Second Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, May 18, 2021

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 73

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

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

International Museum Day

T. Wat

Invasive Scotch broom

A. Walker

Peter Boyd and Peter’s Your Independent Grocer

R. Merrifield

Karyssa McLean and Damian Dutrisac

B. Banman

B.C. Achievement Foundation Community Award

A. Singh

International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia

B. Anderson

Oral Questions

Policy on declaration of COVID-19 outbreaks in long-term-care facilities

S. Bond

Hon. A. Dix

R. Merrifield

Protection of old-growth forests and practices of B.C. Timber Sales

A. Olsen

Hon. K. Conroy

Government management of forests and conservation lands program

A. Olsen

Hon. K. Conroy

Government response to U.S. legislation on cruise ship industry

T. Wat

Hon. M. Mark

T. Stone

M. de Jong

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 13 — Employment Standards Amendment Act (No. 2), 2021 (continued)

G. Kyllo

Hon. H. Bains

S. Furstenau

A. Olsen

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Citizens’ Services

Hon. L. Beare

B. Banman

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy (continued)

M. de Jong

Hon. G. Heyman

TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2021

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: P. Alexis.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

H. Sandhu: Today my beautiful niece Avneet, who lives in Abbotsford, turned 12

years old. Avneet is so kind, lively, caring and an intelligent girl. She’s

like a daughter to me. May I ask members of this House to join me to wish a

very happy birthday to Avneet.

Happy birthday, Avneet. Massi loves you so much.

M. Dykeman: It is Donald Craig’s and Dorothea Craig’s 70th wedding anniversary —

constituents of my riding in Langley East. I was wondering if the House

could please join me in wishing Donald and Dorothea a happy 70th wedding

anniversary.

M. Elmore: I’m pleased to introduce my friend from Vancouver-Kensington, Yohan

Pathmayohan. He’s very active with the National Council of Canadian Tamils

and he’ll be out with an event today at the Vancouver Art Gallery at noon

marking the 12th anniversary for Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day.

I just ask everybody to please give him a very warm greeting. Thank

you very much.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

INTERNATIONAL MUSEUM DAY

T. Wat: Today is International Museum Day, an exciting day to note the

importance and contribution of small, local and large museums in British

Columbia. Museums play such an important role in showcasing our history

and culture and providing fun and interesting education to

all.

Here in British Columbia we have the wealth of history showcased

in museums provincewide — museums dedicated to First Nations languages

and cultures, our province’s complex biodiversity, the storied history

of gold rushes; art galleries filled with beautiful artistry and local

municipal museums telling the tale of cities across B.C.

There is the Royal B.C. Museum, a proud institution which

showcases the depth of our past, the diversity of Indigenous language

and First Nations people, the early industry and the settling of the

land now known as B.C. Barkerville is an iconic landmark in British

Columbia’s north. It is an excellent example of the trails of the gold

rush, a notable

chapter in the province’s history. The heritage town has

welcomed hundreds of thousands of visitors for generations, inspiring

and educating.

On International Museum Day, I ask all the members of this House

and those listening at home to support their local museums and archives,

especially since COVID-19 has had a tremendous impact on these important

institutions. Tourists and locals alike have been unable to access the

educational opportunities provided by museums, whose important revenues

have been dramatically reduced.

Museums have been hit hard, and we must all do our

part in

ensuring that these vital museums survive and that they are ready to

invite and educate once more when we return to normal.

INVASIVE SCOTCH BROOM

A. Walker: Every year around this time, volunteers all over Vancouver Island

come together, loppers in hand, on a crusade to protect our natural

environment. Rain or shine, along busy roadsides and abandoned

clearings, they cut broom, in bloom, to make way for native species and

natural revegetation.

[10:10 a.m.]

In 1849, Walter Colquhoun Grant, the first western landowner on

Vancouver Island, purchased 100 acres of land in what is now known as

Sooke Harbour. That spring Grant left Scotland by ship via Panama. Upon

his arrival at Clover Point, here in Victoria, he shot what he believed

to be a wild buffalo, to the consternation of locals who’d recently lost

their cow. This was the first of his several miscalculations.

Another notable error was that Grant introduced Scotch broom to

his farm in memory of his homeland. This plant is incredible. Broom is

drought-tolerant. With the help of rhizobium bacteria, it fixes

its own nitrogen in the soil. It thrives in poor soil, lowering the pH

and depleting it of phosphorous, which dramatically impacts the ability

of native species to recolonize. One plant can produce 18,000 seeds,

which can last for up to 30 years in the soil, and it spreads

quickly.

This month of May is Invasive Species Action Month. In my

hometown, BroomBusters is taking action. Volunteers have taken up the

challenge to rid our natural environment of this scourge and are having

fun in the process. The trick to cut broom is to cut it in bloom, just

below the soil level, killing the plants and preventing the further

spread of seeds.

Would the House please join with me in congratulating

BroomBusters, who have successfully eradicated 99 percent of the broom

in Qualicum Beach and worked so hard to create space for our native

species.

PETER BOYD AND

PETER’S YOUR INDEPENDENT

GROCER

R. Merrifield: Recently the city of Kelowna awarded their 43rd Annual Civic and

Community Awards. This year’s Corporate Community of the Year recipient

was Peter’s Your Independent Grocer.

This is not the first time Mr. Peter Boyd has been recognized for

his work in our community. In 2017, he was recognized nationally by the

Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship with an Employer Award

for Newcomer Employment for his work in tackling the challenges and

obstacles faced by newcomers and striving to make them feel more at home

in Canada through people-focused hiring practices. Peter’s employs about

200 staff members, of which more than 22 percent have immigrated to

Canada.

“Every day I feel happy to go to work,” said Peter. “Opening my

mind and doors to people of all backgrounds has allowed me to grow, my

team to grow and our store to be known as a place of welcoming

neighbours.” In 2018, Mr. Peter Boyd was also recognized as Kelowna’s

man of the year. But this is not about past awards. This is about the

current one, which was just given at the end of April.

In 2020, Peter’s was a crucial community fixture, as grocery

stores became an essential service. They organized specific shopping

hours for elderly and vulnerable shoppers, ensured that staff were

available for translation services, arranged delivery service to local

farms, and so much more. Kelowna and the Okanagan are better, more

diverse and more welcoming because of business people like Peter

Boyd.

When he won, he acknowledged that whether it was welcoming

newcomers and making a way forward or supporting the community through a

pandemic, he followed a simple motto. “My mom said, ‘Nobody gets left

behind.’ I’ve tried to live that.”

Today I ask for the House to join me in celebrating Mr. Peter

Boyd, Peter’s Your Independent Grocer, and his successes in leaving no

one behind.

KARYSSA M c LEAN AND DAMIAN

DUTRISAC

B. Banman: I rise in the House today on behalf of a young woman who works in

my riding. Her name is Karyssa McLean. I’ve known her for a number of

years now, and I have to say she lights up a room when she enters it. I

and many others followed her falling in love with a handsome young man

named Damian Dutrisac — he, her prince, and she was clearly his

princess.

[10:15 a.m.]

Their love for each other was, to put it mildly, deeply

infectious. Both share the love of the outdoors, adventure, and busily

planning their future. I was not alone in watching them get engaged, her

saying yes to the dress, planning the wedding and dreaming of the family

they would soon start, she and he about as deeply in love as a young

couple could and should be.

Then, in the blink of an eye, on May 7, tragedy struck. Damian and

a friend were fishing on the Fraser River near the mouth of the Vedder

River when the boat suddenly capsized. Both men were tossed overboard.

One of the two men made it to shore. Damian, sadly, did not. He has not

been seen since. Karyssa has been doing everything she can to find him

but, as of yet, has not been able to bring the love of her life

home.

I would ask those whose ridings are along or near the Fraser River

to reach out to those they know who work or may be on the Fraser River

to help in the search for Damian. Karyssa has also asked me to mention

the importance of wearing a life jacket when on or near the

water.

Let us join today to take a moment to reflect, to pray, to do

whatever we can to aid, to find Damian and return him to his family and

the love of his life.

B.C. ACHIEVEMENT FOUNDATION

COMMUNITY

AWARD

A. Singh: Thank you, member for Abbotsford South. That is

touching.

I’m filled with gratitude this morning to be able to speak about

the B.C. Achievement Foundation’s Community Awards and two of the

awardees this year. The B.C. Achievement Foundation celebrates the

spirit of excellence in our province and serves to honour the best of

British Columbia.

This year among the awardees are Amber Anderson and Harbhajan

Singh Athwal. Harbhajan Singh Athwal — or Uncle Athwal, as many of us

know him — has been a pillar in the community of Queensborough since his

arrival to Canada in 1968.

After retiring from working in a sawmill for over 38 years,

Harbhajan Singh took on a volunteer position as president of the

non-profit Khalsa Diwan Society Gurdwara Sukh Sagar in 2006 in

Queensborough. Through the society, Harbhajan Singh contributes to the

spiritual, educational and social services available to the community.

Amongst many other things, in 2007, he spearheaded the creation of the

Guru Nanak Free Kitchen program, providing meals for thousands of

homeless community members in the Vancouver Downtown

Eastside.

Amber Anderson is the executive director of Hope Action Values

Ethics (HAVE) Culinary Training Society. Amber has impacted countless

lives in the Downtown Eastside. In 2007, Amber was asked to develop a

school and a café in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside to offer culinary

training to some of the province’s most marginalized people.

Through HAVE, Amber fosters community, instilling confidence in

each of her students as they work towards graduation and beyond. Amber’s

empathy and generosity of spirit has helped more than 1,300 people shift

their story to a more hopeful one. Amber also has another connection to

this glorious House. Her partner is my good friend and former MLA for

New Westminster, Chuck Puchmayr.

