were approached for help, we acted. We extended the temporary layoff provisions

to 16 weeks. In the meantime, we put together a support package for the businesses

— $1.8 billion. Tax cuts and tax deferrals. Property tax cut by 25 percent. That represents

about $700 million to support the businesses that are going through these tough times.

I just want to make it clear. Our employment standards are distinctly different than

the other jurisdictions that they have mentioned. Other jurisdictions don't have the

provision where an employer and an employee, working together, can go to employment

standards and ask for an extension. We have those provisions in there.

Having said that, we've been clear….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. H. Bains: We've been very clear that right now…. When we extended from 13 to 16 weeks over a

month ago, we also made it clear to the businesses and to the workers that that provision

is available to them if they choose to go to employment standards for an extension

beyond 16 weeks.

So far very few have applied. The member talked about a 3,000 backlog. That is a backlog

for other complaints by members…. That is by the workers against their employers.

You know what? You want to talk about a backlog. You know where we got the backlog,

Mr. Speaker? It's because that side, when they were in government, cut employment

standards in half. They laid off half the workers in employment standards. That's

how we are trying to clean up the mess that they have created in employment standards.

We said the other day…. The Premier was very clear. We are willing to talk to the

businesses. We will work with them. If an extension is needed, we'll talk to them.

In the meantime,

section 72 is available to workers and to the….

[11:00 a.m.]

One thing is clear. We will not compromise workers' hard-earned benefits and rights

that they've earned over the years. We will support the businesses at the same time

so that they can restart their businesses.

ACCOUNTABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR

FOR-PROFIT LONG-TERM CARE FACILITIES

A. Olsen: As we noted yesterday, the government spends $1.3 billion contracting long-term care

to for-profit companies and not-for-profit societies. Ninety-three percent of the

sector's revenues are funded through B.C. taxpayers.

Given the magnitude of the public expenditure and the vulnerability of the population

served, it's reasonable to ask whether sufficient financial oversight is in place

to ensure that B.C. seniors are receiving the best possible care for the money that

we've invested. Unfortunately, the answer seems to be no.

Contracted care homes are required to provide their health authority with annual audited

financial statements. These statements are available to the public if the care home

is operated by a not-for-profit society. But for-profit operators are not obliged

to make their audited financial statements available to the public.

Considering that for-profit companies are already not delivering hundreds of thousands

of hours of care that they are publicly funded to provide, my question is to the Minister

of Health. Why are we not requiring significantly more disclosure from for-profit

care home operators, especially considering significant public resources are going

into these facilities?

Hon. A. Dix: The member will know that historically, in the past, the health care system, the long-term

care system, was a more direct system. There were independent long-term-care contractors,

but everyone operated under the same collective agreement, and there weren't any subcontractors.

Over the past couple of decades, that changed. We mostly have a contracted system

that includes a very significant for-profit private sector, non-profit private sector

and, importantly, subcontractors. This was the situation in 2017-18, reflected in

the report that he refers to from Isobel Mackenzie, the seniors advocate in B.C.

So what have we done? We've increased the standard of care for everybody in the system

by increasing the care hours for all residents — this is important — and put behind

that auditing measures that support it. Those are very significant changes because

they improved the quality of care.

Currently, the accountability the member talks to comes in through data spreadsheets.

That old-fashioned methodology makes the accountability he wishes more difficult.

I agree. That's why we're moving to a web-based tool that allows broader information,

so we can find the very information required to ensure that the money taxpayers spend

goes to the care that residents deserve. That's what we're doing. In addition, in

the coming year, we'll be reviewing contracting and the contracting system with our

partners in the sector, with the goal of making things better for residents.

There needs to be more accountability, I agree, and there will be. The seniors advocate

report reflects the situation in 2017-18, and we are working together with all of

the partners in long-term care to improve accountability for residents, to improve

the accountability of care, but also increase care standards. That's what we've done,

and that has served us well in British Columbia, as compared to other jurisdictions

in North America in the last few weeks.