I ask that this House rise in recognition of these two amazing

people.

INTERNATIONAL DAY AGAINST

HOMOPHOBIA, TRANSPHOBIA

AND BIPHOBIA

B. Anderson: Yesterday was International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia

and Biphobia. Today I’m thinking of a friend who came to Canada as a

refugee because his home country has draconian laws against

homosexuality.

Today I’m also thinking of my second cousin, who is transgender,

and I’m thinking of all my friends, colleagues and community members

that are part of the LGBTQ2S+ community.

When you look up the term “phobia,” the definition is “extreme or

irrational fear of or an aversion to something.” How can people have a

fear of someone who just wants to be themselves or just wants to love

who they love? We have come a long way on this journey from tolerance to

acceptance to embracing LGBTQ2S+ and non-binary people, but we still

have further to go.

[10:20 a.m.]

I want to read a quote from Dan Levy, the creator of Schitt’s

Creek . “In Schitt’s Creek , we are writing a world that

examines the transformational effects of love when the threat of hate

and intolerance have been removed from the equation. While that’s not a

reality for many, our goal is to shine a light out there and ask: ‘What

if it was? Wouldn’t we all be happier if we were able to love out

loud?’”

I would like to expand on those thoughts and say: wouldn’t we be

happier if we were able to be embraced for being ourselves and able to

love out loud? I think it’s extremely important that we must stand in

solidarity and embrace our LGBTQ2S+ brothers and sisters. Everyone

deserves to be themselves and to be free to love who they love. Let the

light shine.

I also want to remind all of my constituents that my office is a

safe space where everyone is welcome.

Oral Questions

POLICY ON DECLARATION OF

COVID-19 OUTBREAKS IN

LONG-TERM-CARE FACILITIES

S. Bond: On Friday, after a devastating report about deaths in long-term

care, the Minister of Health issued a statement. He said: “We take these

reports very seriously. We will look into this important matter and have

more to say once we have completed this work.”

But yesterday the Premier had no answers for the families impacted

by the decision to delay declaring outbreaks. The minister brushed off

questions and said: “Not supported by the evidence.”

That response seems in stark contrast to the statement that the

minister issued just last Friday. The 192 families who lost loved ones

deserve answers. They deserve to see the evidence for themselves. They

deserve full accountability.

To the Premier, what are the terms of reference for the review

announced last Friday, will they be made public, and when can families

expect a report, as promised, on what went wrong?

Hon. A. Dix: The member will know — because the issue here is the declaration

of outbreaks in long-term care, but the declaration of outbreaks in

general — that those decisions are made under the Public Health

Act.

The authority is delegated to the provincial health officer and to

medical health officers. They make the very difficult decisions as to

whether to proceed or not to proceed with outbreak declarations, which

have, of course, serious implications. They are very well trained to do

it, with five years of training in public health.

That doesn’t mean that their decisions can’t be and, certainly,

won’t be reviewed or questioned. What it does mean is that it’s

important in these times when, of course, there’s a desire to

second-guess those decisions depending on the results, after the fact.

We have to, I think, reflect on that authority.

This is not, by the way, an avoidance of accountability by me. I

strongly support our public health teams around B.C., who have acted

consistently — not just consistently but courageously — to respond to

the very difficult challenges in long-term-care public

health.

I think all of these issues will be subject for questions in the

future, but for the moment what we’re doing in public health is a

vaccination program designed to protect those most vulnerable. That

program is having a very positive effect. That is our focus now, as well

as ongoing measures to prevent infection.

I hope all members of the House will recognize that while

decisions can be questioned, our public health teams are doing an

excellent job, giving it everything they have, and that their authority

to make these decisions is founded in the best principles of having

science guide our response against the spread of communicable

diseases.

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

question.

S. Bond: While I appreciate the lengthy answer from the minister, that’s

not at all what I asked him.

On Friday, this minister went out of his way to issue a statement

in response to what was a serious concern expressed about the deaths of

192 people in long-term care, after a specific policy decision was

made.

[10:25 a.m.]

We’re well aware of the vaccination numbers in British Columbia.

We’re well aware of the incredibly hard work of front-line workers and

public health officials. This is about a specific policy decision that

was made.

On Friday, the minister seemed pretty willing to step up and talk

about doing a review. Today the answer missed the mark. What’s changed

since Friday? The answer today completely ignores the concerns of 192

families who lost their loved ones following the implementation of a

specific policy. The minister promised a review and accountability last

Friday.

Let’s be clear: asking legitimate questions on behalf of British

Columbians is important, is necessary, and we’re going to continue to do

just that. Let’s start with this one.

The Premier needs to stand up and he needs to explain what his

government knew about the policy, when he knew it, and this minister

needs to outline for 192 families and British Columbians exactly what

the review will entail and when they can expect answers. That’s the

least this minister can do today.

Hon. A. Dix: Nobody…. I don’t believe one time in a public briefing or a

private briefing have I suggested that anyone doesn’t have the right to

ask questions. I think that is an absolutely legitimate role for the

Leader of the Opposition to play. So I think the suggestion that I’m

saying they can’t ask questions is just incorrect. What I’m saying is

that the challenge of declaring outbreaks, which is something that

public health has taken on throughout this, is based on their authority

under the Public Health Act. They are constantly and consistently

addressing that question and refining those policies.

What I said yesterday, and this is clearly a response to those

questions, is that I think the suggestion to link and to make a causal

link is not supported by the evidence. That’s what I’m saying, and

that’s certainly the response of public health.

That said, all of these decisions, of course, will be the subject

of questions in the future. They absolutely will be. The response and

detail, the analysis and detail, the response of public health to these

questions and, indeed, my response and the ministers’ will be the

subject for review. But for the moment, what our job is, is to keep

British Columbians safe. What our job is, is to pursue a vaccination

program that is already having a positive effect and that we’ll

continue. Our job is ensuring that British Columbians are safe across

the province, and that’s what we continue to intend to do.

R. Merrifield: Hindsight is 20-20. It does help us actually examine what happened

and move forward, and I’m encouraged by the minister saying all of these

issues will be examined. But yesterday the minister said that there was

no evidence to support the reports of government mismanagement.

Unfortunately, we haven’t actually seen the evidence, and he has yet to

answer the question as to what he’s actually looking for.

You see, the public is concerned that the minister and the Premier

are just simply trying to wash their hands of this story. But let me

read from the policy document issued by the government. “Notification of

all residents, families, staff and other service providers is not

required.” The same goes for restrictions on admissions and visitation

and asymptomatic testing — not required.

Will the Premier tell families why this disastrous policy was

implemented at long-term-care homes?

Hon. A. Dix: With great respect, the member is conflating what I said

yesterday. She made some specific, I think, allegations yesterday, which

I disagreed with, and I said so. I think that’s a reasonable way to

respond to those things. To conflate that with the suggestion that I

don’t think questions can be asked is just simply incorrect.

There was a series of issues raised by the member, from rapid

testing to the declarations of outbreaks. Well, what we’re doing in

British Columbia — and it is different than other jurisdictions — is

giving the authority and the responsibility on issues that are

fundamentally medical issues, based on the experience of public health,

to public health professionals and then supporting them when they take

action.

[10:30 a.m.]

We are not on issues such as testing, as the opposition, I think,

is suggesting we do. It’s a legitimate approach, overruling them on some

of these questions. Instead, we are providing the resources, the means

and supports necessary to ensure that public health does its

work.

It is very challenging work. Dozens and dozens, for example, of

Vancouver Coastal Health employees went in to support people at Little

Mountain. They did so in good faith and with great dedication, showing

their commitment. Nobody, I think, is washing their hands of

anything.

Not an hour, not a day, not a minute goes by when people in public

health and myself, as Minister of Health, aren’t concerned about what’s

going on in long-term care in a pandemic.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kelowna-Mission, supplemental.

R. Merrifield: Ultimately, the responsibility is this government, this minister

and this Premier.

The government’s decision to delay declaring outbreaks came at the

same time a peer-reviewed study was published, showing that B.C.’s

earlier precautions were actually working. After safety measures were

relaxed, we saw 42 outbreaks and 192 deaths of seniors — cause, effect.

But there has been no explanation from the Premier about who signed off

on this policy and how it was justified.

Will the Premier give these families those answers that they so

desperately want and deserve?

Hon. A. Dix: Well, the member is right to this extent. Studies that have

compared the response of British Columbia in long-term care to other

jurisdictions have said that British Columbia has done, relatively

speaking, a good job.

I think, though, and I think this is important to recognize, the

costs and the consequences in the care homes mentioned by the hon.

member and in care homes across B.C. are significant. The cost, for

example, of the limitations on visits, which we changed — to use the

member’s term, we “weakened” — on June 30 to allow social visits…. We

again changed — in the term of the hon. member, “weakened” — in March of

2021 to further allow visits in long-term care.

This was not, however, in my view, a weakening of those

provisions. Instead, this was a response by public health and by the

government to ensure that people were allowed to understand the

consequences of the measures in long-term care and to ensure that

people, to the maximum possible extent, were allowed social visits,

which have an extraordinary positive effect.

All of these decisions, whether those are the right decisions or

not, will be the subject of discussion. But we are in the middle of a

pandemic, and our goal right now, I think, is to keep people safe, to

get people vaccinated and to continue to do the work that public health

needs to do, with the support of this Legislature and of the government

to the maximum degree, to deal with the pandemic that has, of course,

harmed people around the world.

PROTECTION OF OLD-GROWTH FORESTS

AND PRACTICES OF B.C.

TIMBER SALES

A. Olsen: Last week we saw the results of this government’s damaging and

short-sighted approach to managing our forests. Today the RCMP are

starting to remove protesters at Fairy Creek, and what is unfolding is

an unacceptable failure of this B.C. NDP government. The lack of

leadership is causing economic, social and environmental

consequences.

It’s not just Fairy Creek. Last week a damning report from the

Forest Practices Board found that B.C. Timber Sales is failing to

protect old growth and biodiversity in the Nahmint Valley. Their report

reveals deep flaws in our management of old growth. They found that

these failures are “creating real risks to ecosystems.”

B.C. Timber Sales needs to be reined in, and we need systemic

change in this ministry. One of the recommendations of the old-growth

review panel, from last year, was part of implementing immediate

protections for high-risk ecosystems. It’s for this government to direct

B.C. Timber Sales to cease auctioning off old-growth timber.

My question is to the Minister of Forests. Will the minister

follow through on the Premier’s promise and instruct B.C. Timber Sales

to immediately cease development and defer selling timber in high-risk,

old-growth areas?

[10:35 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I thank the member for the question. I also want to thank the

Forest Practices Board for the report that they undertook. As the member

knows, the board plays a really key role in helping B.C. to develop

sound forest and range practices. B.C. Timber Sales is addressing the

board’s recommendations in its operations. They’ve already begun this

important work and are working towards completing the

recommendations.

I just can’t stress enough how our government understands how

critically important old-growth forests are to British Columbians.

That’s why we have already undertaken to complete the recommendations

that were made by the old-growth report. We have already protected

hundreds of thousands of hectares of old growth. We know that there is

more work to be done. We are going to do just that.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands,

supplemental.

GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OF FORESTS

AND CONSERVATION LANDS

PROGRAM

A. Olsen: The minister has certainly risen in this House on a regular

occasion to stress how important it is, but the lack of action is what

the people of British Columbia are seeing. The fact that recommendation

No. 6, which was immediate action from this government, has yet to be

completed is proof that the action side of this equation has not been

followed through on.

You know, a second damning report came out last week. The Auditor

General of British Columbia slammed B.C.’s management of our

conservation lands program. He found that the B.C. government failed to

protect species at risk and critical habitats that they rely on. The

ministry lacks strategic direction. They lack data. Their plans are

decades out of date. This is an embarrassing list that is very

extensive.

This government says the right things. This minister says the

right things. She promises changes. They accept recommendations. Yet

over and over again, nothing changes — status quo in the forests. Lots

of talk in here, not a lot of action out there. We need an overhaul of

this ministry, and we need a minister who is seized with the urgent need

to create substantial change on the ground.

My question is to the Minister of Forests. Will she acknowledge

that despite the rhetoric, despite the empty promises, her own ministry

is systematically failing to manage our forests responsibly and

sustainably? Will she accept that urgent, systemic change is needed

within this ministry? Will she commit today to doing this work with the

urgency that is needed?

Hon. K. Conroy: Our ministry is doing the work that’s needed to be done. I want to

thank the Auditor General for their report as well and point out to the

member that B.C. actually leads the country, with the highest percentage

of protected areas of all provinces and territories in

Canada.

But we know there is more work to do. The Auditor General’s report

that the member references has made some helpful recommendations on how

we can do better, which we accept. That’s what our ministry does. We

look at what we need to do, and we accept that and move forward. Work is

already underway to accept those recommendations.

We are doing the work that needs to be done. We have been doing

the work for the last four years, since we’ve been government. We accept

those responsibilities. We accept that there’s more work to do, and we

are doing it. We are doing it in collaboration with the ministry that is

working hard to ensure that we get the work done.

For many years — many years — the previous government refused to

take action to protect old growth. They refused to take action to ensure

that unique ecosystems and critical habitats were protected. We are

working to fix that reckless approach. We are prioritizing

reconciliation. We are prioritizing environmental protection again. We

are doing the work that needs to be done, because we accept the

responsibility.

So stay tuned, Member. We are doing that work.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO

U.S. LEGISLATION ON

CRUISE

SHIP INDUSTRY

T. Wat: The Premier said: “Don’t worry.” The Minister of Tourism had to be

shamed into getting a briefing. Now a bill that threatens our cruise

ship sector has been unanimously passed by the United States

Senate.

[10:40 a.m.]

This has forced the Premier to belatedly take the minimum action

possible so he can be seen as doing something. Meanwhile, the threat to

Victoria, Vancouver and Prince Rupert is growing, and there’s a small

chance to stop our ports from being bypassed.

Has the Premier asked the federal government to support technical

stops in B.C. waters, where anchors are dropped but no passengers

disembark?

Hon. M. Mark: Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

This is a bill that has come forward from the Alaskan government.

We’re actively in discussion with our federal counterpart. The most

important thing I want to emphasize is how valuable the cruise ship

industry is to our tourism ecosystem. All hands are on deck. The

Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure is working with his

colleague in the federal government. I’ve had active conversations with

Minister Joly. The Premier is meeting with the Alaskan senators in the

coming days.

I just want to make it really clear for members at home that the

proposed bill is a temporary measure. I just have to call out the

opposition for trying to drive home this narrative that this is going to

be a permanent measure, when it’s proposed to be temporary.

The ban will be lifted when the restrictions are lifted from the

federal government. The most important thing we need to focus on right

now is the vaccination rollout, people being safe. We’re going to

welcome back tourists right to our ports, because we’re a magnet for

visitors all across the world.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond North Centre on a supplemental.

T. Wat: It is so hard to take the answer from this minister seriously. She

should really listen to the stakeholders and also listen to the U.S.

politicians. They are trying their best to make it permanent.

The Premier said there was no way the bill would pass. He was

wrong. The minister said: “The opposition is fearmongering. It is a

proposal that hasn’t gone anywhere…. The possibility of the legislation

passing is very unlikely.” So dismissive.

It’s not just us. The head of the Association of Canadian Travel

Agencies, Wendy Paradis, said: “We are very concerned that this

temporary change to the U.S. Passenger Vessel Services Act could become

permanent.”

Again to the Premier, has he written to the federal government

asking them to consider B.C. waters for technical stops?

Hon. M. Mark: As I said, our government is all hands on deck with the federal

government. We’re paying close attention to the issue. But I want to

just correct the misinformation that the member is sharing.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s listen to the answer, please.

Hon. M. Mark: First of all, the bill may have passed. It still has to go through

the House of Representatives. It still has to be signed off by President

Biden. It still needs to be approved by the U.S. Centre for Disease

Control. There are steps that need to be taken.

Shame on the member for coming in here, trying to suggest that

there’s a permanent measure when the bill is very clear: it’s a

temporary measure. Let’s quote the senator: “While we have sought a

temporary legislative fix to the domestic laws that require a port call

in Canada, our long-term goal is to keep the system of mutually

beneficial tourism between our two great nations intact.” Those are the

facts.

The member opposite can come in here, drumming up all the fear

that she wants. We are working with the sector. We’re advocating with

the federal government. We are going to do our level best to defend our

ports and make sure that we’re a destination of choice for our cruise

ships as soon as those bans are lifted.

T. Stone: Well, if the minister truly valued this industry, she and the

Premier would have taken action many, many months ago when concerns were

first raised.

[10:45 a.m.]

B.C.’s cruise ship sector is responsible for $2.7 billion in

economic impact every single year. It accounts for 20,000 jobs. The

cruise ship sector has no confidence in this Premier, in this minister.

I quote: “The likelihood, the feasibility of this being passed right now

in the middle of a global pandemic…is pretty slim.” That was the

minister explaining why she wasn’t making this a priority months

ago.

Now, while the Premier and the minister don’t see a threat, the

industry does. There is significant worry that temporary will become

permanent. I quote: “The severity, if it were to happen, really ratchets

up the concern.” Those are the words of Ian Robertson of the Greater

Victoria Harbour Authority. And it’s no wonder that he’s concerned.

Cruise ships are responsible for $180 million of economic impact every

year right here in Victoria.

Can the Premier please tell us today what specific steps he’s

taken to ensure that B.C.’s cruise ship industry has a future here in

our province?

Hon. M. Mark: Victoria’s port, Vancouver’s port — we’re a magnet for tourists,

for international tourists, and our industry is going to continue to

thrive. But right now there is a travel ban. Right now there are

limitations for our port. There is a proposal for a temporary

measure.

The official opposition are coming in here, acting as though

somehow they have a looking glass into the future, drumming up fear that

there’s a permanent measure, when the bill is unequivocal: it’s a

temporary measure. It will be lifted as soon as the ports are open. We

are relentless in our advocacy. The Premier is meeting with the Alaskan

senators. We’re in active conversations.

The Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure — Friday,

Monday, on the phone with transportation. They are alive to our concerns

that we are the west coast. We are the best coast. And we’re going to

ensure that we have a thriving industry.

But to speak to Ian Robertson, we were on the phone with him

yesterday. He is a valued partner. We respect his leadership. We are

listening, and we’re acting, and we’re going to do that advocacy with

the federal government to ensure that we have a thriving cruise ship

industry.

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

supplemental.

T. Stone: Well, with all due respect to the minister, and to the Premier for

that matter, they said that the United States would not pass this

legislation. The United States has passed the legislation. So excuse me

if we don’t trust the minister on her word here.

Then again, when we raised concerns….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, order.

T. Stone: When we raised concerns two months ago, we were dismissed. When

our critic wrote to the minister a month ago, she was dismissed. When

questions were asked in estimates last week, we were dismissed again.