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

A. Olsen: I'd like to thank the Minister of Health for the detailed and straightforward answer.

We've seen, as he noted, that B.C. seniors advocate, Isobel Mackenzie, has a detailed

report. In that report, it highlights how the accountability mechanisms and transparency

mechanisms are different by contract, by operator, by health authority.

[11:05 a.m.]

It seems like there is, as I think the minister acknowledged, a wide variety of different

mechanisms in place, making it very, very difficult to be able to get a really good

understanding of how $1.3 billion of taxpayers money is being spent. I appreciate

the minister acknowledging that there will be greater accountability measures being

put in place.

Can the minister please let British Columbians know and let us know here when British

Columbians can expect those accountability measures to be in place?

Hon. A. Dix: I think you see it now. You see it in the application of the 3.36 moneys which have

been supported by all parties in the Legislature. You see it in the restoration of

the rights of workers in Bill 47. You see it in the change in accountability models.

You see it in the money that's being provided to ensure that workers' wages are levelled

up during this period when people are under provincial health orders — it's called

the single-site order — to ensure that workers get the money that's being provided

to ensure that their wages are levelled up.

All of these other changes are important, and you see it in the daily hard work of

medical health officers, who do the work at long-term care homes everywhere in B.C.,

working for health authorities and working with care providers to ensure that the

quality of care is high. And when it's not –– as was the case at Comox Seniors Village,

as in the case of Nanaimo Seniors Village, as is the case at Selkirk here in Victoria,

as in the case in Summerland –– with the support of members of all sides of the House,

medical health officers and health authority boards and myself intervened to ensure

the quality of care was protected.

It is important to all of us. It is what we owe to people, to residents in long-term

care, and it's what we're continuing to work to improve, working with all of the partners

in long-term care in the coming weeks and months.

SMALL BUSINESS EMPLOYEE LAYOFFS

AND SEVERANCE PAY ISSUES

S. Bond: The Premier continues to attempt to make this sound like a complicated decision, that

he needs to keep waiting for some phone call on Thursday. Let's be clear. It's as

simple as saying yes today.

You know, it's interesting, because obviously it wasn't just the Labour Minister,

who is the only one on the government side who would be aware of the devastating impacts

of the lack of action on the temporary layoff period. As a matter of fact, on April

28, the Jobs Minister told the Vancouver Board of Trade: "One of our big concerns

is mass displacement of employer and employees. Employees don't want to be suddenly

severed. And the same thing goes for employers. They want to keep their employees."

Perhaps the Minister of Jobs can stand up for the very people who employ British Columbians.

Does she agree with the Minister of Labour's lack of action and his decision to say

no to an extension of the temporary layoff time limit?

Hon. H. Bains: I thank the member for the question. Obviously, as the government, we want to support

workers and businesses to ensure that their businesses survive when they restart the

economy. Everyone wants to be a part of a strong recovery as we continue through our

restart plan. We will continue to defend the rights of the workers, as many are struggling

from the impact of COVID-19. We will also continue to work with employers and businesses

through the restart into our recovery. That's why, as I mentioned, $1.8 billion that

was immediate relief was provided to our businesses.

We worked with the federal government in order to help businesses and workers during

this tough time. The support for businesses include, as I mentioned, cutting property

taxes by 25 percent; deferral of many business taxes, including the carbon tax, employer

health tax, PST; a 75 percent wage subsidy; deferral of WCB premiums and the waiver

of premiums for certain employers; the commercial rent assistance program, with a

provincial ban on commercial eviction.

We will continue to work with businesses towards a strong recovery.

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

S. Bond: Well, that's an interesting answer from the Minister of Labour. What businesses in

British Columbia want to hear from this minister is him change his decision to say

no to an absolutely critical request that they have made.

[11:10 a.m.]

This is not business as usual. Here's what the B.C. Chamber of Commerce had to say:

"By not extending the temporary layoff period," this government is "knowingly hampering

the business community's earnest attempts at restart." Apparently the Minister of

Jobs understood how devastating it would be if there were mass displacement of employees.

I'm not sure why the Minister of Labour and, in fact, the Premier of British Columbia

don't understand that.