While the Premier waits, he’s putting at risk $3 million of economic

impact in the Port of Vancouver. Every ship that comes in is at risk —

the $3 million of economic impact in Vancouver.

Let’s be clear. The United States are defending themselves, and

they’re doing so with rare, unanimous, cross-party support. You know,

Sen. Mike Lee, who represents that obviously dominant cruise ship state

of landlocked Utah, is blunt that the changes should be made permanent.

He has said that on the record multiple times. This would cost B.C.’s

tourism sector billions of dollars.

The Premier prefers to bungle along. The minister chooses to bury

her head in the sand. And the 20,000 men and women whose jobs depend on

the cruise ship sector are going to pay the price. The Premier has

terribly botched this file. What is he going to do to ensure that B.C.’s

cruise ship sector has a future? When is he going to stand up and fight

for these British Columbians’ jobs?

Hon. M. Mark: I mean, it’s no surprise that the official opposition are going to

come in here drumming up fear, as they always do. It’s not as though the

tourism industry isn’t already affected by a global pandemic. To add

extra fear, they’re adding salt to the wound. So shame on the members

opposite.

Let’s go to the facts. They talked about the law. You know, they

talk about being experts. A bill was passed through the Senate. It has

to go through the House of Representatives to become a law. It has to be

signed by the President of the United States, and it needs the approval

of the CDC.

So you know what? There are some steps that need to be taken, but

for right now, all hands are on deck. We are working with the sector,

because we know and we are confident — we are arrogant in our confidence

— that we are a port of choice. There’s a mutual interest for visitors

to our port here in Victoria and Vancouver.

We want to do the same in Alaska. There’s mutual interest. That is

the signal that the senators of Alaska have sent in a proposed bill

which is intended — I’m going to say this very slowly — to be temporary.

It is not a permanent measure. If the members opposite are advocating

for that, shame on you. Have the backs of British Columbians and the

tourism industry that need us right now.

More good news to come.

[10:50 a.m.]

M. de Jong: Two months ago, when we brought this issue to the minister’s

attention, she didn’t even know about the legislation. She wonders why

people don’t have confidence in her answers today. It’s because, as my

colleagues have said, she and the Premier were openly dismissive when

the warnings were fired two to 2½ months ago. A mere “blip,” the Premier

said. “It hasn’t got a chance of passing in the U.S. Congress. It won’t

ever pass,” said the minister just two months ago.

Well, it passed. It passed unanimously. It might not have been

unanimous, because there were members in the U.S. Senate who didn’t want

to stop at making it a temporary measure. There were members of the U.S.

Senate that wanted to make it a permanent repeal of the legislation that

helps protect the tourism sector in British Columbia.

The minister pretends all will be well. And now, as the bill

shifts to the House of Representatives….

I don’t know if the minister is reading the Hansard , or

if she is….

Mr. Speaker: No props, Member. No props.

M. de Jong: If she is, she’s missing the parts where members of the U.S.

Congress are now aggressively advocating to make this a permanent repeal

of the legislation.

There is a solution. If the minister wants to demonstrate that she

actually cares about those tens of thousands of workers, about the

impact of the cruise ship sector on tourism, she will stand up in the

House today and indicate that she and the government are supportive and

will advocate for the solution that has been offered — that they will

ensure that everyone is aware that British Columbia supports a technical

stop that will preclude the need for any of these legislative changes in

the U.S. Congress and that the protection of British Columbia workers

will be paramount.

Will she do that, stand in the House today and support technical

stops for these cruise ships?

Hon. M. Mark: What I will do is I’m going to stand up for an industry that’s

been impacted by a global health crisis. And what I’m going to do is

continue, all hands on deck, with my colleagues, including the Premier

and the Minister of Transportation, advocating with the federal

government. And nothing is off the table. Technical stops aren’t off the

table.

We are working around the clock to ensure that we defend our

ports, our cruise ship industry and our tourism sector, and to remind

everyone at home that this is a temporary measure. We are going to

ensure that we go back to status quo as soon as the borders are

open.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued Committee of the Whole on Bill 13,

Employment Standards Act. In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call the

estimates for the Ministry of Citizens’ Services. In

Section C, the Birch Room,

I call continued estimates debate on the Ministry of Environment and Climate

Change Strategy.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 13 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT (N o . 2), 2021

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 13;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 10:55 a.m.

On clause 3.

G. Kyllo: Happy to continue debate and the line of questioning with respect

to Bill 13.

Is the minister able to provide any clarity with respect to the

actual terms of this piece of legislation? The Premier had indicated

that this bill was ready to go, shelf-ready, last summer. Can the

minister confirm that the provisions of

section 3 are the same as what

the Premier had indicated having ready to go last year during the

summer?

Hon. H. Bains: Thank you. To start with, the debate on this very important bill

again today, the third day…. What I’d like to say in response to the

member is that all along, ever since the pandemic hit us, our focus was

to make sure that our population is healthy, workplaces are safe, the

workers at workplaces are safe and their health and safety is protected.

That was the intent then, and that is the intent now in this piece of

legislation.

Again, what this bill does is allow workers to stay home when they

are sick so that they are protected themselves, their families are

protected, and, at the same time, that the workplaces are safe because

they’re not going to work sick and transmit the virus at workplaces,

putting that operation in danger of shutting down. That is the intent in

this bill, in this particular

section of the bill, and that was the

intent when the Premier spoke earlier.

G. Kyllo: Can the minister explain or share with this House if WorkSafeBC

will be responsible for any of the administrative costs with respect to

providing the reimbursement to employers?

[11:00 a.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: The answer is no.

G. Kyllo: Thank you to the minister for that response.

If WorkSafeBC will not be incurring any administration charges

with respect to the reimbursement for employers, could the minister

provide any further clarity to this House on what the anticipated

administration costs will be of administering the reimbursement program

for workers, which ministry will be responsible for approving those

charges and how those transfers will be provided back to WorkSafeBC for

the costs that they will incur?

Hon. H. Bains: We estimate the administration cost at $1.4 million, between now

and until the end of this year. It will be the Ministry of Labour that

will be responsible for overseeing the program and working with

WorkSafeBC.

G. Kyllo: Thank you for that response. So the Ministry of Labour will be

providing the funding to offset the administrative costs overseen by

WorkSafeBC in administering this program.

Can the minister share with this House which ministry the budget

for the $320 million cost of the program…? Which ministry will actually

provide the funding required for the reimbursement?

[11:05 a.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: As I said before, the Ministry of Labour will oversee the delivery

of this program. The funds come from the Ministry of Finance, as I am

advised. It will be our ministry working with WorkSafeBC to put the

program together, provide the funding and oversee the program till the

end of the year.

G. Kyllo: I believe the leader of the Green Party has some further inquiry.

So at this point, I’d like to turn it over to her.

S. Furstenau: Thank you to the official opposition critic.

My first question on this

section for the minister is just: can he

describe exactly how this sick leave will bridge the federal benefit?

Can he just lay that out for us?

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: As the member will know, we canvassed this issue at great length

previously when we were debating this bill before the House. As we said,

our province, our government, starting with the Premier, always believed

that this is a national emergency and that we need to find a national

solution. We were successful, because the federal government listened to

us, and they came down with a Canada recovery sickness benefit

program.

Now, we brought to their attention that there are gaps in that

program. They listened, and they made changes. Originally, that program

was only for two weeks, and then they extended it to four weeks. But

then a couple of other areas were still there.

One was that the worker must miss at least 50 percent of income or

work in a week in order to qualify for the federal program. So if you

miss two days…. For example, you work three days. On Thursday morning,

you wake up, and the worker feels symptoms and feels that they may have

contacted the virus and need to go get tested. They will go for testing,

and they’re waiting for the result until, say, late Friday. Then they’ve

missed two days, and they will not qualify for any money, any funds or

any benefit from the federal program, because they have not missed more

than 50 percent in that particular week.

This program will fill that gap, and it will pay them for those

two days. That’s the way this will work in order to fill that one

particular gap so that the worker does not lose any wages in that

particular week, where they lose only one or two days. Then they could

go onto the federal program after that.

S. Furstenau: Just to be really clear here. People receiving benefits from this

provincial sick pay program will not see their eligibility for the

federal program affected or diminished because they haven’t seen the 50

percent reduction in their pay? So just to make sure the minister….I’m

very curious about the answer to this.

If the federal program relies on a 50 percent diminishment in

earnings before a worker is eligible for that, does the three days of

sick paid leave count as income, and therefore, people would not be

eligible for another several days? Or does this not count as income and,

therefore, doesn’t affect the ability for someone to apply to the

federal program?

Hon. H. Bains: Maybe we’ll try one more time.

Staying with the same example. The worker becomes ill, or they

feel that they have signs — feverish, cough — Thursday morning. They

miss Thursday; they miss Friday. Perhaps they have gone for a test, and

they are waiting for the result in those two days. They receive the

results.

Now, look at that particular week. They had already worked three

days. The employer pays them for those three days, because they have

worked those three days. Next two days, Thursday and Friday, they stayed

home because they had COVID symptoms. The employer, under this program,

will continue to pay them for those two days.

[11:15 a.m.]

Now, come the following week, if they miss more than 50 percent of

the following week — if they continue to stay sick the following week

and they miss the entire week — they will be entitled to the federal

program.

S. Furstenau: Okay. So the worker stayed home day 1. Day 2 they test positive.

Now the expectation under our health advice is that you stay home until

you’re no longer infectious and that is a ten- to 14-day period. So the

three days of sick pay from this legislation is there. Then the worker

has to wait until they’ve missed 50 percent of their next week, and then

they can apply for the federal program, which is less than minimum

wage.

My question, then, is: if the worker is positive and is looking to

at least ten days away from work, how does this actually bridge that

gap? That worker may well be working, as we spoke about earlier,

paycheque to paycheque and may not be able to accommodate a decrease in

their income. How does this bridge that gap? We can agree that that

worker is going to come out financially behind. They’re going to see

less revenue in that month that they have had to be away from work

because of COVID. So how does this bridge that gap?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I think we canvassed this issue. I’ll try to go back there

again.

There are two gaps that were identified in the federal program.

One was the initial two days, 2½ days a worker must miss in order to

qualify for the federal program that particular week. Then, when they

qualify, they are paid $500 minus the taxes. Some calculated that it

comes to about $450 after taxes, which is the minimum wage.

The best solution was that we were trying to work with the federal

government, that we will deal with the first 2½ days with this

three-days leave. That means that gap is filled, which we are doing now,

but also the remainder gap which is to top-up the federal program from

$500 to a higher level. The federal program will not allow us to top-up

without clawing back that particular amount from the federal

program.

I think their failure to understand, their failure to act on that,

is that particular gap that still exists. The first gap that was in

order to get there, the first 2½ days, is the one that we’re trying to

fix here with this particular

section of the bill.

S. Furstenau: I’m honestly not trying to be sticky or difficult here. In the

previous answer, the minister, I think, indicated that the three days

from the provincial program would actually delay the eligibility for the

federal program. I just want to make sure that I’m totally understanding

that clearly.

Does that mean that a person would have three days covered by this

provincial legislation and then have to wait 2½ more days before being

eligible for the federal program or does this not delay that

eligibility? I’m just really trying to get clarity on this.

Hon. H. Bains: The understanding that we have of how the federal program works,

that you must lose 50 percent of work in that week for you to qualify.

The example that I gave, I will go back to that again, using that

example. You work Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and then Thursday morning

you feel ill and you stay home, go for a test and Friday you got your

results. If it comes positive, that requires you to take the next week

off, you would be entitled to, the following week, benefits.

[11:25 a.m.]

Yes, technically speaking, I’m not an expert on the federal

program. In that particular following week, you must miss 2½ days of

work, which means that you can apply on Wednesday in order to qualify.

That remains. That always was the case. That will be the case this time

as well.

S. Furstenau: Thank you to the minister for clarifying that. I think I’m there.

It would then mean that, under the federal program, the provincial

payment counts as income. That’s correct?

Hon. H. Bains: Yes. It would be considered income. But in order to qualify for

the federal program, you must, 50 percent of the work…. Again, I go back

to the example. In the second week we are talking about, on Wednesday,

they find out that they have missed more than 2½ days. It could be

Wednesday afternoon, depending on what shift they were on. You could

apply, knowing that you have already missed 2½ days, and then you would

qualify for that particular week for the federal program.

S. Furstenau: I guess this brings me back to the very beginning of my line of

questioning, which is: does this actually bridge those gaps? Does this

actually solve the problem for workers who are in a position where

losing time from work can be quite financially devastating?

To that end, I have brought an amendment. It’s in my name with the

Clerks. I will move that amendment and give time for that to be

distributed, and then I will speak to that amendment once that is

done.

[ CLAUSE 3, in the proposed

section 52.121 (2) and (3) by

striking out “ 3 days ” and substituting “ 5

days ”. ]

The Chair: Sorry, hon. Member. I believe you’re moving an amendment. Is

that correct?

S. Furstenau: I am moving an amendment. Yes, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you. I’ll ask the Clerk if the Clerks have the

amendment.

Maybe we’ll take a five-minute recess to ensure that the

amendment can be distributed to all and sundry. This House is in

recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 11:27 a.m. to 11:35 a.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: Would the mover of the amendment like to speak to

it?

S. Furstenau: I’m delighted to speak to this.

sick days in this legislation from three to five.

Given the conversation we’ve had back and forth, and the answers

that the minister has provided about some of the gaps that still remain

in how this legislation interacts with the federal sick pay program, I

think that this is an imperfect solution to some imperfect legislation,

but it does improve it somewhat. I would hope that in the permanent paid

sick leave legislation there is a much more thought-out and nuanced

approach to this that really does protect workers but takes into account

the differences between businesses in British Columbia and the capacity

for some businesses to afford the burden of this cost and others to

not.

The five days being provided provincially would mean that should

someone feel unwell on a Friday and go for a test and discover that they

are positive, they would have Saturday, Sunday, Monday to Friday. That’s

seven. And then Saturday, Sunday — that’s nine days during which they

could stay home and then be able to access the federal program as

needed.

As we’ve discussed here, this doesn’t solve that gap between the

eligibility of the federal program — needing to have the 50 percent

decreased wages. But obviously, we’ve also discussed that the three

days, in and of itself, seems to create a delay for eligibility for that

federal program anyway. By extending this to five days, it would give

people that capacity to know that they are getting full salary for those

five days, full wages, so that they can have that ability to begin to

get better and have the time and space to be able to get the application

for the federal program underway.

I will leave it to that. I think my colleague from Saanich North

and the Islands would also like to speak to this. I know that there were

many proponents who were asking for quite a bit of a lengthier number of

days. I can understand that and recognize the need for there to be, in

the permanent paid sick leave, a recognition that three days or five

days really is not sufficient. What we are talking about right now is

the emergency that we are in because of COVID-19 and the need for people

to have that security to be able to stay home if they’re

sick.

But in terms of a permanent program…. This is why the amendment

that I proposed yesterday to clause 2 would allow for there to be

committee discussion of this. But in a permanent program, there needs to

be a recognition that people cannot plan their lives around only having

three days of paid sick leave in a year — that is wholly insufficient —

but also that businesses need to know how they are going to manage under

a permanent program.

I will leave it at that. I hope to have support for this

amendment.

[11:40 a.m.]

A. Olsen: To the comments that I raised in second reading and also in

support of the comments that were raised by my colleague from Cowichan

Valley.

I think what we’ve seen as the government has attempted at this

late stage, 14 months into this pandemic, to address what is not only, I

think, a responsibility that the federal government could address but

also a large responsibility that the provincial government has when it

comes to both workers and to the business community — to put in place a

program that supports workers to make the decision that they need to

make, and supports workers for the amount of time that they need to be

away, should they test positive for COVID-19.

What we’re dealing with specifically in this amendment is

providing, I think, what would be equivalent to other jurisdictions

close by are providing, in terms of support for workers. As well, it

addresses, I think, the reality that when this government, when the

minister, put this legislation on the table with three paid sick days,

it was largely…. The response was that it didn’t go far enough, and

there was a desire — and I think, arguably, one that we can support — to

extend the support that this provincial government is providing those

workers as, especially in those early days of struggling with COVID-19,

just getting out of bed is difficult for many people who are

experiencing the most devastating symptoms of this terrible

disease.

With that, I support my colleague’s amendment to expand this

program to five days. Again, I think that it’s important to acknowledge

that this is an imperfect response to, probably, a challenge that this

provincial government had with the federal program. However, that

doesn’t absolve us of our responsibility to do everything that we can to

support workers to make that decision.

We’ve known for months that we needed a program. We’re now here at

this stage, 14 months into this pandemic, with a program. I think that

what my colleague is offering is a good solution to increasing the

amount of support that a worker will get when they make the decision to

stay home.

G. Kyllo: I’ve had an opportunity, obviously, to review the amendment.

Concerns that I certainly have, have to do with the lack of data and

rigour that was put behind developing the actual cost of this program,

as I’ve shared with this House over the last number of days. There

really has not been a lot of work undertaken — or any work undertaken at

all — by this minister or this ministry to fully understand the breadth

of workers that are actually not covered under a sick pay

program.

When the minister was asked with specificity on how they even

determined the number of workers who may not be covered by a sick pay

plan, the minister referenced the B.C. Federation of Labour — an

estimate of 50 percent that they had come up with. But that particular

reference had nothing to do with British Columbia. It was a Canadian

approximation.

The fact that there’s limited data to deal with or to understand

what the actual cost of the program would be — both to government and

borne by employers…. I certainly have some considerable concerns and

reservations about the support, and I believe the minister may also have

some further comment about the applicability of this particular

amendment that’s brought forward today.

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I want to thank the member. I think she has good intentions and I

do not question her motive behind it, but I certainly have to speak

against the amendment, because it is not going to be practical if we are

going to work with the federal program.

I have used examples before, that if the worker worked three days

— Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday — and takes Thursday and Friday off, then

if this amendment was to pass, they are entitled to another three days.

Then if you go into the next week and they take those three days, the

employer paid, which means that they will not be entitled to the federal

program for the second week under that scenario. Then they will be

waiting for the third week in order to apply to see if they have lost

more than 50 percent of work.

I think, practically speaking, it’s not going to work either. I

would ask the House, the Chair to…. I need a ruling on this, because

this will certainly add to the cost to the government. We are talking

about, in the bill, three days, paid sick days, which will be reimbursed

to the employers up to a maximum of $200 per day. If you add five days,

that certainly adds to the cost to the treasury and to the

government.

My request to the Chair is whether this is out of

order.

The Chair: I’ve been reviewing our trusty Parliamentary Practice in

British Columbia , and based on my review, I do believe that

this proposed amendment does create an impost for the government. It

would affect Crown revenues. Thus, I must rule that the proposed

amendment is not in order.

Amendment ruled out of order.

On clause 3.

Clauses 3 to 6 inclusive approved.

The Chair: Just to reindicate, we will deal with clause 2, the proposed

amendment and anything after that, including the title, once we get

there. I think we are ready to report progress.

Hon. H. Bains: I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask to sit

again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[11:50 a.m.]