Let's ask the Minister of Jobs. How many businesses does she estimate will inevitably

have to declare bankruptcy as a result of the lack of action by her very own government?

Hon. H. Bains: We fully understand the difficulty that the businesses and the workers are going through

in this pandemic. Many workers and employers alike feel that this temporary layoff

could become permanent. They're worried about their loved ones. They're worried about

their jobs. We want to support them. That's why we extended the temporary layoff provision

to 16 weeks. That's why we put together a relief program.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. H. Bains: At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we said that we will continue to listen. We are even….

The Premier had mentioned very clearly that we will talk to the business community.

We believe that the provision in the employment standards exists right now to help

those employers who need to extend past 16 weeks. In the meantime, they could go to

the employment standards branch and ask for an extension.

Like I said, very few have gone to the employment standards to ask for an extension

— very few, maybe less than a dozen. That avenue is available today. We are going

to continue to work with those businesses to ensure that if an extension is needed

and that system doesn't work for them, we are open to discussions. If that extension

is awarded, I want to make sure that the workers' rights and workers' benefits are

not compromised at the same time that we are supporting businesses to restart.

J. Thornthwaite: Last week the federal government extended the Canada emergency response benefit to

August 29, for a total of 24 weeks. Today they extended the time period for temporary

layoffs for up to six months, giving employers more time to recall employees who were

laid off due to COVID-19.

This is what the federal minister said today: "We know that many employers who have

had to temporarily lay off employees intend to bring them back to work. However, there

is still a great deal of uncertainty regarding exactly when that will be possible.

That's why we are taking action" — the federal government is taking action — "to protect

the jobs of those employees and to support those employers by giving them more time

to recall their employees."

The federal government is protecting and supporting. Why is this minister not taking

every step to make sure that temporary layoffs don't become permanent?

Hon. H. Bains: I have said before that our employment standards is distinctly different than the

federal government's, the federal act and the other jurisdictions. Our act allows

employers to work with their employees, the impacted employees, to go to the employment

standards and ask for an extension. Very few have taken the opportunity to ask for

that extension.

Having said that, no, we have actually communicated with the businesses and workers

over a month ago, when we extended temporary layoffs to 16 weeks. They knew over a

month…. Very few have taken the opportunity to go to the employment standards.

Mr. Speaker, having said that….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we shall hear the response. Thank you.

Minister.

Hon. H. Bains: Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to belong to the government. For the last year, we had

the lowest unemployment in the country as a result of our policies and the highest

economic growth in the country.

[11:15 a.m.]

We improved services that the people depend on and, at the same time, balanced budgets.

We know what it takes to put people in the centre, to develop policies around. People

in the province appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. They're happy that they're sitting on

that side and that they're not governing at this time during the pandemic.

[End of question period.]

Reports from Committees

CHILDREN AND YOUTH COMMITTEE

N. Simons: I have the honour to present the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth's

annual report 2019-20, a copy of which has been deposited with the Office of the Clerk.

The report summarizes the committee's activities over the past year.

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

N. Simons: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

N. Simons: I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so, I'd like to make a few comments.

This report covers the committee's activities over the last year, during which we

reviewed four reports of the Representative for Children and Youth. These include

an update on adoption and permanency options; an investigative report about a child

who was repeatedly moved between care placements in Alberta and British Columbia;

a special report on youth homelessness, written by Katherine McParland, the executive

director of A Way Home Kamloops Society, with the assistance of staff from the Office

of the Representative for Children and Youth; and the representative's annual report

and service plan.

The report also describes the committee's work on a special project on children and

youth with neurodiverse special needs. The committee held public consultations between

April 15 and June 7, 2019, hearing from over 200 parents, caregivers and service providers.

The committee's report, with 16 recommendations to improve services and supports for

children and youth with neurodiverse special needs and their families, was released

on October 30, 2019.

I'd like to thank all committee members, especially the Deputy Chair, the member for

Parksville-Qualicum, for their continued dedication and contribution to this important

committee. I also appreciate members' adaptability and willingness to work remotely

and meet virtually in recent months.