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

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. S. Robinson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m.

The House adjourned at 11:51 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

CITIZENS’

SERVICES

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Yao in

the chair.

The committee met at 11 a.m.

On Vote 21: ministry operations, $604,304,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks?

Hon. L. Beare: Thank you, Chair. I will take a few minutes to just do a couple of

brief remarks.

It is an honour to be here today with everyone on the territory of

the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people, including the Songhees and the

Esquimalt First Nations.

Joining me today is my Deputy Minister of Citizens’ Services,

Shauna Brouwer. Now, she leads an incredible team at the Ministry of

Citizens’ Services, who are dedicated to improving services for people

and making life better for British Columbians.

Our executive team is joining us virtually today. We have CJ

Ritchie, associate deputy minister and the chief information officer;

Hayden Lansdell, ADM of digital platforms and data division; Susan

Stanford, ADM of connectivity division; Alex MacLennan, the ADM of

enterprise services; Kerry Pridmore, the ADM of the chief information

records manager office; Dean Skinner, ADM of the corporate services

division and executive finance officer; Beverly Dicks, ADM of Service

B.C.; Teri Spaven, the ADM of the procurement and supply division; David

Hume, the ADM of the government digital experience division; Sunny

Dhaliwal, ADM of the real property division.

I’d also like to acknowledge the dozens of executive directors in

the ministry who are supporting us today. The Ministry of Citizens’

Services is often referred to as both the face and the engine of

government. We’re responsible for ensuring that people can access

government services when, where and how they need it. That means having

large multi-talented teams of public servants. Our job is also to ensure

that government has the technology, the resources and the space it needs

to deliver those services.

In terms of being the face of our government, our team is on the

front lines, helping people access government programs and services at

65 Service B.C. centres. Now, during the pandemic, these centres

remained open. We were able to connect more than 1.5 million people to

critical services and supports. These include more than 500,000 wellness

checks for returning travellers and temporary foreign

workers.

Making sure people that have access to the information and

services they need during the COVID-19 pandemic has been a key focus of

our ministry. We help deliver the health gateway and the returning

traveller program. We set up more than 30,000 B.C. public service

employees to work remotely. Our government digital experience team was

instrumental in the creation and launch of the provincial COVID-19

website, which is updated daily.

Our procurement specialists and our GDX team also supported the

development and operations of the COVID-19 supply hub to get critical

supplies to our front-line health care workers. Thanks to the success of

this tool, we were able to expand the hub to non-health organizations so

that they could safely continue to deliver the services to British

Columbians that they count on.

Our ministry works to maintain government IT networks to keep

people’s information safe and to ward off cyberattacks. On any given

day, our ministry fields about 372 million unauthorized attempts to

access B.C. government networks, systems and data. Managing and ensuring

the safety of government-owned and -leased real estate is another

important area of what my ministry does. That includes about 1,800

properties, such as office buildings, warehouses and

courthouses.

[11:05 a.m.]

Improving Internet access and highway cellular services for people

in rural and Indigenous communities is another key focus of our

ministry’s work. I’m delighted that the connectivity file has returned

to Citizens’ Services, after it took a brief tour at Jobs, Economic

Recovery and Innovation for part of last year.

Building on the province’s recent one-time investment of $180

million, Budget 2021 does provide $10 million this year as part of $40

million, over three years, in stable base funding to support

connectivity. The connecting British Columbia program is making record

investments to help people in rural and Indigenous communities and

businesses succeed through the pandemic and into the future.

We’re expecting the connecting British Columbia–funded projects to

expand cellular services along highways, which will more than triple our

initial goal. Finally, through our procurement strategy, we’ve also made

it easier for companies of all sizes to work with government. We’re

using government’s buying power to create jobs, help rebuild our

economy, provide benefits to people and harness made-in-B.C.

technology.

I’m very proud of the work and the team at Citizens’ Services and

the important work that they do. I want to thank our front-line Service

B.C. workers, warehouse staff and all my ministry employees because it’s

their expertise and guidance and dedication that helped us all fight

COVID-19 and keep British Columbians safe and back on track.

I know we’re not going to recover overnight, but by focusing on

these things that matter, we’re going to keep making progress so that we

can see brighter days ahead. With that, I’m looking forward to answering

the member’s questions.

The Chair: I now recognize the member for Abbotsford South.

Would you like to make any opening remarks?

B. Banman: Well, thank you very much. I agree with the minister. We are

living in incredibly challenging times. COVID-19 has literally turned

everything upside down, but it also has brought out the importance of

this ministry to those that are now forced to work from home.

It’s a very, very challenging portfolio, and I acknowledge the

work that the ministry is doing. I do have a couple of questions. Time

is precious, so I’m going to get straight into that. Minister, could you

please tell me how many current employees of government are working from

home or have worked from home due to COVID?

Hon. L. Beare: There are 30,000 government employees here in British Columbia.

Dr. Henry did ask, at the beginning of the pandemic, that those who

could work from home should work from home. That does change on any

given day. We’re not able to give an exact number of what today would

be, for example, but upwards to potentially 25,000 people could be

working from home on any given day, depending.

B. Banman: Thank you so much for that. That’s quite helpful. Of that

approximately 25,000, could you please tell me how many are working from

personal home computers and how many have been actually provided with

government devices?

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: There are a couple things I’m going to give the member right now,

too, because I think it might help on this line of questioning. I’m sure

the member has a few questions that he might actually get answered in

this.

As I said to the member, up to 25,000 could be working remotely.

That’s not the number. We’re not saying 25,000 are. It’s up to, could

potentially be working.

Since March of 2020, we’ve been instrumental in supporting that

work. Prior to the pandemic, working remotely had not been a standard

practice across B.C.’s public service. Most employees worked from a

permanent office location. Prior to the pandemic, an average workweek

had fewer than 4,000 people using a VPN. Anecdotally, fewer than 1,000

people worked from home on any given day. After the B.C. government

declared the state of emergency on March 18, 2020,VPN was expanded to

support up to 35,000 employees if they needed to, to connect

remotely.

The office of the chief information officer is continuing to work

with ministries to ensure that employees have the tools they need and

that all members who need them have been provided laptops and access to

that VPN. So members have access to government devices who need them,

and they have access to the VPN to make sure they’re connecting from

home safely to do their government work.

B. Banman: To the minister, thank you for that. Can you please tell me

whether or not anyone is working from a home device, or have all of

those been government-issued?

Hon. L. Beare: My team is advising me that they estimate that 75 percent of

employees have access to a government device. They’re working from home

on a government device. We are providing the employees who have access

to the government devices — or those who may be working at home

otherwise — access to those secure tools to make sure that they are

working safely, remotely from home. They have access to the VPN and the

other tools that are needed.

B. Banman: Thank you so much, Minister. It’s incredibly helpful. I’m sure

that makes a whole bunch of people feel a lot better.

Along that line, there have been 1,743 confirmed privacy

violations. I guess my question, then, is: how many occurred at home, or

on personal equipment?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: Privacy incidents can happen in a number of ways — those reports

and those complaints. It doesn’t necessarily attach to a device. For

example, a public citizen could raise a concern. They have a concern

about how they feel their data or personal information might have been

handled. That could trigger that incident. It’s not necessarily attached

to a device, or the working from home. This can happen in a number of

different venues.

B. Banman: Have any of those breaches, then, hap­pened either on home

or on personal devices?

Hon. L. Beare: Regardless how a data incident happens, we have robust tools and

procedures in place to make sure that there are protections and

procedures to follow. We do not have a data field that captures whether

or not one of the incidents is being claimed due to a home device or

working from home. That’s not something we currently capture.

B. Banman: Privacy breaches, I’m sure you’re aware, have been happening with

more regularity and are expected to continue, according to the B.C.

Auditor General. British Columbians are rightly concerned about identity

theft, especially. LifeLabs and TransLink are now working with the

Privacy Commissioner’s office, which has also noted the increase in

breaches in the last year.

My question to the minister would be: have ICBC or StudentAid B.C.

also reached out to the minister?

Hon. L. Beare: Yes, both ICBC and the student services security team reached out,

and we worked with both of those agencies to ensure that we provided

support.

[11:20 a.m.]

B. Banman: If they’ve reached out, then, what information was actually

impacted? And have those impacted actually been contacted?

Hon. L. Beare: It is best to provide those questions to the ministries

responsible for those agencies. I do know Advanced Education has already

answered questions. They’ve gone through estimates. I can let you know

our information is that it was web files only for StudentAid and that no

personal information was released through that data breach.

For ICBC, the member should bring the question to either PSSG, the

Solicitor General, who holds the ICBC file, or the Ministry of Finance,

who has the Crown agency board secretariat. The questions would be

better placed there.

B. Banman: I thank you for that. I’m sure that those, including my

grandchildren, who attend post-secondary will be relieved that their

information is still secure. That answered a couple of them.

What about LifeLabs and TransLink? May I add to that? Has the

cause of the breaches actually been determined in each of those

cases?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: I just do want to let him know that overall reports of breaches,

actual breaches, are down and that the incidence of significant breaches

remains very low. So that’s good news for British Columbians and for the

member to know.

Again, LifeLabs, a question best posed to the Minister of Health;

and TransLink, to the Minister of Environment, who has TransLink still

in the file. I believe it’s the Minister of Environment. But for the

member’s information, we do always provide support. We always make sure

that we’re reaching out to these agencies to provide any technical

support that our government can help with and that our data and

technical team can support. But the agencies themselves and the

ministries responsible are responsible for those questions and for

answering the member.