When we met to adopt this report, committee members also decided to release a statement

on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on children, youth, families and caregivers.

We recognize that these exceptional circumstances have put increased pressure on families,

and that everyday challenges of finding appropriate supports and services for children

and youth are even more difficult.

We encouraged those who required support to reach out to the Ministry of Children

and Families. The services of the Office of the Representative for Children and Youth

also remain available. Our committee continues to monitor this evolving situation

and discuss ongoing and emerging issues affecting children, youth and families in

B.C.

On behalf of all committee members, I'd like to express our appreciation to the Office

of the Representative for Children and Youth and to the Ministry of Children and Family

Development for their ongoing work supporting children and youth in B.C. during this

difficult time.

In closing, I'd like to acknowledge the excellent organizing, researching and writing

skills and capabilities of everyone at the Office of the Clerk of Committees — in

particular, Jennifer Arril, Karan Riarh and Katey Stickle. I'd also like to thank

the dedicated work of the folks at Hansard, whose assistance has been always forthcoming.

[11:20 a.m.]

M. Stilwell: I, too, would like to thank the committee members, including the Chair, the member

for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, for their collaboration and for their commitment

to the committee. In reflecting on our work over the past year, I can say I'm particularly

proud of the committee and the members for coming together on our special project

for children and youth with neurodiverse special needs.

I would also like to echo the comments of the Chair in acknowledging the impact that

COVID-19 has had on the child- and youth-serving system in British Columbia. The impacts

are not only on the children and the families that care for them and provide supports.

Children and youth and families are experiencing such significant adjustments to their

daily lives and experiencing and facing such difficulties with accessing education

or child care, respite, therapy services and all the other multitude of supports that

they rely on every single day.

I just want to extend my appreciation to all those front-line staff and those in the

representative's office and her colleagues for their dedication in supporting children

and youth through these very challenging times. I know that with their support, they're

making it the best possible situation we can for those families and those children

and youth in our province.

Mr. Speaker: The question is the adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Schedule of Estimates

Hon. M. Farnworth: Pursuant to the sessional order regulating proceedings of the Committee of Supply,

I hereby table the

schedule of estimates to be considered by the Committee of Supply,

Section A and

Section C, this Thursday and Friday.

On Thursday in

Section A, it will be the estimates of the Ministry of Education.

In

Section C, on Thursday, it will be the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty

Reduction, to be followed by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

On Friday, in

Section A, it will be the Ministry of Education estimates, to be followed

by the Ministry of Labour estimates.

Then in

Section C, it will be continuing on the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call in this chamber second reading of Bill 4, Budget Measures Implementation Act.

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 4 — BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2020

(continued)

P. Milobar: It gives me pleasure to rise again today and finish off my comments on Bill 4, the

Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2020.

[11:25 a.m.]

As I was saying yesterday, it's unfortunate that this bill was still advanced forward.

The government does get to control the order that we debate bills. For the public

at home, the process could have easily been circumvented in terms of this bill not

being brought forward for debate, given that it's mostly out of date. It was brought

forward back in February, pre-COVID. Of course, things have changed dramatically.

What we saw is a suspension or a deferral, deferral I guess being more the accurate

term, of a lot of the tax measures that are in this bill that had been intended to

pass before April 1 when we were first sitting, back in March. Now what we have seen

is the government deferring most of the taxes that are referenced in this bill. For

us to be able to properly know where we are as a province within the overall economy

right now, we should have been getting an update from the Finance Minister as soon

as the House sat. Instead, we'll be waiting until July 14.

We could have had an updated piece of legislation to look at and debate instead of

a document that refers to budgets and taxes back in February, which now, moving forward,

as I say, have been deferred by the Finance Minister, and by indications of possible

amendments coming in at the committee stage, it sounds like those deferrals will be

lasting for some time into the future. Again, the need and the urgency…. When we have

very short windows of time to debate in this modified session, the urgency for Bill

4 seems to have gone by the wayside. In that regard, it is disappointing that we don't

have any update.

There have been, with this bill, 23 increased and new taxes brought forward by this

government now. That's adding substantially to the overall burden, not just of everyday

folks but also of the business community and, by extension, the people that they employ.

That is problematic. That is problematic for many reasons.

I think the Finance Minister has very clearly demonstrated that, in a strange way,

she does understand that the tax burden of those 23 taxes has brought an unnecessary

burden to a great many — by the simple act of her deferring these taxes. Deferring

is unfortunate in that it is good that these businesses and people are having a way

to delay having to pay these taxes but disappointing in that when that bill comes

due, it is going to be a very significant bill for these businesses and people that

have deferred taxes just simply trying to survive. The fact that the government would

acknowledge that these 23 increased taxes are significant enough to create such a

burden that they should be deferred, and delayed implementation in some cases, speaks

volumes to the fact that they are unwilling to recognize the fact that these taxes

are just that — a burden to people.

Let's look at the carbon tax. The carbon tax, which was slated to increase again on

April 1, ahead of the rest of the country, to accelerate us getting to $50 a tonne

faster than any other jurisdiction in the country, was put on hold April 1 so it would

still be at last year's rate. That right there is again another acknowledgment by

the Finance Minister that these taxes are having a cumulative effect on businesses

and on people. Why that was not acknowledged pre-COVID is concerning, to say the least.

But certainly during this COVID pandemic, the acknowledgment of that is significant.

When you read through Bill 4 and you see that the priority for the government is to

recalculate how they calculate carbon tax, and it will drop by 1/100 of a cent on

some sorts of fuel and increase by 1/100 of a cent on other types of fuel, it's playing

on the edges.

At the real core of it is the fact that there has been an acknowledgment that these

taxes, all 23 of them, are cumulatively creating an unworkable tax burden, a tax load

for the business community that needs to be addressed, and it needs to be addressed

in a significant way. That would have been a much better use of debate, introducing

a new budget bill instead of just rehashing this February one with some potential

amendments — we still have not been made aware of what those amendments may or may

not be — at committee stage.

[11:30 a.m.]

One would think, given how out of date Bill 4 actually is now, in the spirit of cooperation

and working together, we could have at least had an advance of what those amendments

would be and in what specific areas they would be so at least we could see whether

or not, during second reading debate like today, these changes are logical, make sense,

are going to actually have the effect of helping the people that are impacted by the

various taxes within Bill 4.

I will wrap up my comments with that. I'm disappointed that we do not have updated

budgetary numbers. I'm disappointed that the march of 23 increased taxes is still

well underway. As I said yesterday morning when we heard the other side, when the

government members talked about creating opportunities…. Their opportunities all revolve

around tax policy. That's what they are itching to do — to continue to increase these

taxes.

I have no doubt that the next budget implementation bill will take the number of new

taxes and increased taxes from 23 and increase it even greater. That is not what people

are looking for in this time right now. They're looking for ways to make sure that

they can stay competitive, that they can actually reopen, that they can reopen and

stay sustainable.

It does no good to simply reopen, be open for a month, start to get your feet under

you as a small business person, and then have the provincial government tax collector

come knocking on your door and say: "By the way, you have all of these deferred taxes

that we" — wink-wink, nudge-nudge — "told you that you didn't have to pay when you

weren't open. But as soon as you've opened your doors again here, we need them paid."

That's an acknowledgment that that is a burdensome tax regime. The Finance Minister

seems unwilling to take the proper steps to permanently address the uncompetitive

nature that we are starting to see with our tax structure. This would have been a

perfect opportunity to do that with updated legislation, with updated information

for this House to look at, to scrutinize, to make sure had some transparency and the

public could understand where we were headed with tax policy moving forward to post-pandemic

— and during pandemic.

Instead, we will be left to keep debating a dated piece of legislation with to-be-announced

amendments coming forward by the minister that may or may not actually be adequate

in what is being amended. So until then, until we hit committee stage, I guess we'll

be left to try to guess and surmise which amendments may come forward.

However, it's good to hear that the Finance Minister is open to amendments, because

I'm sure if it's not a comprehensive enough list, we'll be more than happy to make

sure that we advance some amendments as well to make sure that this bill more reflects

accurately what is going on in real time in British Columbia, instead of what the

minister felt was going to be happening in February.