B. Banman: The second part of my question, which I did not hear an answer to,

was: has the cause of the breaches been determined? I’m curious. The

minister has answered with regards to student services but not with

regards to ICBC. I would think that for all breaches, concerning the

importance of what’s going on, the minister would actually have some

answers. I guess the citizens of British Columbia are curious to make

sure that the proper measures are being put in place.

I’ll go back to: was the cause of the breaches actually

determined?

Hon. L. Beare: I did provide the member a little bit of information for Advanced

Education because I know that they have already been up in estimates. So

I wanted to provide the information I have. It’s practice in this House

to redirect the questions to the ministers who are responsible for those

agencies, to make sure you’re getting those fulsome answers.

The member will have ample opportunity during that time to either

pass the member’s questions to the appropriate critic on the file, or

the member has the ability to come in the House and ask the questions

himself as well, because I want to make sure that the member gets

everything that he needs.

Thank you, Member, for the concern.

B. Banman: Thank you for the answer. I’ll definitely be doing that and

following up, so thank you so much.

Along the lines, and maybe I’m…. Can you answer whether the

government has ensured that the right measures are now in place to help

prevent it happening again? Like you said, the breaches are down, but

have we actually put the right measures in place to ensure it won’t

happen again? Are you able to answer that, please?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: For the member’s question, it is important to start off by saying

that the protection of government data and our networks is absolutely a

priority — top priority — for this government, especially when it does

concern the personal information of British Columbians. We need to make

sure that British Columbians have faith that their systems and their

information are safe.

We do have the office of the chief information officer, who

provides government with strategic leadership in IT security. She leads

that team of experts where we have those systems in place to protect our

networks. That does operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, all year.

We have everything that’s required and more, making sure that we have

firewalls, anti-intrusion prevention systems, anti-virus software,

vulnerability scanning programs in there.

What the member wants to know is that…. Each year, government

invests $25 million, actually, in security and cybersecurity tools so

that we are preventing, detecting and responding to cyberattacks. That

number increases every year, to make sure that we are investing in

it.

We do work in collaboration with each of those agencies to make

sure that there is a post-review done, that there are lessons learned.

Then there’s a report-back done throughout those agencies. We help with

that. We do work in collaboration and provide our expertise within

government. For the member, there are those lessons learned that happen

and those reports-back, and we move from there.

B. Banman: We’ve recently watched ransomware go rampant. As a matter of fact,

if we take a look at the eastern seaboard and what chaos that has caused

with regards to a pipeline…. I think that British Columbians would want

to know, especially when it comes to some of our infrastructure, that we

have done a thorough assessment. Have we identified any weak spots? If

so, what was done to plug those weak spots and improve the security for

British Columbians?

Hon. L. Beare: Government and agencies are constantly scanning and looking for

ways they can improve their digital services and looking for ways that

they can protect the clients and the members and the public. Here in

government, we share our significant tools and resources to assist other

organizations, like those agencies that the member has talked about, and

individuals so that they know how to prevent cybercrime and how we can

work through potential incidents.

Government does publish the defensible security framework to help

organizations know what to do and how to do it, and we can work with

them.

[11:35 a.m.]

We do provide education as well. Government holds conferences and

publishes information and videos on our government website to share the

significant tools and resources and knowledge that government

has.

We have invested $2.4 million in IMIT — additional. This year’s

budget has an additional $2.4 million in IMIT security. So government is

making sure that we have the people, that we have the processes, we have

the technology in place to not only do the work in looking for these

incidences and trying our best to prevent them, to detect them and then

to respond to them. We can be confident that our government is working

hard.

We do have a routine practice to assess both privacy and security

of government programs. Government programs are put through a privacy

impact assessment and security threats and risk assessments as part of

the proactive role that we do in making sure that we’re looking for what

the member was asking about.

B. Banman: Minister, thank you so much. I know that it seems that the hackers

are always one step ahead of us. I’m sure that British Columbians will

feel better that we’re actually trying to be proactive versus reactive,

as difficult as that may be.

The government digital experience division has a notice of intent

on B.C. Bid to renew their contract with Looker analytics, which is now

being bought or purchased by Google. There is clear language in the

terms of the agreement to say that data owned is the customer’s and not

to be used for ad targeting or marketing. So the upside is Google is not

using the data. However, it’s my understanding the B.C. government

clearly is.

We know this because the notice of intent mentions on the main

government webpages and 150 other government sites, plus other

government sites that are integrated with Looker technology…. For those

that are at home, Looker technology is predictive analytics — analytics

that help populate the COVID-19 dashboard. Given the leaks that have

recently occurred, which demonstrated more information than was in the

dashboard is actually being gathered, can the minister please explain

her mandate in the letter directive?

Hon. L. Beare: Just for the member, this question will take a couple of minutes

to go source the answers. If he would just please standby for a

moment.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: The analytics tool that the member was referring to does not drive

any of the health dashboard data or those dashboards that the member was

referring to. We focus on using the tool for measuring digital services

and websites to improve experiences and to improve the services. That’s

where that information is being used.

We’ve ensured, of course, as well, that it’s fully compliant with

our security protocols and any privacy legislation that we have in

place.

B. Banman: Thank you for that. Do the predictive analytics by Looker give

digital GDX or GCPE broader authorities than previously existed? Could

you answer that question, please?

Hon. L. Beare: No.

B. Banman: Oh, interesting. Thank you so much.

Can you please tell me, then: is more information being collected

than was previously collected? Which program stores it, and which

program has access to it?

Hon. L. Beare: Wow, our time has gone quickly here this morning.

Excellent.

[11:45 a.m.]

I just want to make sure that we don’t blur GDX and GCPE. GCPE is

entirely separate — the communications area of government. GDX is the

government digital services. That does rest in my ministry. So there is

no blurring of the two in there. I just want to make sure that is

clear.

Government doesn’t collect any more information than is required

to understand the programs. Very specifically to the member’s question,

the volume has increased because the volume of engagement has increased

on our government websites, but the type of information has not

increased. We have an increase in volume because we have many more

services now that we’re offering, such as the affordable child care

benefit. So we’re collecting information about how people use that tool,

how they’re navigating through the website, and there is an increase in

that volume.

I know the member is going to have more questions, but we need to

take a pause here. I move that the committee rise, report progress and

ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

AND

CLIMATE CHANGE STRATEGY

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); M. Dykeman

in the chair.

The committee met at 11:02 a.m.

On Vote 24: ministry operations, $250,105,000

(continued) .

M. de Jong: I wanted to take a little bit of time. I’m not sure how long this

will take, and I may impose myself upon the committee a little bit later

in the proceedings on another matter.

I wanted to ask a few questions today about an issue that began

before the minister assumed his ministerial duties in this ministry in

2017 but has very much continued since that time. It involves the saga

of one of the employees within the ministry. When I say the name Bryce

Casavant I expect that will trigger some awareness on the part of the

minister and the staff.

I will begin merely by asking for confirmation of some rudimentary

facts around what I will call the Casavant situation.

[11:05 a.m.]

Mr. Casavant, as I understand, was hired as a conservation

officer, and in 2015, I believe it was, there was an incident that

attracted some public attention, some media attention involving Mr.

Casavant and the discharge of his duties in the Port Hardy area, a call

regarding a bear and two cubs that led to the killing of the mother bear

and the relocation of the two cubs. That provoked, as I understand it,

disciplinary action that then provoked a whole bunch of other

proceedings, both before the labour board and, ultimately, in the

courts.

Maybe I will stop there and merely ask for the minister to confirm

that he is familiar with the situation and the circumstance that I have

described so far.

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. I want to say two

things. One, I am familiar with the circumstances, but I also…. I’m sure

the member will appreciate, due to previous roles he’s played in

previous governments, that he may be straying very close to human

resource discussions that will not be appropriate to discuss as part of

spending estimates.

M. de Jong: I do want to assure the minister that in terms of the limitations

around human resource matters or other limitations that are imposed upon

ministers, I am fully aware and have no intention of straying beyond

what would be appropriate questioning.

[11:10 a.m.]

I say that because my understanding of the process that has been

followed is that following reference to the labour board, then judicial

review before the Supreme Court of British Columbia — we can certainly

discuss the various findings that occurred in those public forums — the

matter ultimately ended up in the B.C. Court of Appeal, where a decision

was rendered that the Crown sought to appeal to the Supreme Court of

Canada.

Leave to appeal was denied. So what we have is a decision of the

Court of Appeal that, following the Supreme Court of Canada decision not

to grant leave to appeal, represents the definitive statement on the

matters involved. It is that decision — now the definitive decision,

that very public decision — that forms the basis of the questions going

forward.

I do want to ensure that the minister understands that that does

form the basis for the questions I want to ask. I also want to ensure

that my very quick

summary of the matter and its history through the

labour board, through judicial review and to the now definitive decision

from the Court of Appeal is also his understanding of what took

place.

Hon. G. Heyman: It is my understanding.

M. de Jong: The situation takes place, and there is the individual, Mr.

Casavant. Following a decision that he made not to euthanize the two

bear cubs, he was disciplined and ultimately dismissed from his position

as a conservation officer. He chose to grieve that, and that engaged the

involvement of his union. The matter ended up before the labour board,

and the sanction was imposed. Ultimately, the union, on his behalf,

entered into a settlement agreement. Have I got that right? Is that what

took place?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member. To the extent that I’m privy to human

resource matters, which, as the member will know, ministers are not

routinely directly involved in or perhaps ever directly involved in,

that is my understanding — that it was a settlement agreement. My

understanding is actually based on news reports at the time.

M. de Jong: Maybe that’s a good segue to a question that I did want to ask the

minister. As Minister of Environment, did he ever have specific

conversations with representatives of the BCGEU, any representatives of

the BCGEU, about this matter specifically?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: I don’t recall having any. Genuinely, I don’t think I

did.

M. de Jong: The issue ultimately evolved when Mr. Casavant became aware of

several documents that he had not had an opportunity to review and that

were prejudicial to his position. The matter ultimately ended up before

the labour board, and Mr. Casavant’s attempts to reopen the matter and

revisit the sanctions that had been imposed on him, including the

dismissal from his position as a conservation officer, were unsuccessful

at the labour board. Is that the minister’s understanding?

Hon. G. Heyman: To be perfectly honest to the member, I wasn’t paying attention to

whether Mr. Casavant went to the Labour Relations Board or not. I would

assume, because of my knowledge of labour relations, that if he went to

the court, he either did not go to the Labour Relations Board or was

unsuccessful, but I have no direct or indirect knowledge of

that.

M. de Jong: In fact, Mr. Casavant and his union found themselves in a fairly

significant disagreement about whether or not to proceed to the labour

board. In fact, the union, the BCGEU, opted to oppose his application,

which prompted Mr. Casavant to proceed on his own and through the

subsequent judicial reviews. The issue there, as I understand it,

related to the union’s view that it had exclusive jurisdiction to pursue

matters of this sort on behalf of employees, that its decision on such

matters was final and that Mr. Casavant as an employee or, in this case,

former conservation officer, had no independent or personal rights to

pursue these matters.

Is that an issue that the minister had any conversation with

representatives of the BCGEU about?

Hon. G. Heyman: No. It is not.

[11:20 a.m.]

M. de Jong: Mr. Casavant ultimately ended up before the Supreme Court of

British Columbia, seeking a judicial review of the labour board

decision, where he was again unsuccessful, and then proceeded to appeal

that decision to the Court of Appeal, which heard the matter. Now we are

squarely within the period of time when the minister was on task as

Minister of Environment.

The Court of Appeal rendered a decision on whether or not the

judge at the B.C. Supreme Court employed the wrong standard of review

and whether the judge at the Supreme Court erred in declining to

consider this jurisdictional issue that I’ve just summarized for the

committee about the arguments around exclusive jurisdiction. The Court

of Appeal decision was rendered in 2020, I believe.

Is that a matter that was brought to the minister’s attention —

that decision involving a former member of the conservation

office?

Hon. G. Heyman: I’m wondering if the member could clarify, because he outlined a

series of events and then asked me a question if I was aware of a

decision. I’m wondering if he can narrow it.

The Chair: Member, are you able to provide some clarification?

M. de Jong: Yes, of course. Thank you, hon. Chair. I’m now talking about the

Court of Appeal decision itself, which I’m going to suggest represents

an unusual event in the life of a ministry, where an employee is

challenging proceedings to the highest court in the province, an

employee from within the Ministry of Environment, around circumstances

that took place within the Ministry of Environment.

Was the minister briefed on and did he become aware of the Court

of Appeal decision at the time it was rendered?

Hon. G. Heyman: I first became aware of the Court of Appeal decision through a

news report. I was subsequently shortly thereafter informed of the

decision by staff. I wouldn’t call it a briefing. I was given the

information. I was told that there were legal issues and human resource

issues that would be pursued. At some point, I was informed that Mr.

Casavant was being represented by a former colleague of the member, Mary

Polak.

M. de Jong: I’m curious to know, specifically, what the minister would have

been told about the actual decision. We’ll discuss that in a moment. I’m

certain he will need or want, and I understand, to refresh his memory.

By the way, in asking these questions, I understand there’s a lot on a

minister’s plate. The fact that he would need or want to consult with

his staff in no way offends me at all. I think that’s perfectly

understandable.

[11:25 a.m.]

But I am curious to know what the minister would have been told

about the decision which, as we’re about to explore, is significant both

in terms of its impact on the ministry — certainly in the case of the

individual employee who pursued this matter through to the highest

court. Let’s start there. I’d like to know what the minister was told

about the decision itself from the Court of Appeal.

Hon. G. Heyman: As I said, it was more informational than a briefing. What I was

told was largely what I already knew — that Mr. Casavant had gone to

court to establish that the Police Act applied and had precedence and

that he won his case and that there was consideration being given as to

whether or not to appeal.

M. de Jong: That answer is helpful. It sounds like the minister was advised at

the time that the court had found that the disciplinary proceedings

against Mr. Casavant were brought in the wrong forum entirely and that

the minister was also told that the court found that the employer, the

ministry, bears some of the responsibility for that. Is that correct?

Was that explained to the minister?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: I was aware and told, as I knew from news reports, that the

decision was that the forum for discipline that had been chosen was the

wrong forum for discipline. With regard to other matters that the member

began to probe with his questions, those are actually, I’m informed,

currently before the courts, so further comment by me would be

inappropriate.

M. de Jong: Well, I think we’re getting to what I believe is the nub of the

issue here. Was the minister made aware…? In fairness to the minister, I

have known him for some time, and if I harbour suspicions, I should

articulate them. The minister is, I think, leaving the impression that

the sum total of his knowledge of this derived from media reports that

he received.

I do want to be clear, and I want to give the minister the

opportunity himself to be clear. Is he advising the committee that in

this case…? On a high-profile matter that involved a lot of publicity at

the time of the original issue that gave rise to discipline and the

Court of Appeal, as the minister said, finding in favour of the

employee, is the minister saying that the only information he received

was a quick verbal report and what he read in the newspaper?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for asking the question in a way that I

think enables me to offer some useful clarification.

[11:35 a.m.]

Certainly, I’m not intending to leave the impression that the only

understanding I had about the case was through media reports, although

it is fair to say that I listen early in the morning to the news and I

often hear things before I have a chance to meet with staff.

Staff came in to ensure that I was aware of the case, and why the

court had…. Well, I think that why the court makes a decision is always

speculation. But the basic rationale of the decision…. I think that both

my staff and I felt that to delve directly into the human resource

implications with respect to a particular employee was not appropriate

for me to do, so we didn’t.

I did ask some questions of staff, because there were potentially

some other implications of the decision that concerned me more greatly,

in the sense that it made me think how we should proceed on some

initiatives that we’d been talking about and I’d been urging — for

instance, with the conservation officer.

Generally, there was a certain

public appetite for more transparent oversight of the conservation

officer service, perhaps some independence, not exactly like we see

independent oversight of police forces but something more than just an

internal oversight. That had been raised on more than one occasion by

their people. We’d been working on what appropriate mechanisms would be

to do that.

The court decision called into question whether the avenues we

were pursuing would be appropriate any longer. Basically, the discussion

was about whether and how we went back to the drawing board to do what

we wanted to do and what the public expected us to do, in light of that

court decision.

M. de Jong: Well, that’s helpful — I’m obliged to the minister — and speaks to

some of the broader, higher-level public policy issues that derive from

findings on jurisdictional issues.

But the underlying point about the case and the decision at the

Court of Appeal, of course, relates to this. And I’ll read…. This is

from the final page of Madame Justice Fenlon’s decision for the court:

“…the best that can be done in these circumstances is to declare that

the proceedings before the arbitrator and Board were a nullity, to

confirm that Mr. Casavant’s dismissal should have been addressed under

the Police Act, Special Provincial Constable Complaint

Procedure Regulation and to leave the parties to sort out the

consequences of those declarations, if any, on the settlement

agreement.”

The highest court in British Columbia declared the proceedings

involving the discipline action a nullity. Was that communicated to the

minister?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: I can’t remember the exact words that were used to communicate the

essence of the decision, but I know enough about labour relations and a

little bit about the law — although we’re all told that a little

knowledge of the law is a dangerous thing — to know that that would

effectively be the meaning of the decision, by what I was told and

reported. So I would say that it was communicated to me. I simply can’t

say whether the words were quoted to me or not.

M. de Jong: It won’t surprise the minister to know what those words meant to

the individual who, I should add, on a self-represented basis had

pursued this matter through, I think, two labour board hearings, the

B.C. Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, to be told by the Court of

Appeal that the disciplinary procedures taken against him were a

nullity.

I can ask the minister now. What does that mean to the minister

now?

Hon. G. Heyman: I’m not sure if the member is aware of this or not, but the

interpretation of those words is one of the matters that is currently

before the court. So I will not comment further on that.

M. de Jong: Can the minister explain what steps the ministry took to abide by

the ruling of the Court of Appeal? After declaring the proceedings

before the arbitrator and board a nullity, the court went on to order

the parties to sort out the consequences of those declarations. What

steps did the ministry take to abide by that order of the

court?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. I was told on a couple

of occasions that discussions were ongoing with respect to the court

decision and implementation. As I’ve mentioned previously, I was told

that a representative of Mr. Casavant was the member’s former colleague

Mary Polak.

This is essentially a human resource issue to be dealt with as a

human resource issue by management in the ministry, working with the

Public Service Agency, which the member, as a former Minister of Finance

to whom the Public Service Agency reports, will know full

well.

[11:45 a.m.]

The Chair: With an eye to the clock, this will be the last question,

Member, ahead of lunchtime.

M. de Jong: In a circumstance where the Court of Appeal has rendered a

decision declaring disciplinary proceedings and nullity, does the

minister feel there is any obligation whatsoever on the part of the

ministry and the Crown to offer the individual, who has secured that

decision after a lengthy legal battle…? Does the minister believe there

is any obligation on the part of the Crown and the ministry to offer

that individual his job back?

Hon. G. Heyman: There were discussions and negotiations about implementation of

the decision of the court. Again, the matter is now before the courts

once more.

Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress

and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.

Copyright © 2021 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.