With that, I will take my seat and eagerly listen to the rest of the debate.

M. de Jong: I will confess at the outset that I am troubled by the government's decision to advance

Bill 4 in its present form at this present time and will endeavour to lay out, for

the House, my reasons for being troubled. They, broadly speaking, fall into two categories.

There are clearly substantive provisions within the bill that I am philosophically

opposed to. But that is not the crux of why I am concerned and will not support the

advancement of Bill 4.

I will say this in hopefully laying out a semi-coherent argument for why I am not

prepared to support the advancement of Bill 4. The process by which the executive

council, the cabinet and, ultimately, the Crown acquires spending authority can be

a bit mystifying for people. I will say this. It is a much more regulated process

today than it was nearly 27 years ago when I arrived, when the manipulation of both

the numbers and the timing around the introduction of provincial budgets was far more

prevalent.

[11:35 a.m.]

Various examples that transcend particular governments gave rise, particularly after

2001 — but even in a couple of examples, just prior to 2001 — to the incorporation

of certain safeguards to ensure that the opportunity for governments to manipulate

numbers and timings were minimized.

I think those were appropriate. I think they were helpful. They were ultimately rooted

in the belief that the money that is being dealt with in the budget belongs to the

people, and the people deserve to have an accurate set of facts upon which to assess

the decisions that governments of the day make about both the collection of that money

and the spending of the money.

Ultimately, what concerns me today is a theme you have heard from other opposition

members, and that is the absence of accurate information upon which the public — in

fact, this House and the opposition — can make decisions about the position we are

in as a province.

Look, I will acknowledge that the task of creating a $60 billion spending plan for

the province is not without complications. It is a very difficult task. The budget

that gets tabled with much fanfare in February is ultimately a series of estimates.

In fact, we call an entire process that consumes many hours in this place the estimates

process. But it's actually two sets of estimates. It's the spending estimates — and

we take a lot of time scrutinizing that exercise — but there's a second set of estimates

in the budget that relates to the revenue that government will receive and enables

that spending.

Just like a family that sits down at the kitchen table to make budgetary decisions,

what they decide in terms of how much they are going to spend is greatly influenced

by what they have, or what they estimate they will have in the year ahead — what they'll

earn. There are times when families will go beyond that and say, "We are going to

borrow some additional amount to achieve certain things." Or: "We're obliged to because

circumstances are such that we're required to." But they make those decisions based

in large measure on a pretty clear idea of what it is they have or what they expect

to earn in terms of revenue in the period ahead.

The budget implementation bill — in this case, Bill 4 — represents the legislation

that the Finance Minister and the government say is necessary to make good on the

estimates that are contained within the budget. It is the legislation, either the

new set of rules — in many cases with this government, the new taxes — or the amendments

to existing laws that are required either to facilitate the collection of revenue

or to authorize a certain kind of spending that the government believes to be a priority.

That legislation is usually presented, as was the case here, either the day of or

the day following the presentation of the budget by the Finance Minister and then

debated very quickly. That didn't happen here. Now, it didn't happen through no fault

of the government. The legislation was introduced, and within a few short weeks, circumstances

had changed dramatically.

[11:40 a.m.]

COVID hit, and that led to an extraordinary one-day session in March where the government

asked for and received extraordinary additional spending authority well beyond what

was contained in the budget. There weren't a lot of details. The government made its

case, and the House actually ultimately accepted that case. I think, to be fair, the

public was prepared to accept the case that in the early days — we didn't know it

was the early days — of what would end up being a prolonged period of disruption,

some additional resources would be required.

In seeking and receiving that approval, that licence, from the government in ways

that I cannot remember governments ever receiving in this chamber, the Finance Minister

indicated that there would be an opportunity for full disclosure of the information,

as the government became aware of it, in terms of spending and the decisions that

government would make and in terms of what the impact of the pandemic would be having

on the other side of the budgetary equation — on the revenue side.

We've heard a lot of talk in the intervening four months about the steps that the

government has taken on the spending side. We have heard virtually nothing from the

Finance Minister and the government and the Premier about the impact that the pandemic

is having — and the economic downturn — on the revenue side. There has been no indication

of a willingness, thus far, to share the details of that all-important side of the

budgetary equation with the public. I think that is unfortunate.

The minister says: "Well, we'll get to a first quarter report in September." To be

fair, that's the normal cycle. But these are not normal times. When the government

sought for and received from this chamber spending authority for an additional $5

billion in one day in March, it made that case.

I would suggest that asking this House –– and through this House, the public –– to

debate measures intended to breathe statutory life into a budget that was tabled under

entirely different circumstances without sharing the details of what the government

actually has or anticipates having in the kitty in the fiscal year ahead is, at best,

negligent and irresponsible and, at worst, contrived and politically motivated — that

the government would be withholding information that it has at its disposal about

the impact this pandemic is having. I'll talk a little bit more about that later.

The bill, as is frequently the case with budget measures implementation acts, deals

with many pieces of legislation and amends many pieces of legislation. They have an

impact on the ability of government to collect revenue and on the amount of revenue

it collects from taxpayers, and I have my thoughts on the wisdom of some of those.

I should say also, in fairness, that there are a few provisions of the bill that don't

fall into the category that I am going to spend most of my time talking about. They

are non-revenue-related and non-budgetary and speak to timings.

[11:45 a.m.]

I will only say this. I listened to the minister make the case for why some of these

changes were needed with respect to altered election dates and budget cycles, and

I think that in most cases, she has made that case reasonably. I will only attach

this caveat, and that is that I hope we are not gravitating back to the bad old days

where budget dates were regularly changed and manipulated to fit with the political

timing and political agenda of the government in power. That, in my view, would be

a step backwards, and I think most reasonable-thinking people would agree. The Finance

Minister has said that is not the case, that is not the intention, and I hope she

is entirely correct.

But if you go to the bill — the first part of it, which stretches over many pages

— it deals with a number of existing pieces of legislation, tax-related budget measures.

It deals with the carbon tax. Now, the minister, in bringing the bill forward — and

the government bringing the bill forward today — seeks the support of the House for

changes to the carbon tax. Now, the carbon tax isn't an insignificant measure in the

budget.

The bill is the Budget Measures Implementation Act. This is the budget, and in the

budget the minister has laid out her estimate for what the carbon tax will return

to the government for the fiscal year '20-21. It is almost $2 billion –– $1.954 billion.

That's contained in the Finance Minister's budget at page 28. Carbon tax is a fossil

fuel consumption tax. What has the economic downturn, caused by this pandemic, done

to that number? How has it changed?

These are not…. How has it changed? What has taken place since March, which is now

going on four months ago? What are the forecasts for the impact that it will have

going forward? Will that number continue to be $1.954 billion? I don't think so. We

have gone through a period where people essentially parked their cars, to use one

example. So the consumption of motor fuel…. And that comes up again with respect to

the motor fuel tax.

But the government and the Finance Minister have steadfastly refused to provide any

information to the public, to this chamber, about what the impacts are. We know that

the minister is receiving that information. In fact, I will say this: I know she is.

I know precisely the information and updates that she is receiving with respect to

both actual revenues and revenue forecasts. But she doesn't want anyone else to know,

and she is refusing to share it with the public and with the people in this chamber

that she is asking to support a Budget Measures Implementation Act that deals with

that precise instrument, the Carbon Tax Act.

The next piece of legislation that is dealt with in Bill 4 is the Employer Health

Tax Act. That's dealt with in

section 8. Now, we have some pretty fundamental differences

of opinion about the wisdom of and the manner in which the employer health tax was

instituted. But I don't think it is unreasonable, given the dramatic changes that

have taken place, for the House to be informed by the minister at a time when she

is asking us to consider changes to the employer health tax and consider these measures

at a time when there is mounting unemployment. Mounting unemployment translates, for

the purpose of the employer health tax, to less revenue.

[11:50 a.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We had a discussion earlier today about the prospect for mandatory terminations under

the Employment Standards Act. There is, to be sure, a budgetary implication around

the payment of employer health tax. If you're not an employee, the employer is not

paying the health tax on your behalf. Yet the Finance Minister and the government

refuse to provide that information to the chamber.

Now, I will say this again. In the ordinary course of business, this legislation would

be tabled and debated within days of the budget. It's not the government's fault that

that didn't happen. But the government has repeatedly made the case that because of

dramatic changes in circumstances –– which have occurred, to be sure –– they require

additional leeway on the spending front.

Those extraordinary changes and circumstances, I would suggest, equally make the case

for why the public and this House deserve to know what the minister knows about the

changes that have occurred on the revenue side. Thus far, we have been met with silence.

The minister says: "I'll get back to you in the middle of July." But she has provided

no indication whatsoever about the level of detail. And if that is so, if she is prepared

to provide all of that information, which I think would be reasonable, then the responsible

thing to do would be to hold off on debating legislation related to the budget until

after we have had that information.

The carbon tax and the employer health tax, just to put this in some context, together

account for 25 percent of the budgeted revenues that government expects to receive,

along with the Income Tax Act. That's the next piece of legislation dealt with in

Bill 4: the Income Tax Act.

Table 1.3 in the Finance Minister's budget says that in 2021…. She forecasts…. She

estimates the government will have revenue in the amount of $11.771 billion. That

figure undoubtedly has gone down. In that case, we won't have an actual figure until

sometime in the future. But I know that the Finance Minister has been presented with

forecasting information from within the treasury branch about where that number is

likely –– a range, at least.

It is surely the responsible thing to do and the forthright thing to do, when asking

this House to consider the budget in these dramatically changed circumstances, to

be forthright about providing that information to the House. It's a big amount of

money.

I will say this as well, and I alluded to this a few moments ago. I think British

Columbians accept the fact that governments in Canada, and the government in British

Columbia, are going to need to spend, in the fiscal year ahead, at least –– probably

beyond that –– more than they collect in revenue. I think the public is understanding

that we are confronted by a circumstance that justifies that. I think the vast majority

of the public are also asking for some honesty on the part of the government to disclose

what the circumstances actually are and to assess what represents a reasonable amount.

There is surely not an infinite ability on the part of government. There are some

constraints, and that is influenced by the degree of revenue that the government expects

to receive in the fiscal year ahead. Again, the Finance Minister seems entirely unwilling

to provide that information in a forthright manner to this House and to the public.

[11:55 a.m.]

Bill 4 next deals with the Insurance Premium Tax Act. It's

section 41. It is a smaller

amount but still in the Finance Minister's budget in table 1.3, page 28 –– $660 million

anticipated revenue from the insurance premium tax.

Noting the hour, I'll just take a moment or two before moving adjournment.

Were it not for the intervention of the COVID pandemic, I think we would have been

spending a lot more time talking about the Insurance Premium Tax Act because of the

crisis that is confronting many people who live in condominiums — own condominiums,

rent condominiums. Insurance premiums have skyrocketed — doubled, tripled, quadrupled.

Deductibles have gone from $30,000 to $250,000.

The industry is now selling deductible insurance. Well, there's an interesting phenomenon.

I invite someone from the industry to call people who are in that position. "We're

going to triple your insurance premium. We're going to raise your deductible from

$30,000 to $250,000. But do not worry. By the way, your condo is only worth $200,000,

but we're going to raise your deductible to $250,000. If that worries you, we've got

a new insurance product for you called deductible insurance."

In any event, for the purpose of this budget, I'd be interested to know what the updated

numbers on the revenue side for the government are. That's one that I expect has gone

up. When insurance premiums quadruple, guess what. The government's take goes up.

Pretty relevant for the purposes of a budgetary discussion.

I note the hour and would seek to reserve my opportunity to continue to participate

in debate and move adjournment of the debate.

M. de Jong moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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 11:58 a.m.

Top

NOTICE: This is a DRAFT transcript of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of

British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections and will be replaced by

the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative

precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any

of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.

Copyright © 2020: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada