Fifth Session, 41st Parliament

(2020) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, July 20, 2020

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 343

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Tributes

Hugh Fraser

S. Sullivan

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

North Shore community response to COVID-19

B. Ma

Tristen Chernove

T. Shypitka

Racist incidents on Sunshine Coast and legacy of systemic racism

N. Simons

White Rock Pride Society

T. Redies

Investment in Nanaimo social services

S. Malcolmson

Outdoor recreation safety

R. Sultan

Oral Questions

Government action on opioid crisis and addiction issues

A. Wilkinson

Hon. J. Horgan

J. Thornthwaite

Hon. J. Darcy

Protection of old-growth forests and transition support for forest-dependent communities

A. Olsen

Hon. D. Donaldson

Supportive housing facilities and services and community safety

T. Stone

Hon. S. Robinson

J. Johal

J. Isaacs

Tabling Documents

Report pursuant to the COVID-19 Related Measures Act regarding Ministerial Order M220/2020

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 18 — Economic Stabilization (COVID-19) Act (continued)

S. Bond

S. Furstenau

S. Cadieux

Hon. C. James

Bill 23 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2020

Hon. H. Bains

J. Martin

G. Kyllo

M. Lee

B. Stewart

Hon. H. Bains

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 6 — Mines Amendment Act, 2020

T. Shypitka

Hon. B. Ralston

S. Furstenau

MONDAY, JULY 20, 2020

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

HUGH FRASER

S. Sullivan: With us today is Lorae Farrell. She and British Columbia recently

lost an incredible human being.

Hugh Fraser was one of the most capable and exciting musicians, a

master of many instruments, Canadian Trombonist of the Year five times.

He was magical when playing with others, both challenging and supporting

them. He formed the VEZI jazz improvisation cooperative, then the Hugh

Fraser Quintet, winning international acclaim, including two

Junos.

The Hugh Fraser International Jazz Orchestra Workshop was

presented around the world. He was the head of the jazz program at the

Banff Centre of Fine Arts. He has several recordings and compositions

still to be released. His presence will remain with us.

I know this House will join me in thanking and honouring Hugh

Fraser for a life of spreading peace and love through music.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

NORTH SHORE COMMUNITY RESPONSE

COVID-19

B. Ma: During the most difficult weeks of the coronavirus-induced state

of emergency in British Columbia, a person would have been forgiven for

curling up into a ball and hiding in the closet. Things were looking

grim, and life as we knew it had been taken apart at the seams. Yet all

across the North Shore, the community instead chose to rise up and

tackle the challenge together.

I am so proud of the way that North Vancouver came together and

closed ranks against COVID-19. Some among us really stepped out in front

to find extra special ways to contribute. Zen Maker Lab, in North

Vancouver, offers innovative science, technology, engineering, arts and

mathematics, or STEAM, programs for kids, youth and adults. When

COVID-19 hit, they could no longer teach people in their labs anymore.

So they quickly retooled, turning their teaching lab into a

manufacturing shop.

Their staff, normally engaged in teaching young people to be

innovative and creative with science, themselves began to prototype,

design and produce innovatively designed personal protective equipment,

printing them on their workshop filled with 3D printers, and to donate

reusable face shields to local hospitals.

James Lester runs a distillery in North Vancouver called the Sons

of Vancouver. He immediately recognized that a shortage of hand

sanitizer in North Vancouver was affecting care facilities and first

responders and reached out to my office in March to offer his

services.

Along with some quick footwork by the Attorney General to allow

distilleries to produce sanitation-grade alcohol, Sons of Vancouver was

not just producing hand sanitizer but giving it away for free to members

of the public and organizations across the region. They also partnered

with local grocers to sell bottles of hand sanitizer to raise money for

Lions Gate Hospital. The best part of it all? They also sell

vodka.

These are just two of countless examples, countless stories of

people who have been stepping up to help their neighbours in North

Vancouver and across British Columbia. I hope that the House will join

me in once again thanking them all for their leadership.

TRISTEN CHERNOVE

T. Shypitka: Mild-mannered president and CEO of Elevate Airports at the

Canadian Rockies International Airport Tristen Chernove has a superhero

alter ego. Among other things, Tristen is a 2016 triple Paralympic

medallist and silver-medal winner at the para-cycling track world

championships in February.

The summer Paralympic Games in Tokyo this year have been postponed

due to COVID-19. So Tristen, a Cranbrook resident, is going to tackle a

challenge a little closer to home, known as the B.C. Epic 1000. Tristen

is all too familiar with the Olympic oval racetrack, but this epic

journey is something he has never seen before.

[1:40 p.m.]

The B.C. Epic 1000 is a 1,066 kilometre route that runs mostly

along the Trans Canada Trail from Fernie through the back trails of the

Kootenays and Okanagan to Merritt. According to Tristen, the fastest

time the route has been ridden before is three days, 15 hours and 22

minutes. Tristen left at 4 a.m. Saturday morning and hopes to be done

sometime before Tuesday at noon. Tristen plans to break the

record.

Tristen’s motivation to take on this challenge is to use the ride

to raise money via donations for the Paralympic Foundation of Canada. It

is a foundation that he says has benefited him greatly as an athlete.

The funds will go toward creating access to sport for more Canadians

with a disability.

“The Paralympic Foundation is all about diversity and inclusion,

and those are two big words that mean a lot,” Tristen said. “For me,

it’s just another great organization that is helping the global

awareness and human population make better choices when it comes to

understanding what diversity and inclusion really look like.”

Tristen said he is as mentally prepared for the B.C. Epic 1,000 as

he can be, but it will be the terrain he is not used to riding. The

route includes riding gravel forestry roads, mountain bike trails and

some on the highways and byways.

We all wish Tristen the best of luck and safe travels on his epic

trek through our province’s rugged interior, and we thank him for his

pursuit in making B.C. more inclusive and diverse.

RACIST INCIDENTS ON SUNSHINE COAST

AND LEGACY OF

SYSTEMIC RACISM

N. Simons: Tristen has a connection to Powell River. We appreciated the

previous statement there.

Recently a banner was hung between two welcome poles at the Pender

Harbour high school threatening that if certain statues of historical

Canadian figures were toppled, so too would those poles. In another

incident, the word “conquered” was spray-painted onto a recently erected

highway sign that included the Sechelt language name of Madeira Park,

salalus.

These racist incidents that took place on public property do not

reflect or represent the thoughts, views or feelings of residents of

Pender Harbour or the Sunshine Coast, as the outpouring of love and

support for members of the shíshálh Nation clearly demonstrated. But

while we may not want to be associated with the people who committed

these offences, their views, unfortunately, do exist within the fabric

of our communities.

In addition to addressing individual acts of racism, we should

also recognize that systemic racism is found throughout the structures

of our institutions. It allowed the abduction of Indigenous children

into residential schools. It raised black communities of Africville in

Halifax and Hogan’s Alley in Vancouver to make room for highways. It

turned away the vessel Komagata Maru from Vancouver Harbour,

along with its desperate, mostly Sikh passengers. It rounded up Canadian

Japanese, including 129 from the Sunshine Coast, and sent them to

internment camps and stole their property.

Systemic racism creates and perpetuates deep inequality in our

society and results in poorer health and well-being outcomes for those

targeted. The acknowledgment of the shíshálh Nation’s title and their

reassertion of rights over their territory, the swiya , is part

of British Columbia’s process of reversing the effects of systemic

racism — a project we’ll continue to pursue.

WHITE ROCK PRIDE SOCIETY

T. Redies: Sadly, we couldn’t participate in the colourful, lively parades or

local Pride galas that have become synonymous with Pride Month, but

White Rock Pride Society is still very active, working tirelessly to

spread their message of love and the importance of diversity and

inclusion. In place since 2015, the White Rock Pride Society has worked

with the city to organize our rainbow crosswalk and raising the Pride

flag every third week in July at city hall.

Prior to COVID-19, they organized entertaining fundraisers

showcasing amazing LGBTQ talent, including their annual gala, which is

always a sold-out event. They’ve also held quarterly minglers for the

whole community to fundraise for local charities and to

network.

You’ve never been to a great party or networking event unless

you’ve been to one organized by the White Rock Pride Society. Moreover,

in keeping with their message of inclusivity, board membership and

activities are open to all members of society who believe in diversity

and inclusion.

[1:45 p.m.]

Thirty-three percent of board members are not LGBTQ but believe

strongly and rightly that opportunities should be open to all and that

discrimination in any form is wrong. I’d like to acknowledge the society

board members, including President Ernie George Klassen, one of the four

founding members; including Michael Barwell, Louise McKnight and Ruth

Allard — who, sadly, passed away in 2019.

Other members who have helped build the society include Lynne

Sinclair, Marc Minette, David Ellis, Gary McQueen, Art Beaulieu, Brent

Bondarenko, Brant Darling, Andrew Harvey, Suzy Tucker, Samantha McQuade,

Matt Trooper, Gord and Jan Wait, Susie Verde, Tracy LeChance and Jamie

Carson.

Many board members volunteer their time for other initiatives and

are business leaders in our community. They are the quintessential

committed citizens that make White Rock and South Surrey a stronger,

kinder and more inclusive place to live, and we’re all better for

them.

White Rock–South Surrey, look out for some very fun July events

that the society will be holding this month, even with COVID-19 social

distancing guidelines. You’ll not be disappointed.

INVESTMENT IN

NANAIMO SOCIAL

SERVICES

S. Malcolmson: It’s been three years under a new Premier and our government.

Here’s what we’re building together in Nanaimo. Child care — 473 new

spaces, over $9 million back in the pockets of Nanaimo families with

reduced child care fees, training new child care workers and topping up

their wages.

In education, portables out at Hammond Bay and seismic upgrades in

at Cilaire and Pleasant Valley. That’s $18 million in those two schools

alone. The tuition waiver that started at Vancouver Island University

for former youth in foster care — our government pushed that B.C.-wide.

So in Nanaimo, we can be proud that now 1,300 former youth in care are

getting the same boost we gave students here.

In health, at Nanaimo’s six long-term care….

Mr. Speaker: Member, if I may interrupt for a moment. Just as a reminder, the

two-minute statements are not to be partisan in any manner, and

arguably, that is partisan.

Member, if you might continue.

S. Malcolmson: Very proud that the tuition waiver that started at Vancouver

Island University has been pushed B.C.-wide. We can be proud here that

1,300 former youth in care are getting the same boost that students got

here.

In health, at Nanaimo six long-term care homes, 50,000 more direct

care hours every year. A new urgent primary care centre is cutting

emergency room visits, supporting mental health and caring for those

with no family doctor. It has seen 2,500 patients already. B.C.’s first

nurse practitioner clinic has opened here last month….

Mr. Speaker: Member, thank you.

OUTDOOR RECREATION SAFETY

R. Sultan: On the North Shore, we take Bonnie Henry’s advice seriously.

Outdoors is the antidote to lockdown. People head for the hills. But our

backyard is wilderness. Mike Danks, team leader of NSR, our volunteer

North Shore Rescue team, told me that when COVID restrictions came off,

there was a dramatic increase in call volumes. This wasn’t just for

recreational hikers but also walk-away dementia patients and despondent,

potentially suicidal individuals.

As for hikers, many are not prepared. NSR asks them to follow

three t’s: trip planning, training and taking. Trip planning means

researching your route and terrain, checking the weather and telling

somebody where you plan to go. Even now you can find yourself in ice and

snow.

Training means being realistic about what shape you’re in. Do you

really think this is like a stroll around Stanley Park?

Finally, what to take. Start by abandoning the flip-flops and the

cocktail dresses. Best to have a map. How about spikes, poles, ice axe,

raingear and warm clothing? A cell phone is helpful but not always

reliable.

[1:50 p.m.]

If you do get into trouble, NSR will try to find you, but COVID-19

has made medical rescues more complicated. Not much room for social

distancing in a helicopter. This past weekend NSR performed two longline

extractions using a helicopter. Not many organizations have the motto

saying: “We don’t really want you as a customer.”

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON OPIOID

CRISIS AND ADDICTION

ISSUES

A. Wilkinson: I think all of us in this House and all of us who are watching

know that for far too long addictions were treated as a criminal justice

issue, implying some kind of moral failure. All of this House, as far as

I’m aware, accept now that addictions are a health issue. It’s an

illness, and it’s a very difficult illness to treat.

I’m going to ask the Premier to rise in this House and acknowledge

— or perhaps he won’t — that, in fact, addiction is an illness, not a

choice.

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question and for the context in which

he put it.

All of us in this House recognize and acknowledge that for almost

a decade now, an unacceptable number of British Columbians were

succumbing to overdose deaths from a poisoned drug supply. We all know

that addiction comes from a place of pain and trauma. We all know that

people who have addictions are not criminals. They need to be treated as

patients and given the care that they need.

That’s why I’m writing to the Prime Minister today to reinforce

the conversation I had with the Deputy Prime Minister last week to

support the national police chief’s call to decriminalize the possession

of opioids so we can stop stigmatizing people who have addictions and

start helping them again.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I’ve stood in the emergency room putting an IV

line into a blue, comatose person. An injection of Narcan brought them

back to life. That was no miracle; that was my job. I’ve talked to the

grieving parents of the young person who has died from an opioid

overdose.

Since this government was sworn in, 3,917 British Columbians have

died of opioid overdoses. So I suppose it’s a thin meal to hear the

Premier give a politicized answer and avoid the entire

question.

It’s a very simple question, Premier. Do you still believe that

addiction is a choice?

Hon. J. Horgan: Just by declaring that it’s a politicized response…. Politicized

is the question, hon. Member. I expected better from you, based on what

you just said about having someone’s life in your hands in your former

profession.

All of us in this place care deeply about an unacceptable increase

in overdose deaths. We were making progress, and 2019 saw a 36 percent

decline in the number of people that succumbed to overdose deaths

because of the heroic efforts of health care providers, front-line

workers and the broader community.

Today we’ve seen the highest levels ever last month. The coroner

herself said there are a whole bunch of reasons for that. We have an

increasingly poisoned drug supply because of COVID-19. Our borders are

more closed than they’ve ever been before. So those who push this poison

on to people are putting more poison into it. We’re seeing more people

using drugs alone because of social distancing. There’s a whole host of

reasons why this is happening, but I can tell you one reason why it’s

not happening. Because it’s being politicized.

Let’s put that to one side. Let’s focus on the people that need

help. Let’s start doing that today, all of us together.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: It’s a very simple question, Premier. Do you still believe that

addiction is a choice or not?

Hon. J. Horgan: I never believed addiction was a choice. The question came to me

as a comparison between COVID-19 and the opioid deaths from last week.

If the member took two seconds to look at the context or spent one

second giving me a call, he would have known that.

I absolutely understand where addictions come from. You don’t have

a hierarchy of morality on this question, nor do I. All of us need to

stand together, stop stigmatizing people, treat them as we need to, as

patients, and help them. Don’t stigmatize them.

[1:55 p.m.]

J. Thornthwaite: We do know that despite the overdose deaths going down before

COVID, which now have skyrocketed, the total number of non-fatal

overdoses continues to rise under this government. That means we do not

have a comprehensive mental health and addictions system to actually get

people well in this province.

Last week the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions repeatedly

refused, after questioning by me during budget estimates, to clarify

what the Premier’s remarks were with regards to addictions being not a

choice. Now that the Premier admits it’s his mistake, it is time for

this government to admit that they are not doing enough for mental

health and addictions in this province.

This is what the NDP mayor of Vancouver said: “On the overdose

crisis, there is no mention of new support for opioids, overdoses or

safe supply in today’s budget.” This was this budget, this

year.

My question is to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions.

Why don’t we have a comprehensive and properly funded mental health and

addictions strategy in this province?

Hon. J. Darcy: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. We did canvass

this extensively in estimates last week, but I am happy to speak about

it further.

From day one, our government has made massive invest­ments

in the overdose response and in building a better system for mental

health and addictions. When we first took office in September of 2017,

we announced an investment of $322 million over three years, which

subsequently was expanded further on into our mandate. Even the very

first year of that commitment was three times what the previous

government was spending on the overdose response.

We’ve continued to invest more resources in the overdose response

and to build that better system for mental health and addictions care.

But I think we need to be clear. We were left with a system that was in

chaos and that had enormous gaps. We are working overtime to try and

fill those gaps.

I want to speak about the issue of prevention. Our investment in

Foundry, for example, which is very much about building that continuum

of care, is five times what the previous government’s investment was in

Foundry.

We are also expanding the number of beds. I made an announcement

last week about a $13.5 million increased investment in addiction

treatment beds and supportive recovery beds.

We’ve also announced, just last week, a major investment in the

substance use integrated teams. Those are so important, because we know

from the coroner that four out of five people who died of overdose were

connected to the health care system in the previous year.

We need to keep that connection. We need to keep them connected to

care. We need to get them connected to treatment and recovery. We also

need to do outreach so that we go into communities. We go into housing.

We go into those places where we know that people are most vulnerable

and connect them to treatment and recovery and care.

There is much more to do. We will keep escalating our response. We

will not take our foot off the pedal until we turn the corner on this

terrible crisis.

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

supplemental.

J. Thornthwaite: This government has had a separate ministry devoted to mental

health and addictions now for three years, and the overdoses continue to

go up. The minister continues to brag about Foundry, but we do know

where Foundry came from. It was our government’s invest­ment that

started Foundry.

The Minister of Mental Health and Addictions has the smallest

annual budget of any minister, smaller than the budget of the Premier’s

office. In contrast, Alberta is funding 4,000 addiction and mental

health treatment beds and spends 80 times more than this government

does. Alberta has half the deaths of British Columbia. There is an

absence of will, political will, on the part of this government, which

invests just a pittance in recovery.

Again, to the minister. When is there going to be a properly

funded strategy that prioritizes getting people well and into treatment

and into recovery?

Hon. J. Darcy: We are working across the continuum of care in order to build that

better system of mental health and addictions.

[2:00 p.m.]

I think it’s really important, perhaps, to re-emphasize that our

approach to this overdose response, our approach to treatment and

recovery, has several pillars. It includes prevention, which I have

spoken about. It includes harm reduction, and it includes treatment and

recovery.

I know that the member opposite is fond of saying: “Well, we

started Foundry.” That’s a little bit like saying somebody started on

primary care reform a number of years ago and denying the massive

expansion that’s taken place in primary care networks that have mental

health and substance use services embedded.

Just looking at prevention, for instance. Our investment in

Foundry youth centres — which, yes, the previous government started — is

five times what it was when we took office in 2017. We’re also investing

in child and youth mental health teams in schools, starting in five

school districts. That’s really about doing those wraparound supports,

those robust child and youth mental health teams, so that we can prevent

young people from turning to addiction in the first place — starting to

tackle small problems before they become big problems and before they

affect the child, the youth, the adult’s entire life.

As far as the continuum of care, we’ve expanded access to safe

prescription medications. We’re expanding access to treatment and

recovery beds. We did, for the very first time in ten years, increase

funding for per diems — the first increase in ten years — and brought in

tough new regulations so that the recovery sector would no longer be the

wild, wild west in British Columbia, which was, frankly, a travesty and

resulted in a number of tragedies over many years.

Is there a lot of work to do? There sure is. But we are working

flat out to both save lives from overdose and to build that better

system for mental health and addictions care.

PROTECTION OF OLD-GROWTH FORESTS

AND TRANSITION SUPPORT

FOR

FOREST-DEPENDENT COMMUNITIES

A. Olsen: It’s three years into this government’s mandate, and we await the

release of the old growth panel report and the government’s long-awaited

old growth strategy, which they had promised to be guided by the panel’s

report.

British Columbians want their government to protect these ancient,

endangered ecosystems and stop the devastation that we’re seeing in our

forests. The destruction of productive old growth isn’t uniform across

the landscape. In some places, it will be depleted as soon as ten to 20

years. In some places, the next three months, six months, one year make

a huge difference for protecting the impact to groves of Ancient Forest.

Unfortunately, the rarest and most productive forests are going

first.

We need an immediate pause in these critical areas, home to some

of the last remaining productive, unprotected old growth on earth, while

a strategy for science-based old-growth management across B.C. is

developed. We can’t wait any longer.

My question is to the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural

Resources Operations and Rural Development. Will he pause harvesting in

old-growth ecosystems at the highest risk and provide supports to

affected workers while he works on the promised old growth

strategy?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you to the member. I’m happy for the opportunity to discuss

our old-forest plans for the province.

We undertook the old growth strategic review because of a lack of

action on this topic by the previous government. There is a need for

stronger steps to protect biodiversity and to support workers and

communities dependent on the forest resource. We are taking a

science-based, thoughtful and serious approach. I want to thank the

panel for their work. Al Gorley and Gary Merckel, over four months, went

to 45 different communities and received thousands of submissions by

email and written.

We’re committed to release publicly the review panel’s report

within six months, as the terms of reference said. We are well on track

to meet that commitment.

As for actions that will rise from the report, again, I want to

quote from the terms of reference: “We will engage in

government-to-government consultation with First Nations before setting

policy direction in response to the report.”

That is in the spirit of respect rather than acting unilaterally,

and we will also be embarking on a thorough engagement with workers,

communities, industry, environmental organizations and other interested

groups in the coming months.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Third Party and member for Saanich North and the

Islands on a supplemental.

[2:05 p.m.]

A. Olsen: The request was simply to pause the harvesting while that plan was

in place. It’s difficult for people to see the trees continue to pass

through their communities, noting that this panel has been doing their

consultation.

The debate about protecting old growth is often framed as a choice

between protecting old trees and protecting jobs. However, that’s not

the choice before us. The choice is between a managed transition today

and a sudden, abrupt transition when we’ve cut down the last stand of

productive old growth.

Let me be clear. We’re not talking about sustainable jobs that

will continue to exist for the next generation or two. We know, from a

recent analysis published by independent scientists, that the transition

from old-forest harvest is imminent. We also know that as the high

productivity old growth on the land base is harvested, communities will

experience a falldown effect, and jobs will disappear as the volume goes

down and the industry logs smaller and smaller second growth. We

urgently need a plan to transition forestry workers and communities

dependent on this non-renewable resource.

My question is again to the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural

Resource Operations and Rural Development. The time for a transition is

now. What specific steps is his ministry taking to transition

communities from a dependence on old-growth logging, and how much

funding is he demanding from the stimulus spending for this

effort?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I want to assure the member that we’ve begun transition work

already, for forest-dependent communities and workers, to diversify the

local economy. Really, that’s at the basis of his question.

A couple of examples of that are recent community grants that we

announced. Port Hardy, for instance, received $60,000 for a boatyard

haul out feasibility study. Port Alice received $80,000 for an

interpretive sign project. The First Nations consortium received over

$92,000 to expand the cold storage and freezing of local seafoods to

fulfil the local market.

I also want to make sure members know that workers who are already

displaced from the forest sector on the coast are able to access,

through the Ministry of Labour, the offices we opened last year for

retraining purposes and for getting support services for themselves to

look to the future and other employment.

We have focused on reducing log exports and bringing more fibre —

in other words, less waste left behind in cutblocks. An example of that

is funding we supplied to the Forest Enhancement Society of B.C. for

19,000 cubic metres of fibre around Port McNeill that otherwise would

have been left in the forest — over a quarter-of-a-million-dollar grant.

We’re also focusing on mass timber to increase value over volume because

we know the volume available for timber products will be less in the

future.

We are committed to implementing a new, up-to-date and

comprehensive old-forest management strategy, in consultation with First

Nations, that will address important biodiversity concerns and support

workers and communities. That will include a further transition, as

needed.

The member knows that we will be putting forth our recovery plans,

as far as the economic recovery, very soon, in the coming months. That

will include measures to assist forest-dependent communities as

well.

SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FACILITIES AND

SERVICES AND

COMMUNITY SAFETY

T. Stone: The Premier’s lack of help for those suffering from addictions is

having a profoundly negative impact across our province. Without proper

supports for those in need, the government is simply warehousing people

in neighbourhoods throughout British Columbia.

Alistair Kent, in Victoria, writes this: “Simply moving issues

into another vulnerable neighbourhood is unacceptable, and the lack of

consultation is an insult.”

My question is to the Minister of Housing, and it is this. For a

government that has made literally an art form of consultations, why is

the Minister of Housing being so dismissive and unwilling to consult

with neighbourhoods just like Alistair Kent’s?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Let’s be really clear here. We inherited a crisis that was years

in the making. We also, then, were faced with a COVID emergency — a

COVID crisis. We needed to move quickly to get people indoors. We had to

thin shelters in order to make sure that people stayed healthy, in order

to create distance.

So we moved people indoors. We moved very quickly so that people

could be safe, so that the workers that are there could keep people safe

and make sure that people are supported as well.

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

supplemental.

T. Stone: The bottom line is this: the government has made a choice to not

properly fund the number of beds and the required wraparound supports

for those in need.

Last week, the government, with great fanfare, made a housing

announcement in Nanaimo. Problem is, the government news release

neglected to mention one key detail: Nanaimo is actually getting a net

gain of zero beds. That means, by simply moving people around the

community, hundreds of homeless and at-risk individuals will remain

without a roof over their heads or the supports that they need.

Meanwhile, the negative impacts of the minister’s approach on the

broader community and on small businesses will continue to

worsen.

To the Minister of Housing, my question is this. When will the

minister build the supportive housing units with the wraparound supports

that are so desperately needed in the city of Nanaimo?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, in just over two years, more than 2,000 people have a home

that they didn’t have before, because the people on the other side of

the House didn’t take action. They have supports. They all come with

24-7 on-site supports and help for residents to access additional

specialized care in the community. We are seeing tremendous progress

here. We have people who are telling us about how their lives have

changed.

The member mentioned Nanaimo. When we moved people into supportive

housing in Nanaimo, it was temporary. Members may have forgotten —

because they seem to forget their 16 years, so they may not remember two

years — that there was a tent city. We moved people, on an emergency

basis, into housing with supports.

Do you know what happened? Those people needed to go and get new

government IDs, because no one recognized them anymore. They were

looking healthy. They were no longer gaunt. They were getting three

meals a day. They were being cared for. I’m very proud of the fact that

we signed an MOU to build permanent housing for those very same

people.

J. Johal: The minister talks, but those who need help aren’t getting it.

Those are the homeless, the residents who see the government warehousing

people, and the small businesses that are left to deal with the

consequences.

Jolanda owns Java Jo’s in Victoria. She told CTV News

recently that since the province purchased the Comfort Inn, she has been

threatened and is worried about her own safety. She says: “I’ve been

threatened a few times in the past month alone.”

To the Minister of Housing, why is she choosing not to help these

small business owners who are already dealing with the impact of the

pandemic?

Hon. S. Robinson: We know that people and communities have been struggling with

homelessness. Homeless people have been there for a long time. There

have been years of neglect, where provincial governments and federal

governments have not invested in affordable housing, and this is what

happens when you do not invest in people. They wind up becoming

homeless. They fall out of the bottom of the housing continuum. That is

what has happened.

We are investing $6 billion in housing, making sure that — once

those people are stable, have their health back and are able to make

decisions — not only can they move into affordable housing, but we are

building the entire continuum, because it has been lacking for

decades.

J. Johal: The reason that businesses are speaking out is because they

haven’t been consulted with.

Here’s another hard-hit business, yet another story. This one is

Dodd’s Furniture. Company president Love Dodd says the amount of crime

and harassment has skyrocketed recently. “They’re on the streets. There

is drug use right in front of us. They’re drug dealing right in front of

us. They’re screaming at us. They’re sleeping in our parking

lots.”

These local businesses are now being forced to hire extra security

due to this minister’s incompetence.

To the Minister of Housing, why is she choosing to leave small

business owners on the hook?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: These vulnerable people are already a part of our communities. We

can choose to house them with supports, or we can leave them — like the

other folks did on the other side of the House — without anything. I

prefer, and I know that British Columbians prefer, to house people and

to support them.

Also, with every single one of our projects, we set up a community

advisory committee. We have business representatives on those committees

to make sure that we are continuing to engage the community and

continuing to make sure that we are getting the feedback from the

community so that the operators understand what more they need to

do.

The other thing I have to say, hon. Speaker: when I listen to the

members engage in such a manner, I see them pitting people against each

other. I see them suggesting somehow that those who are most vulnerable

are not worthy of support, not worthy of housing. I find that very

frustrating, because I have seen them, on the other side, around COVID.

I’ve seen their response around being in this together, and I would

invite them to work together with us to house people, to support people,

to wrap our arms around them, rather than using them as political

pawns.

J. Isaacs: The Howard Johnson Hotel is the new norm. British Columbians are

seeing the lack of on-site support at facilities across the province as

the government warehouses people. Jacqueline Semple writes: “My parents,

ages 88 and 89, have lived in the West End for over 65 years. I am

concerned for their safety now. Offering accommodations in hotels is

certainly not going to solve the problem. People should be treated with

a team of professionals.”

To the Minister of Housing, why is she choosing not to provide the

proper on-site supports for people in need?

Hon. S. Robinson: We’ve certainly canvassed this question before in the House around

how we do provide supports for people. In fact, I will remind everybody

about how at 7 p.m., we all cheered for those very support workers who

are keeping people safe, who work with them to provide them some

support.

Let me read into the record…. For the member opposite, this is

another job description for a support worker in one of these

facilities.

“They participate in case planning with clients and our health care

providers by performing duties like interviewing clients who identify

problems and needs; obtaining required information from a variety of

sources, including their care providers; documenting client needs and

wants and assisting them to determine appropriate programs for their

care; advocating for clients by problem-solving around financial

assistance; accessing community resources; obtaining volunteer or work

placements.

“They’re also required to observe clients; identify and assess

potential emergency situations; develop short-term strategies to deal

with such situations, including de-escalating challenging behaviours.

They’re to do reports to medical and on behaviour and other problems as

required. They’re to provide feedback about clients’ needs, their

performance, their progress.”

All of these are supports that people need. We make sure that they

get access to the medical supports that they need as well, and that’s

what is available 24-7 on site for these residents.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain on a

supplemental.

J. Isaacs: I think that’s the fifth time that we’ve heard a job description

for supportive housing staff, so thank you for bringing that forward

again.

Look, there are more than 100 people living at the Howard Johnson

Hotel. Over 90 percent of them have addictions and mental health issues.

Clinical workers, doctors and addiction specialists rotate, and they’re

on site once or twice a week. The burden, to support people facing major

challenges, is on the support workers. But there are only 24 hours in a

day, meaning that workers are barely able to provide five minutes of

support to those 100 people living at the site. That’s not enough for

people facing major challenges.

To the Minister of Housing, will she provide adequate funding so

that those who need access to wraparound services can have more than

five minutes of support a day?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, I have to say, when we talk about 24-7 supports and more

than five minutes a day, I have no idea what she’s talking about. I have

visited a number of those, and there’s lots of opportunity for group

counselling, for one-on-one. There’s lots of opportunity to work

together to develop case management.

[2:20 p.m.]

Do we have more to do? Absolutely. There is absolutely more to do.

I am very, very proud of the fact that we have brought in 2,000 units of

housing for those very people in just two years, and I look forward to

another ten years when we can bring in thousands and thousands of more

housing for these folks.

I think that as a government, we have absolutely more to do. There

are certainly still more homeless people in communities around this

province because it was ignored for so long. We have a plan. We’re going

to continue delivering for the people, for the businesses, for the

communities because it’s not acceptable to have such a significant

homeless problem in this province.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

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

ministerial order made under

section 10, Emergency Program Act, from the

office of the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 18, Economic Stabilization

Act.

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 18 — ECONOMIC STABILIZATION

(COVID-19) ACT

(continued)

S. Bond: Good afternoon. I do appreciate the opportunity to make some

further brief comments related to Bill 18. As the Chair would know, I

started my comments late last week and reserved my spot to conclude my

remarks today.

Perhaps we should start with just a brief reminder of the key

elements of Bill 18, which, ironically, is called the Economic

Stabilization Act. I hope that all of us would remember that this bill

is being debated in the context of a fiscal update that the Finance

Minister provided last week. In that update, the Finance Minister

outlined the staggering debt that British Columbians will be facing in

the months and the years ahead.

We learned, after pressing the Finance Minister to be transparent

about the current fiscal situation, that the province will be facing

what I think could best be described as the best-case scenario, a $12.5

billion deficit.

[2:25 p.m.]

What’s most concerning is that despite the grim financial

circumstances we face in British Columbia, there is no sight of a plan

to begin the reboot of our economy and to get people back to work again

— not a jobs plan, no economic recovery plan. The Finance Minister

herself told British Columbians that this is likely to be the worst

economic downturn in recent history, yet there is no strategic and

aggressive economic recovery plan.

I know that every member of the House is entitled to their own

views. But this morning, to listen to the members of the government try

to state that because we believe there needs to be a comprehensive

strategic economic plan, we don’t believe that health needs to be a

priority…. Of course it does. There now exists in British Columbia a

health crisis and an economic crisis. So we need to see the government

recognize that and create an economic recovery strategy.

If the members would like to look across the country, they will

see that other jurisdictions are far advanced when it comes to looking

at how to spur investment and create consumer confidence. So it’s not

unusual or unexpected that we would be talking about how British

Columbia becomes competitive once again.

As I noted earlier in my remarks, Bill 18 deals with supports and

initiatives that have, for the most part, already been announced. But we

know there’s so much more to do. I think it bears repeating that all of

us understand that there needed to be supports for businesses and

families in our province. The issue now is: how do we grow the economy?

How do we rebuild consumer and investment confidence?

A significant component of the bill relates to the deferral of

taxes. What it does is extend the filing and payment deadlines for the

carbon tax, the motor fuel tax, the tobacco tax and the provincial sales

tax until September 30, 2020. While those initiatives in and of

themselves have merit, there is concern about the date that is included

in legislation.

The opposition and business organizations in the province have

called for an extension to the repayment period. Recently the B.C.

Business Council has suggested that the tax deferral should be extended

until the end of the year. In addition — something that we spoke about

earlier last week — there should be a 12-month repayment period in 2021,

on top of businesses regular ’20-21 taxes. In other words, stretch out

that payment plan so that businesses that are struggling will have an

opportunity to make those payments in a reasonable way.

That is one way the minister could minimize the number of

businesses that may be forced to shut their doors. It’s that serious in

our province.

Here’s what Jock Finlayson of the B.C. Business Council had to say

about extending the tax deferral date: “Extend deferrals on tax

remittances until the end of the year, because it’s not like by

September 1 or September 30 the economy is going to be back on dry

ground. It’s just not the case.”

As I noted in my earlier remarks, the legislation allows for a

potentially later date that may be specified by regulation. I can assure

the government that during committee, we will be asking the minister if

she is prepared to commit to an extended date and whether or not she’s

considering that. Equally importantly, is she considering a repayment

plan that stretches over a longer period of time?

The act also enables the adjustment of dates for payment of the

employer health tax, moving the payment to October. Well, we know this.

Even prior to the pandemic, the employer health tax was a problem for

many businesses and organizations. I know that we will all remember that

these costs were downloaded on businesses, including a year where the

government even double-dipped, collecting both MSP premiums and a

brand-new employer health tax.

How on earth does the minister think employers will be able to pay

the EHT after the devastating economic circumstances they are facing,

notwithstanding a change of date for payment?

[2:30 p.m.]

One of the key elements of the government’s COVID-19 response plan

was a tax-free one-time payment of $1,000 for British Columbians whose

ability to work was im­pacted. An amendment to the Income Tax Act

is included in this bill to make that payment possible.

Perhaps one of the most significant implications of Bill 18

relates to the ability to operate in a deficit position by creating an

exemption from balanced budget legislation through the ’23-24 budget

year. As we saw in the fiscal update that was provided last week, in the

absence of an aggressive economic recovery plan, it may well be

optimistic to think that as a province, we are only facing three years

of deficit budgets.

Certainly, we’ll be asking the minister what her expectations are

about additional deficit years, especially if she extends the tax

deferral deadlines and makes other adjustments to ensure that more

businesses in British Columbia remain viable and can keep their doors

open.

Now, I don’t think anyone in the House or in our country, for that

matter, believes that a fiscal response to support families and

businesses wasn’t important and necessary as a result of the devastating

impacts of COVID-19, but it is also critical that there is a

transparent, rigorous process that builds in accountability when

governments spend taxpayer dollars. As we have seen far too often, that

has not been the case in the past, and that is ultimately what led to

balanced-budget legislation.

With the exemption that Bill 18 provides, how exactly will British

Columbians know whether spending is appropriate, whether it’s reasonable

or whether it’s responsible? British Columbians deserve to know those

kinds of details, so exactly what safeguards will be in place is an

important consideration. Again, these are the kinds of questions that we

will be exploring in committee stage.

Section 21 will also require more clarity during committee stage.

The Financial Administration Act is being amended to provide an expanded

scope for special warrants. It will be very interesting to see how the

minister explains the need for the use of special warrants following the

expiry of a state of emergency and that changes will even be allowed for

the anticipation of an emergency.

I think that all of us can agree that COVID has forced us to be

innovative and creative in the way we conduct business in the

Legislature. We’ve certainly seen businesses across the province look at

ways to try to be resilient and continue their work. That is an

important piece of discussion for us as we relate to the issue of

special warrants. I think all of us would agree, although it is not

necessarily ideal, and sometimes there are technical glitches and

challenges — we even saw some of those today — the system that has been

constructed allows us, in our view, to effectively conduct the business

of government in new ways.

One would assume that that capability would reduce the need for

broad, sweeping expansions of scope for use of special warrants. There

is a lack of definition and specificity that could once again raise

legitimate concerns about the transparency and safeguards related to the

use of taxpayer dollars.

While many of the measures contained in Bill 18 are not

unexpected, what we continue to be disappointed about is the complete

absence of a strategic economic recovery plan that supports the private

sector, gets British Columbians back to work and rebuilds consumer,

business and investor confidence in our province.

We will pursue answers to our questions when we reach committee

stage, but in the meantime, we urge the minister to look beyond this

bill and to take the additional steps that are necessary to begin a path

to recovery for our province. British Columbia is facing the largest

deficit in the province’s history. To be clear, the opposition

recognizes the need and the importance of responding to the COVID-19

pandemic — the importance and necessity of supporting individuals and

families and businesses.

[2:35 p.m.]

It is also critical that there be transparency and accountability

as our province grapples with the uncertainty of the days ahead and of

the staggering debt we are facing. We aren’t the only ones calling for a

plan. Business organizations, small businesses and many others want to

know how the current government plans to spend and on what. I am hopeful

that we will see a much more specific, comprehensive plan that will

result in the goal of the bill that is in front of us.

The goal of Bill 18, as the title notes, is economic

stabilization. While this legislation takes some steps, and there’s more

clarity required on some of the elements contained in the bill, there is

a lot more work to be done. That needs to be done sooner rather than

later.

S. Furstenau: I’m pleased to take my place to speak on Bill 18, the Economic

Stabilization Act, today. This bill amends multiple acts and makes a

number of changes that implement COVID-19 response measures. It extends

the tax filing and payment deadlines for multiple taxes, creates the

B.C. emergency benefit and allows budget deficits for the next three

years.

One major piece of this bill amends the Income Tax Act to create

the B.C. emergency benefit for workers. This benefit is a tax-free,

one-time, $1,000 payment for B.C. residents whose ability to work has

been affected due to COVID-19. This bill also extends the tax return

filing and payment deadlines for the carbon tax, the motor fuel tax,

tobacco tax, provincial sales tax and commercial property

taxes.

As we commented when these measures were announced, these were the

right steps to take at the right time. The emergency benefit, along with

these tax deferrals, helped businesses and individuals weather the

immediate financial crisis from the shutdowns that took

place.

Going forward, there are two challenges that government needs to

balance. On the one hand, government needs to be able to adapt, given

the substantial uncertainties on the horizon, and ensure that people and

businesses are still receiving the supports they need come fall.

Otherwise, we risk seeing a substantial wave of bankruptcies and

significant financial hardship. On the other hand, government needs to

be sending clear signals about the type of economy it wants to see for

the future.

For most of these taxes, now due to be collected in October, I

think it’s important to recognize the possibility of a strong second

wave in the fall and that there are many unknowns about the ability of

people to pay taxes that have accrued over the past number of months.

The carbon tax is unique, however, given how powerfully it is connected

to being a signal about the types of industries and types of jobs we

want to build, so it is also critically important that as a part of our

recovery strategy, government bring back the scheduled carbon tax

increases that were suspended a few months ago.

It is with some wide dismay that the information around how much

in subsidies has gone to the oil and gas industry in the past few months

in Canada instead of going to the clean energy and renewable energy

industry…. It’s problematic as a signal that we want to be sending. It’s

important in B.C. that we take a leadership role on this.

Economists agree that consistent and scheduled increases to the

price of carbon are central to its effectiveness as an economic tool. It

provides business certainty and spurs investment in a clean

economy.

There are many innovative businesses in B.C. that are willing and

able to lead the transition to a clean economy and can create huge

numbers of clean jobs as they do this. But these businesses have been

clear. It undermines potential investments in transitional technology if

there is no certainty that the economy is moving in this direction and

that it has the full backing of government. We will continue to urge, as

strongly as we can, for government to let the carbon tax do its job as a

price signal to help us to transform our economy.

The bill also extends the time period for municipalities to remit

the school tax and police tax to the province, but it does require

municipalities to fulfil their tax remittance obligations to TransLink

and B.C. Transit to give them certainty of cash flow.

[2:40 p.m.]

While the extension in this bill on the school tax and the police

tax does provide municipalities with additional fiscal flexibility to

deal with COVID-19, the financial situation of municipalities is a

serious issue and something I expect we’ll be talking far more about in

the House in the months to come. Municipalities are facing a significant

financial crunch, and they don’t have the same fiscal flexibility nor

the multiple forms of revenue that the provincial and federal

governments have.

At committee stage, I’ll be asking about the work that the

province has done to understand and mitigate the fiscal situation facing

municipalities, especially given that they are being required to still

remit full taxes to B.C. Transit and TransLink, despite depressed

revenues. We need to be sure that extending the school tax and police

tax deadline will be enough to ensure that they remain on firm financial

footing.

This bill also amends the Balanced Budget and Ministerial

Accountability Act to temporarily suspend the prohibition against

deficit budgets for the next three years, enabling the government to

pass deficit budgets to the Legislature for the 2021-22, ’22-23 and

’23-24 fiscal years. As the fiscal update showed last week, we, like

every jurisdiction dealing with COVID around the world, are facing a

very challenging fiscal situation. There is a consensus amongst

economists and public policy experts of all political stripes that

substantial government investment and intervention is required to

support people and to boost our economy in this highly uncertain

time.

Of course, the government needs to continue to respon­sibly

manage expenditures, but fearmongering about deficits is not helpful.

Running deficits is not inherently irresponsible or problematic. What

matters is not the deficit itself but the size of the debt relative to

the strength of the economy as well as the cost of borrowing. The cost

of borrowing is extremely low right now, and we went into this crisis on

strong financial footing. At this moment in time, it would be, frankly,

irresponsible to not run a substantial deficit to support people and

keep the economy moving.

But unfortunately, as the opposition can attest, fearmongering

about deficits seems to be good politics. Requiring a balanced budget

each year is a purely political act that doesn’t support good policy

outcomes. It makes longer-term planning and programming more difficult

and results in artificial constraints and inefficient spending in

ministries. So while I fully support the fact that this bill allows for

deficits for the next three years as we seek to recover from COVID-19, I

question the reluctance of this government to challenge this paradigm.

Government should not have to change legislation to be able to run a

deficit when it’s the responsible thing to do.

This brings me to my major concern about the bill: not what it

changes, but what it doesn’t change. This bill continues to reinforce

the political frame that government is not to be trusted and that its

role is to be minimized, despite the fact that this most recent crisis

is showing us that precisely the opposite is true.

Despite allowing budget deficits for the next three years, this

bill does not change the salary holdbacks under this legislation that

were introduced by the previous government. These holdbacks mean that

ministers are penalized 10 percent of their salary for not balancing

their individual portfolios and another 10 percent when the government

budget as a whole is not balanced, for a 20 percent penalty. This means

ministers are essentially being penalized for authorizing the social

supports, economic investments and programs required to get B.C. through

this crisis.

The Minister of Health, to take one example, oversaw a health

response to COVID-19 to keep our health care system functioning and to

keep British Columbians safe. The minister has implemented widespread

testing, extra surge capacity for our hospitals, PPE for our health care

workers and a surgical renewal plan, all of which cost substantial money

and all of which are absolutely required to help us to weather this

crisis. Because of this, the minister is facing a 20 percent salary

penalty this year. That doesn’t seem right. This is true for every

minister and every portfolio affected by COVID-19.

[2:45 p.m.]

This isn’t about individual ministers and how hard they’ve been

working or their individual decisions. This is about the signal we’re

sending about the role of government leadership and the discretion of

elected politicians to make decisions supported by evidence and by

experts in the public service. The proper place for ministers to be held

accountable for these decisions is in the Legislature and, ultimately,

by the people of B.C. during elections. It’s not by a punitive financial

penalty that isn’t responsive to the actual context we are in

today.

This type of legislation reflects the damaging notion that

government is not to be trusted, despite the fact that this pandemic has

shown us more clearly than ever the need for responsible government

leadership to support the health and well-being of the people of British

Columbia. So I’m sad to see that this government has chosen to leave

this in place.

I will be speaking to this issue further at committee stage, and I

look forward to the discussion.

Deputy Speaker: Our final speaker to Bill 18, second reading, is the member for

Surrey South.

S. Cadieux: With the introduction of this bill, government has indeed unveiled

a plan to run deficits for three years. Last week the Finance Minister

laid out a grim picture for the province’s finances, and we’re still

waiting for a discernible economic recovery plan of any type. Now, I

understand the likelihood of deficits for a few years. It is difficult,

though, to blindly support it. The anticipated while likely uncertain

depths of the deficits that are projected are an important

consideration.

Deficits for recovery purposes are one thing. Deficits for

unbridled spending on partisan projects or programs while on increased

government payrolls are something quite totally different. While we

heard from the Finance Minister that her priorities had not changed,

despite laying out for the public the likelihood of a deficit for this

year of over $12½ billion…. Despite that, the Finance Minister isn’t

taking a look at government priorities.

We’re also concerned about the broad emergency powers this

legislation will confer upon government. The additional and even

pre-emptive emergency spending authority contemplated by these

amendments needs to have the appropriate checks and balances in place

that this power merits. This is especially the case when we have now

cemented the ability to scrutinize the budget through video conferencing

technology.

This bill does a number of things, however, some of which are not

unexpected given the announcements of tax deferrals made by government

over the last couple of months. So this bill creates the authority for

those deferrals.

Sections 1 to 5 enact the deferral of the carbon tax and the motor

fuel, sales and tobacco taxes to September 30 or a later date if

specified by regulation. There appear to be no phased-in repayments at

this point, so while businesses have appreciated the ability to defer,

the repayments are all coming due at the same time. That may cause

another cash flow issue, as the member for Prince George–Valemount laid

out in her remarks earlier.

The B.C. Chamber survey data suggests that 43 percent of

businesses have said that they’ll require more financial help to stay

open than is available from governments currently. Chamber president Val

Litwin specifically referenced the deferred tax payments that will all

come due in that one swoop on September 30. Many businesses, although

reopening, are still seeing revenues far below normal levels. Only 23

percent have achieved normal sales volumes. They’re certainly not strong

enough yet to be covering accumulated debts from closure months. In

fact, many are still accumulating that debt.

Section 6 is going to enable regulations to extend the repayment

deadline and make regulations retroactive. The Finance Minister has

mused publicly about the possibility of repayment plans, but there’s no

indication in the bill how those might work or be structured.

Section 6

prescribes, as I say, the regulation-making authority to extend the

deadlines, but we aren’t assured at this point that government intends

to use it, nor how.

Sections 7 to 9 enact the delay on penalties for late payment of

property taxes. Sections 10 to 14 enable local governments to delay the

payment of tax sums collected and owed to the provincial government in

order to ensure liquidity from municipal governments.

Section 15 enacts the deferral of the employer health tax and

allows alteration of payment plan scheduling.

Section 16 repeals

section 15, coming into force on December 31,

2021. Now, that’s, effectively, a sunset clause in EHT deferrals. Both

the late payments will now become due at a new date, meaning that the

combined deferred payments become due in October.

[2:50 p.m.]

Section 17 allows government to disclose information for the

administration and auditing of the federal CERB applications.

Section 18 enacts the emergency benefit for workers, which adds

sections 214 to 239 of the Income Tax Act. Certainly, this was an action

of government that was not unexpected, in order to support people who

had lost work through the pandemic. Certainly, understanding these

sections need to be implemented in order for that to ultimately take

effect….

Now,

section 214 appears to state that the emergency benefit is

for the 2019 taxation year. This will need a little explanation. I’m

sure there’s a drafting purpose served here that I’m not immediately

understanding, but we can cover that in committee.

Section 215 establishes the qualification criteria.

Section 223, a

penalty of $3,000 for false applications, of which I certainly hope we

don’t have too many. Individuals who received the B.C. emergency benefit

for workers but are ineligible have to repay the amount, and interest on

that amount, after 30 days.

Section 234 gives audit powers. All very standard. But equally

important to all of this is what the bill doesn’t do. It completely

fails to add any measures that could be construed as a recovery plan,

despite its title — nothing that could be argued to act as stimulus for

an economy in shock. The government has done much in terms of spending,

yet it’s kind of dumbfounding how little help there has been to help our

small business–dependent economy.

In fact, there’s been very little support of any kind provided to

businesses. Almost no real spending on the part of government in the way

of cash. No help to strapped employers to get through. Not on rent

relief for small businesses who had to close their doors to help respond

to the pandemic and keep people safe.

Government has, many times, pointed to the school tax reduction as

a help for small businesses. Yes, the province is taking a large hit

with this measure. But who is it benefiting? Mostly it is benefiting

landlords and property owners, but the majority of small businesses are

tenants. They are not owners and landlords. Many of them have seen no

flow-through relief from the measure implemented by

government.

With just deferrals of owed taxes, which is what this bill helps

bring to fruition, we will now see all of that come due in one lump sum

for those small businesses. Meanwhile, just next door, our closest

competitor has announced a $10 billion recovery plan, starting with a

cut to the corporate tax, which will further serve to reduce B.C.’s

competitiveness. Whether or not one likes tax cuts or professes that

that’s the only thing that this side of the House ever suggests….

Regardless of whether or not that is your position, when your closest

competitor does exactly that, your competitiveness is harmed if you

don’t match it.

Recovery grants of $5,000 for small businesses, accelerating $500

million of shovel-ready projects this summer to help get people working,

launching an innovation employment grant to support jobs and industries

that diversify the economy…. We have heard much from both this

government and from its supporting Green Party members that we want to

see us build back better. We want to see us build a greener economy with

our recovery. Well, how do you do that if you don’t help businesses and

small businesses find ways to improve their operations?

The B.C. government, in contrast, has launched a survey to find

out what British Columbians think they should do with $1½ billion. The

Finance Minister was quoted as suggesting that health and safety

measures are all that’s needed. While we argued this morning that health

and safety is necessarily and arguably priority number one, it isn’t

sufficient in and of itself as a path to recovery. The only certainty

that we have from government around recovery is its own paper

accompanying the CERB.

They see recovery as building a B.C. where strong public services

are always there, meeting the challenge of the climate crisis and doing

so in partnership with Indigenous peoples. They’re all good things.

They’re all essential. They’re all things that government has to be

considering when it’s making policy. But there are glaring omissions,

like any mention of the industries and sectors that create the ability

for government to spend money, the industries that bring investment to

B.C., and revenue, therefore, to the province, like the tourism economy.

It had a pre-COVID revenue of $20½ billion, with $1.7 billion in tax

revenue to B.C. It’s been devastated.

[2:55 p.m.]

There’s no plan currently to assist these businesses to stay

afloat until global travel resumes and clients return. Small businesses

— 98 percent of the economy, employing more than half a million British

Columbians. The retail sector who might be looking to get online….

Ontario had a Digital Main Street grant to help build resiliency. I

would anticipate that many of our small businesses could use the same

help.

What’s the plan to support our resource industry and our

exporters? If we’ve seen exports fall 15 percent through the first five

months of 2020, what are we doing to ensure that we’re going to build

that back stronger?

Really, it would just be great to know that government had a plan

at all. We don’t see any evidence of it. We need to be sure that we’re

taking a comprehensive look at our economy as we plan for the future.

Beyond a hope and a prayer that people will resume their normal

activities and spending patterns, what does government plan to do to

stimulate the recovery? What are they going to do to increase our

competitiveness as an economy and as a province to drive innovation and

resiliency in our biggest market sectors? This can’t wait. It is

urgent.

Ninety-eight percent of our economy is those small businesses, and

up to 20 percent of them are expected to disappear within a year. That’s

just not sustainable, and that isn’t going to help us to build back

better.

Many businesses, although reopening, are still, like I said,

seeing their revenues far below normal levels. They’re not strong enough

to be covering those debts for closure months, and they’re not able to

hire back all of their employees.

Government needs a plan for the economy. We don’t see it from this

government. Without it, businesses will fail and people will teeter on

the edge of bankruptcy. Government’s projections for a $12½ billion

deficit will slide even further into the red. So how is government going

to leverage that $1.5 billion they have earmarked for recovery to

springboard our economy to a better place, not just to plug holes in the

dam?

What do we know about what government is planning? A future that

will likely have fewer balanced budgets, given changes that government

is making in this legislation.

Section 19 creates that exemption for

2021 to 2024, and no change is made to the ministerial holdback

provisions….

Section 20 allows supplementary estimates, instead of

surplus amounts going towards debt repayment.

When it comes to the presumption of deficits, what are the

safeguards? With all of the ridicule the NDP levelled at us for balanced

budget legislation when it was introduced and even subsequently…. Yet

her own government, for over three years, felt obliged to provide the

same, to present balanced budgets under that legislation and to lecture,

if not boast, about the strict commitment to balanced budgets that she

was undertaking.

No one, under the circumstances we find ourselves in worldwide,

would think it was unreasonable to be projecting a deficit. Of course

emergency spending was required. Of course revenues are down. But we

still have a Finance Minister that believes that recovery will just

happen. But businesses are failing, jobs are being lost forever, women

and young people are the hardest hit, and government has no strategy to

present.

The concern, however, is that this bill is starting an unravelling

and a dismantling of the rigidity of the budgeting process for the

province. The reason these measures were put in place were quite simply

because, left to their own devices, previous governments of many stripes

saw fit to abuse the budget process for their own political reasons.

That’s why the strict timelines for budget processes are in place — to

prevent the manipulation of both the timing and the content of the

provincial budget.

The pandemic response, pandemic-related revenue declines and even

recovery spending are fully expected, and yes, reasonably, some of this

might stretch beyond this budget. But we do need to know what to

expect.

What are the safeguards going to be, if not balanced-budget

legislation? When government has presupposed the next three years of

budgets will not be balanced, on what data is that supposition being

made, and what will the difference be between a $5 billion and a $20

billion deficit, from year to year? What controls will be in place to

ensure that spending is reasonable, to ensure that it is proportionate

to the emergency, to prevent that deficit from being padded by political

posturing and unnecessary growth in the public sector? What are the

safeguards to ensure that a responsible fiscal plan — versus the NDP’s

old ways of budgeting, of overspending and uncontrolled spending — to

resume?

Section 21 is going to expand the Financial Administration Act’s

scope for when special warrants can be authorized for spending up to six

months during a state of emergency. We are told this is because the

pandemic may not have been covered by the previous special warrant

definitions.

[3:00 p.m.]

Additionally, preventative and post-emergency recovery measures

and criteria are contemplated for special warrants. Preventative and

post-emergency — what reasonable example can the minister give as to why

this is necessary? We suspect that these conditions are too permissive,

especially given that the Legislature has now achieved a means to

authorize such expenditures remotely.

I’m surprised, frankly, given the comments in the Green Party

member’s response just before this, that there was not more of a focus

on this presumptive measure. She talked about the importance of trusting

government and trusting ministers and, in her opinion, the need to

remove the ministerial holdback provisions because you should trust

government to do the necessary spending and the right thing. Yet here

we’re being told to trust government to presumptively spend money

without the Legislature’s approval and to presumptively, in a recovery

stage, spend money, again without the Legislature’s approval.

We’re doing this despite the fact that we have now the ability to

sit virtually. We have seen us come together as a Legislature to do what

was necessary in very short order in March to provide government with

necessary spending authority. So I am, yes, a bit suspicious of the

dismantling of the procedural safeguards that are being proposed through

this bill. The extension by 30 days from election isn’t, I don’t think,

overly egregious — at least, probably not — but it does signal, also, a

potential trend.

On the surface, a most reasonable-thinking British Columbian might

see merit in providing government with extraordinary tools in case of

emergency, but what is the definition of “emergency”? The inclusion here

of anticipated emergency seems convenient but not in keep­ing with

the Emergency Program Act definition that emergency means “a present or

imminent event or circumstance….” The European Commission for Democracy

through Law cites three key principles for the implementation of

emergency measures, which are necessity, proportionality and

temporariness, to reference my colleague from

Vancouver-Langara.

Anticipated emergencies are a new concept for this act, meaning we

should be especially conscious of the potential pitfalls that may result

from broadening that special warrant authority. They are, in essence, a

means for cabinet to procure funds prior to seeking authorization from

the Legislature. So how do we ensure that special warrants stemming from

that anticipated emergency will result from necessity? How will they be

proportionate? And will they be temporary? Certainly, the ability to

issue a special warrant up to six months after a state of emergency begs

the question of how we define “temporary.” How cabinet anticipates

emergencies will call into question the matter of

proportionality.

Finally, now that we’ve positioned the Legislature, as I stated,

with special standing orders and video conferencing technology that

allows us to scrutinize needed spending, as we did in March and continue

to do today, we must also ask the question: to what extent do those

powers meet the test of necessity? Any number of things could be

considered here, and I think the Finance Minister will need to provide a

very compelling case that what is captured is specific enough to warrant

support.

We are debating another bill to implement a bunch of measures that

will significantly impact the provincial budgets for the coming years.

Just last week we saw a snapshot of B.C.’s dire financial picture. When

asked about the future, the Finance Minister admits that we don’t know

what it will look like. There are lots of unknowns, and it could get

worse, yet there are no plans to look at reduced government

spending.

Before anyone goes off suggesting that I think we should cut the

programs people need, for the record, I am not. But there is and always

are areas that can be trimmed when the belt needs tightening. The

minister herself had government do that just last year.

At the best of times, things happen, and priorities shift. Ask any

minister who has worked on a plan for a program or for legislation, only

to see it shelved for another day. But in the face of a $12½ billion

deficit — possibly more, since they’ve decided not to update us on the

projections for B.C. Hydro and ICBC and since the Premier has since

announced that he will match federal dollars that are targeted for

recovery — this government has no plans to reassess their

priorities.

[3:05 p.m.]

Well, that’s not good enough. Once again, no one on this side of

the House is going to blame government for the pandemic nor for the need

for significant emergency spending measures. But it is only reasonable

to ask what the plan is to get back to a sustainable spending

level.

Understandably, things will continue to change and evolve. They do

that even without a pandemic. But that isn’t an excuse not to have a

plan five months in. I think government needs to do better. It’s not

unreasonable for us to be asking. Clearly the pandemic has taken

priority. The budgets of all levels of government have been thrown into

shambles. This government now, at least…. Are they taking another look

at their plan? Well, in response, they saw fit to announce those

deferrals on a bunch of tax measures but very little else for businesses

and very little to drive growth in our private sector

economy.

Now we have this bill, essentially cementing the inevitability of

deficit budgets for government for three years. We see the government

next door beat the NDP to the punch, reduce their corporate tax rate and

add billions to support their economy while here we have a government

content on discussions. This government has no plan for economic

recovery — period.

Businesses and economists are scratching their heads, wondering

why the government is treading water. “B.C., in relative terms, is

really throwing toonies and loonies at the sort of

support-for-the-economy piece here, and they’re essentially relying on

the federal government’s balance sheet and federal institutions. They

really have done very little,” said the B.C. Business

Council.

Unfortunately, the legislation before us doesn’t represent a

change in direction. It contains no semblance of a plan for economic

recovery, despite its title as the Economic Stabilization (COVID-19)

Act, in a province that desperately needs it, and it sets us up for

years of deficits. What we know is that recovery will not be easy, even

under the best of circumstances. But as elected officials, we have to

make sure that we’re making decisions based on all of the relevant

information.

I hope that as we move into committee stage on this bill, we’re

able to get more clarity from government on their recovery road map as

well as answers to the questions I raised today in this time here. It’s

an important piece of legislation for the future of our province. I look

forward to discussing it further.

With that, I’ll close.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the Minister of Finance to

close debate.

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the members who have responded to the second reading

on Bill 18, the Economic Stabilization (COVID-19) Act. Just a few pieces

to touch on to summarize. I know we’ll have a chance for a lot of this

debate and discussion when we move into committee stage, but I did want

to touch on a few of the themes that I’ve heard running through this

discussion.

The first one is around plans for the economy. I heard a lot of

discussion around plans of the economy and what kind of direction the

government is going. Well, I want to remind the members once again that

in fact the clearest plan for our economy and for economic recovery is a

strong health and safety plan, because if people do not feel confident

in the direction that’s happening in the province, if they do not feel

confident that we’re addressing the health and safety issues, you will

see no economic recovery. In fact, that was our first and foremost piece

that we put in place for our COVID action plan.

The second piece: immediate supports for businesses and for

individuals. I won’t run through all of those. I’ve done that often. But

I did hear the members say there was nothing there for businesses, other

than a few deferrals. Well, $700 million in a tax cut for businesses —

not a deferral, an actual tax cut to reduce property taxes to help with

cash for businesses.

Targeted support for the agriculture industry. Targeted support

for the tourism industry. Mental health supports. Child care supports.

All of those not only help businesses but, in fact, help individuals and

families as well. Support for people with diverse abilities to make sure

that they were receiving the supports. Support for children in care.

That’s just a short list of the kinds of approaches that have been put

in place.

[3:10 p.m.]

Then next, safe restart, making sure that we could, as a province,

start opening up in a way that was planned and measured and, most

importantly, safe, to build that confidence for customers, to build that

confidence for individuals and, most importantly, to build that

confidence so that businesses could open up again.

I heard members talk about the deficit budgets and questioning the

three-year approach to deficit budgets to measure three years ahead.

There is no question. No one, including economists, business groups or

organizations, has a crystal ball to know how long we are going to face

the challenges in the economy. So we looked at what had been done

previously by the past government, for example, in other years. They put

aside three years. It’s going to be reviewed each year. It’s going to be

looked at each year. But we feel, again, that’s a responsible way to be

able to manage.

Responsible budgeting. I heard discussion around

re­spon­sible budgeting. Well, we’ll have an opportunity to

talk further about responsible budgeting and deficit budgets. There is

no question that there may be a difference of opinion between the past

government and ourselves around putting those supports in

place.

I heard the member ask about reductions in the civil service and

the public service, looking for cuts, looking for reductions in

supports. Well, that’s not our approach. It’s not a time to start

creating less jobs, to start causing challenges when it comes to

providing services and supports for people that they rely on so deeply

in this province. We saw for 16 years what happens when you approach

budgeting from that perspective. So yes, there will be a difference of

opinion, I expect.

I know these amendments that are laid out in this bill will help

ensure that the province is better equipped, not only now through

COVID-19 but, in fact, into the future. I look forward to the

conversations the members have talked about, the special warrants piece.

I think that’s, again, a very good discussion. I agree with the member

that it has to be very tight. It has to be for extreme circumstances. I

think this session has shown that we have the ability, in some

emergencies, to be able to manage.

I give the example of an earthquake. Perhaps, as a Victoria MLA,

it’s on my mind often that those are risks that we face. This building

faces big risks if there’s an earthquake. If the system was down and

there weren’t opportunities to come together and emergency funds needed

to be there, to include the pandemic as one of those emergency pieces, I

believe, is the responsible thing to do, with all of the checks and

balances that the member talked about — making sure that it has to come

back to the Legislature, making sure it has to be public, making sure

that it’s short term and making sure that it is truly an

emergency.

I would agree with all of those points, so I think that will be a

good discussion.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 18, the Economic

Stabilization (COVID-19) Act.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 18 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

for consideration at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Bill 18, Economic Stabilization (COVID-19) Act, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m acting as House Leader. I now call second reading, Bill 23,

Workers Compensation Amend­ment Act.

BILL 23 — WORKERS COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. H. Bains: It is my honour to stand and open the second reading of Bill 23. I

move that Bill 23 be read a second time now.

I must say, right in the beginning, that as the Minister of

Labour, it is my commitment and the commitment of this government to

make British Columbia the safest workplace jurisdiction in Canada and to

support injured workers and their families. At the same time, government

is fully aware of the financial pressures being felt by employers during

these unprecedented times.

[3:15 p.m.]

Worker safety and an effective, supportive workers compensation

system are important to me, both personally and as Minister of Labour.

One of my priority mandate commitments from the Premier is to increase

compliance with employment laws and standards put in place to protect

the lives and safety of workers. Over the past three years, I have been

working with WorkSafeBC on changes to improve education, inspection and

enforcement programs and engage employers and workers on how to ensure

workplace safety.

It is also a priority of this government to have a workers

compensation system that is more worker centred, because the primary

purpose is to protect workers and to support workers with rehabilitation

services and loss of earnings compensation during difficult situations.

If you look at the three basic pillars of the workers compensation

system, it is through education and training, working with the employers

and the workers to prevent injuries in the first place. Prevention is

important.

Then in order to make that happen, you must have a strong

enforcement regime in place. When injuries do occur or people become

sick due to the workplace, they are respected and their claims are dealt

with, with respect and dignity so that they get the support that they

need, the medical care that they need and rehab that they need to

prepare them to go back to their pre-injury job.

All of those are key fundamentals to have workers’ health and

safety and a strong workers compensation system in place. In support of

this goal, many policies and program changes are taking place at

WorkSafeBC to ensure that the workers are treated with respect and feel

supported when they need to access workers compensation.

While important policy and program improvements are taking place

at WorkSafeBC, some improvements require amendment to the Workers

Compensation Act. As such, Bill 23 introduces a number of modest but

important improvements to British Columbia’s workers compensation and

the occupational health and safety system. Bill 23 makes the

improvements that our government believes are important to keep workers

safe and to support injured workers and their dependents while ensuring

affordable changes for employers at this time.

Many of the significant changes in Bill 23 reflect the findings

and the recommendations from four reviews undertaken since 2017 to

examine different aspects of the system. In April 2018, Paul Petrie

reported on his review of WorkSafeBC’s policies to ensure a

worker-centred approach wherever practical.

In December 2018, Terry Bogyo delivered his report examining

options for WorkSafeBC’s accident fund and the excess surplus. This

review included a number of options for using the excess surplus to

increase workers compensation benefit levels. Given the financial

uncertainty that has since arisen with the COVID-19 emergency, many of

these options are not being addressed at this time. Bill 23, however,

does include several of the more modest proposals of Mr. Bogyo’s

report.

In August 2019, Lisa Jean Helps reported on her assessment of

government and WorkSafeBC’s progress in implementing recommendations

stemming from past reports into the tragic Lakeland and Babine sawmill

explosions in 2012. Ms. Helps reported favourably on the improvements

made to date but recommended a number of further changes, including four

new legislative amendments to better protect workers’ health and safety

and to support WorkSafeBC’s health and safety inspection program. Bill

23 makes all four of these statutory changes.

[3:20 p.m.]

Finally, earlier this year Jeff Parr consulted with businesses,

workers and Indigenous representatives on the legislative proposals in

the Petrie, Bogyo and Helps reports and made recommendations for

legislative change based on what he heard. Most of the significant

changes in Bill 23 were reviewed with these stakeholders and were

endorsed in Mr. Petrie’s consultation report, although we’re not moving

ahead with all of the recommendations, due to the COVID-19

emergency.

I do want to take this opportunity to thank Paul Petrie, Terry

Bogyo, Lisa Helps and Jeff Parr for their professionalism and expertise

in undertaking these reviews and providing government and WorkSafeBC

with very thoughtful findings and recommendations for our

consideration.

I will now move on to highlight the specifics of Bill 23. Bill 23

makes three enhancements to provide injured workers with workers

compensation benefits that better take into account their loss of

earnings. When people are injured on the job, we need to ensure that our

workers compensation system responds to their needs and the needs of

their families. These meaningful changes will improve support for

injured workers and their families without significantly increasing the

employer’s cost during the current COVID-19 emergency.

The first improvement relates to the approach used to determine

the amount of the permanent disability award. The most beneficial

calculation is used for each individual worker’s

circumstance.

In 2002, the previous government amended the act so that, in most

cases, permanent partial disability payments must be calculated using

what is called the loss-of-function approach. Under this approach, the

monthly compensation benefit is based on a worker’s likely loss of

earnings according to the nature of their injury. The alternative

loss-of-earnings approach, whereby compensation takes into account a

worker’s real loss of earnings in their particular situation, is only

permitted in exceptional circumstances.

For workers who are unable to return to their pre-injury

employment and income — and those circumstances are not considered by

WorkSafeBC as exceptional — the 2002 amendment requiring a

loss-of-function award often results in compensation less than the

worker’s loss of earnings.

Bill 23 will provide, for a permanent partial disability, that the

amount of workers compensation must be based on the higher of the

loss-of-function approach or the loss-of-earnings approach so that the

workers are not left undercompensated for their loss of earnings. This

important change restores the way the compensation system’s payments for

permanent partial disability were determined before the 2002

amendments.

The second compensation improvement impacts the length of the

permanent disability award. Under the act, monthly workers compensation

payments end when the worker reaches age 65, unless WorkSafeBC is

satisfied that the worker would have retired later.

Think about this. Currently the final determination of whether a

worker would retire later than 65 is made at the time of the disability

assessment, when the amount of their permanent disability award is

determined. This approach is a real challenge, particularly for workers

injured at a young age, who may be unable to provide satisfactory

evidence that they would retire after age 65.

If passed, Bill 23 permits the board to make the determination of

a worker’s date of retirement and, therefore, the end date for their

permanent disability award after the worker reaches age 63, much closer

to the real retirement date. This much-needed amendment makes the system

fairer for workers. They will be in a better position to provide

evidence of their retirement closer to age 65, and it allows for a more

equitable determination of when a worker would retire. For some workers,

who can show a later retirement date…. This can be a significant benefit

for the injured worker and their families.

The third improvement to ensure that the compensation for an

injured worker and surviving dependents better reflects the worker’s

loss of earnings is to increase the 2021 maximum insurable earnings

threshold to $100,000. The earnings threshold is the maximum income on

which workers compensation payments can be based.

[3:25 p.m.]

Currently the maximum income threshold is $87,100 for the year

2020. This means that if an injured worker earned more than this — say,

$95,000 per year — their compensation benefit will be calculated based

on only $87,100. This means the worker is behind financially, just

because of the maximum threshold limit, when injured at work through no

fault of their own.

While the intent of the maximum income threshold is to provide

financial stability to the system by avoiding excessive compensation

payments for extremely-high-income earners, the existing earnings

threshold undercompensates a significant number of workers in British

Columbia and has fallen behind the maximums used in some other Canadian

jurisdictions. The increase to $100,000 is intended to meet the goal of

ensuring that at least 90 percent of the workers are covered for 100

percent of their earnings.

For future years, WorkSafeBC will continue the current practice,

under the act, of increasing the maximum earnings threshold

proportionate to the change in British Columbia’s average earnings. This

is another way that we are making real changes to improve things for

workers.

In addition to these workers compensation enhancements, Bill 23

adds an important improvement to support the rehabilitation of injured

workers.

In some cases, workers may require diagnostic or preventative

treatment before WorkSafeBC is able to decide on their application for

workers compensation. Providing such health care services on a timely

basis, including before a decision can be made on the claim, may prevent

a case from becoming a serious claim, a claim that could end up being

more severe for the injured worker and more costly for the workers

compensation system. This meaningful change is good for the whole

workers compensation system.

Certain occupational diseases, such as HIV and tuberculosis, and

psychological injuries, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, may be

worsened by a delay in treatment. For this reason, Bill 23 will provide

explicit authority for WorkSafeBC to provide health care services and

supplies before a workers compensation claim is decided if medical

evidence indicates that the worker is at risk of a significant

deterioration in health. This change provides meaningful support for

workers to ensure they remain as healthy as possible, while possibly

saving the system higher health care and compensation costs in the long

term.

Another change in Bill 23 will specifically recognize mental

disorders in the provision that sets a one-year time limit to apply for

workers compensation. Currently the claim must be made within one year

from the date of injury, which is difficult to establish for claims

involving a mental health disorder. Under Bill 23, mental disorder

claims will be filed within one year of the date of mental

disability.

This change will enable WorkSafeBC to recognize the unique nature

of mental health disorders — for example, the fact that they often

develop gradually — and establish appropriate policies on how the

one-year time limit applies for workers who have a work-related mental

health disorder. We believe that this necessary change will better

support access to workers compensation for a work-related mental

disorder, most notably for occupations with frequent exposures to

work-related trauma.

As I noted earlier, Lisa Helps made several key recommendations

for legislative changes in her report related to the tragic Lakeland and

Babine sawmill explosions in 2012. The amendments contained in Bill 23

will implement these recommendations and help improve the

inves­tigation and prosecution of workplace safety infractions.

That, in turn, can help deter non-compliance and educate employers about

their responsibilities for the safety of workers.

These amendments support my priority for B.C. workplaces to be the

safest in the country. To begin, the legislation will provide the

authority for justices to issue WorkSafeBC investigators with search and

seizure warrants that are appropriate for the investigation of workplace

safety offences. Currently the warrants are obtained under the

provisions of the Offence Act, but those provisions do not recognize all

the realities of investigating a workplace safety offence.

[3:30 p.m.]

This amendment includes the authority for a warrant to conduct

tests, take samples, search computer hard drives, observe employer

training programs and take photographs — all of which may be important

to provide evidence of a worker’s safety contravention or

offence.

It also includes authority to obtain a tele-warrant rather than

appearing in person before a justice, to recognize modern technology and

the need to sometimes obtain a warrant on an expedited basis from a

remote location in the province.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The Workers Compensation Act will also be amended to remove the

existing unnecessary step that the WorkSafeBC president must give

approval before a WorkSafeBC officer may forward an investigation report

to Crown counsel to consider prosecution.

We are also adopting this health recommendation to allow injured

workers and family members of deceased workers to make victim impact

statements to the court as part of quasi-criminal or regulatory

prosecution, similar to victim impact statements that can be made in

criminal proceedings. This important change will give a voice to

affected people to describe the impact that a breach of workplace safety

has had on them. It will also provide them with a better sense that

their personal perspectives and impacts have been heard.

Bill 23 also provides the legislative authority for the court to

order a person who is convicted of an offence to publish, at the

person’s expense, the facts relating to the commission of the offence.

The potential for such an order will act as a deterrent, and publication

will help educate other employers about their legal responsibilities for

worker safety.

Bill 23 also includes a number of changes to improve the

effectiveness of the workers compensation system in British Columbia.

For example, Bill 23 will provide WorkSafeBC with additional tools to

collect unpaid assessment and other amounts owed to WorkSafeBC from

employers. Improved collection will help ensure that funds employers are

legally required to pay will be available for workers compensation.

Improved collection also ensures a level playing field for employers who

play by the rules and make the payments they are required to

do.

Specifically, this bill adds a director’s liability provision to

hold corporate directors liable for a corporation’s unpaid assessments

or other amounts owing to WorkSafeBC. It also clarifies and expands on

the board’s ability to collect from successive employers when an

employer closes one business and opens a new legal entity that is, in

effect, the same business. As well, in cases where the business owes

money to WorkSafeBC but claims to have no assets or has otherwise not

paid the debt, the bill provides authority for WorkSafeBC to collect

money from the third party that owes money to the business.

Another significant operational improvement will pro­vide

the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal, often called WCAT, with the

authority to hear and decide Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and

human rights code issues that workers or employers may raise in a case

before WCAT. Currently, workers and employers can have Charter and human

rights questions decided at the first level of review of the WorkSafeBC

review division, but not at the second and final level of appeal of

WCAT.

This amendment will mean that workers and employers can have

Charter or human rights code questions decided in a more streamlined

manner within the workers compensation system without having to appeal

the review division’s Charter and code decision directly to the

courts.

One final operational improvement that I will specifically mention

is the new authority for WorkSafeBC to reconsider a decision or order

after the usual 75-day limit for consideration has elapsed if the

decision contains an obvious error or omission. Currently when an

obvious error is discovered after the 75-day period, the affected worker

or employer must go through a review and appeal process to have the

correction made.

[3:35 p.m.]

This change will streamline the process for workers and employers

when WorkSafeBC acknowledges after 75 days that a decision contains an

obvious error. This is fair. This also cuts red tape, which many

employers will be looking forward to.

Besides these more significant changes, Bill 23 also contains

several other operational improvements and a number of housekeeping and

technical changes to the Workers Compensation Act to ensure that the

drafting style is up to date and the act clearly expresses the

legislative intent and existing policy.

Given that we continue to live with the new reality of COVID-19, I

will end with the one amendment that has been included in it to directly

respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. As members of the House may know,

WorkSafeBC is currently conducting an expedited review and consultation

on potential occupational disease presumption for COVID-19, and possibly

other diseases caused by a communicable viral pathogen.

If the WorkSafeBC board of directors chooses to enact a regulation

to establish this presumption, this bill will waive the usual statutory

requirement that a WorkSafeBC regulation may not come into force until

at least after 90 days after its date of deposit. Waiving the 90-day

requirement will allow WorkSafeBC to expedite the support and impacted

workers during a provincial health emergency.

Our government is committed to improving things for injured

workers while keeping the system affordable for employers during these

challenging times. Bill 23 is important because it will provide

improvement to the benefits and support that injured workers and their

families receive. Bill 23 will protect and support workers throughout

the province as they go to work and undertake their workplace duties

during these unprecedented times and beyond.

Workplace safety is everyone’s responsibility, and WorkSafeBC

needs the investigative tools to thoroughly prosecute workplace safety

infractions. Bill 23 will give them those tools, which, in turn, can

help deter non-compliance and educate employers about their

responsibilities for the safety of workers.

I ask all members of this Legislative Assembly to join with me for

workers, for employers, for safe B.C. workplaces and support these

important legislative initiatives. I look forward to the debate on this

bill. Thank you very much for the opportunity to have my say.

J. Martin: It’s a pleasure to be able to speak to Bill 23, the Workers

Compensation Amendment Act of 2020. The legislation before us today

proposes a number of things: boosting the maximum salary on which

workers compensation benefits are based, allowing courts to issue search

and seizure warrants in workplace safety investigations, as well as what

the minister just summarized, waiving the current 90-day waiting period

if WorkSafeBC lists COVID-19 as a presumptive occupational

disease.

On top of it all though, in the middle of a pandemic, with

unemployment approaching 14 percent, this is a government bill that will

impose added costs — unknown added costs — to businesses who are

struggling desperately right now. In a word, it’s quite irresponsible,

and the timing couldn’t be worse. Without a doubt, it is, of course, the

obligation of a government and employers to protect the health,

well-being, and safety of all workers. When workers get injured on the

job or suffer from a work-related disease or illness, they deserve to

have easy, quick, efficient access to treatment, care and

support.

We all want an efficient and effective workers compensation

system, one that provides fair compensation benefits to all workers in

British Columbia. B.C.’s workers compensation system is funded by

premiums paid by employers to compensate for workers injured on the job.

As such, the system requires balance and stability at the same time. So

we must ensure that the system has the money to provide protection and

compensation, not just today, but down the road into the future. It’s

critically important that this system is committed to being financially

stable and sustainable in the long term.

[3:40 p.m.]

However, the Labour Minister’s actions in recent months have not

given workers or employers the security they need and deserve under this

system. For example, in May, we sent a letter to the Premier asking for

WorkSafeBC’s surplus to be used to reimburse employers for purchasing

personal protective equipment to keep employees and customers safe

during the pandemic. Well, the Labour Minister told Postmedia: “All of

the surplus has been wiped out.” Let me repeat that. The Labour Minister

told Postmedia: “All of the surplus has been wiped out.”

However, WorkSafe issued a statement the next day which suggested

something very different. This must be very embarrassing for the

minister, who showed a complete lack of understanding about the

financial situation of his own Crown agency. And now this exact same

minister tables a bill saying that there is enough money to enact

changes to the workers compensation system.

Once again, let’s be very clear. Of course we are committed to a

healthy and safe workplace and to providing support for injured workers.

However, the minister has not been clear at all about the cost these

proposed changes in the bill may result for employers. In other words,

this takes us down the road to another unknown. Nobody knows what this

is going to cost.

We can’t emphasize enough how B.C.’s workers compensation system

must strike the right balance between workers and employers to ensure

fair compensation and long-term financial stability, especially in the

middle of a pandemic — or I should say in the midst of a pandemic; none

of us know — with so much uncertainty, when our society is already in

stress as B.C.’s economy plunges into recession with staggering job

losses.

British Columbians deserve better than this. During the COVID

crisis, why is the government focusing on a plan that will impose

greater costs on small businesses who are already reeling in the wake of

a pandemic? Hundreds of thousands of British Columbians are out of work.

Countless businesses are on the brink of shutting down

permanently.

This is a time when government should be making things easier so

that people have jobs to return to and paycheques to look forward to, to

support their families. While keeping health and safety in mind as the

priority, we need to do everything we can to support small businesses

instead of adding extra costs at this, the worst possible time to do

so.

We’ve seen from the past four months that this government does not

have an economic recovery plan anywhere in sight. Not only have they

turned down our suggestion to give refunds to employers from the

WorkSafeBC surplus to cover the cost of PPE, they also ignored our other

13 policy letters with more than 60 suggestions sent to the

Premier.

Now, we need to know that this bill is not just another way for

the NDP to incur further costs for employers and businesses who are

already suffering due to an economic downturn, lack of consumer

confidence and the government’s 23 new and increased taxes over the past

several years. This bill could in fact be the straw that breaks the

proverbial camel’s back for far, far too many businesses in our

province.

There’s going to be an opportunity to hear from other members from

my caucus and possibly others, and we’re going to have an opportunity in

committee to look at this bill in great detail. But I would like to just

point out a few things, specifically, that have caused some

concern.

Section 11, for instance, allows the board to reconsider a

decision past the 70-day limit if it contained an obvious error or

omission. However, what does that mean? “An obvious error or omission”

is not defined in the amendment. This could possibly end up meaning that

it extends beyond a typographical or administrative error. We need some

clarity. We need some assurance of what this bill would do.

If we go to

section 15, this is the

section that allows for

payment of services and supplies before a decision has been made on a

worker’s entitlement. Well, 95 percent of claims are accepted, which

means that the workers compensation system will be effectively

subsidizing a portion of care that would otherwise be covered by the

health care system. How many businesses are going to be able to endure

this?

[3:45 p.m.]

Section 17, compensation for permanent disability will be paid

based on the higher amount based on

section 195 and 196 of the act.

Well, the dual system allows for small loss of function awards to become

larger loss of earnings awards, which was a factor that led to issues

with WSBC’s financial issues prior to the reforms in the

2000s.

Section 18. This is the one that changes the age at which a

determination for a worker’s retirement must be made, at 63. Well, this

could present issues for cost management and projections with a lack of

finality once a decision is made.

section 25, it strengthens the powers of the board to make a

demand from a third party to pay moneys owed. Well, it’s easier to

pursue larger third parties but much, much harder in the case of small

and medium-sized businesses. This

section may need to be clarified to

indicate that such a process would only be pursued when other processes

have failed. Additionally, this is going to make it much, much more

difficult for small businesses, non-profits and social service agency

boards to recruit directors.

This bill is problematic on so many fronts. I cannot support it,

and I urge my colleagues in the House to oppose it. At stake is the

future prosperity of British Columbia. Thank you for this

opportunity.

G. Kyllo: It gives me great pleasure to rise on behalf of my constituents in

Shuswap and speak in opposition to Bill 23, the Workers Compensation

Amendment Act.

There are many challenges with this bill, and the biggest part of

it has to do with stability and the timing. As we know, we are currently

in the midst of the worst pandemic that we’ve seen in over 100 years.

There’s much uncertainty with respect to businesses, as my colleague

from Chilliwack has mentioned — unemployment rate at 13.4 percent in the

province currently. In the last jobs report, of the new 108,000 jobs

that were apparently recorded last month, the majority of those are

part-time — so still a significant of British Columbians that are out of

work.

The unemployment rate for young people in our province is near 30

percent. Just think about that for a second. Nearly 30 percent of the

young people in British Columbia are currently unemployed and out of

work. As we’ve seen with this government over the past three years, we

have seen continual burden put on the backs of B.C. businesses, starting

first with the employer health tax, which put an additional $1.9 billion

of new taxation right on the backs of B.C. businesses. In addition to

that, we saw the increase of the corporate tax rate here in British

Columbia.

We need to keep in perspective the fact that at the time when B.C.

is continuing to erode the competitiveness of B.C. businesses, we’re

seeing other jurisdictions, both south of the border and to our

neighbouring province of Alberta, going in the opposite direction. The

corporate tax rate in Alberta today is 8 percent. In B.C., it is 12. The

corporate tax rate in British Columbia is 50 percent higher than it is

for our neighbouring jurisdiction of Alberta, just to our immediate

east.

Again, as my colleague from Chilliwack mentioned, we have to

provide balance. There is no question that WorkSafeBC is extremely

important. It provides safety and security for workers, but we also have

to find the balance to ensure that the WorkSafeBC premiums do not

escalate to the point that it continues to erode the competitiveness of

businesses here in British Columbia.

There are a number of challenges with the bill, with respect to

the uncertainty that it provides. My colleague referenced, with

specificity, the reference to the return to the dual-pension system.

Now, this is one of the areas that caused significant cost pressures on

the organization back in the 1990s. WorkSafeBC was in a financially

unsustainable situation, and the primary driver for that was that there

were required reforms specifically around this dual-pension

system.

Now, if the current government did not learn any lessons from the

1990s, there was considerable work with reforms that were put in place

in the 2000s that moved away from that dual-pension system in order to

provide the certainty around costs and to provide cost relief largely

for businesses.

[3:50 p.m.]

What we see now is a return to that. So we must ask ourselves: why

now? There is so much uncertainty with respect to COVID. Businesses are

absolutely struggling. Many businesses are telling me that they’re in

survival mode, and 10 percent of businesses are likely going to be

closing their doors. There is certainly some financial support that’s

coming from the federal government, with very little support from the

provincial government, I might say. As those supports come to a close

this fall and CERB payments come to an end, I think we’re going to find

ourselves in a very, very tough situation here in British

Columbia.

There’s no question that there are some portions of the bill that

have merit and validity and that I think need to come forward. But on

any hint of additional cost pressures that are going to be put on the

backs of B.C. businesses, I think we must ask ourselves: why now? Why is

it the time?

Even the timing for the release of Bill 23 is a little bit suspect

in itself. It came out on the same day that the Minister of Finance was

providing her fiscal update. If that announcement alone wasn’t cause for

concern enough — a $12.5 billion deficit — at the same time that the

Finance Minister is putting out the very bleak news about the prospect

of the economy here in British Columbia, they dropped this bill, with

very little fanfare.

So I think government certainly is aware that there are many

concerns with respect to this bill, and the business community is

extremely concerned. Also, I think we have to start having a look at the

minister. The minister stands in this House today, suddenly with all of

the answers. The skies are clearer. He has a clear understanding of what

is needed for WorkSafeBC. But I think we have to also take that into

context.

As my colleague for Chilliwack mentioned in his opening remarks,

it was only back in May that, when questioned about size of the worker

accident fund — which, by the way, it reported in December of last year,

was $20 billion; that’s $20,000 million — the minister responded by

saying that the surplus, which was anticipated at $3 billion back in

December, had been wiped out. You have a $20 billion fund, and the

minister, in responding to a reporter, cavalierly, off-cuff, mentions

that a $3 billion worker accident fund surplus has suddenly

vanished.

Now, WorkSafeBC quickly came out to provide some relief to British

Columbians that, actually, no; they’d only lost $1 billion. We even have

to just think of that for a second — $1,000 million was lost under this

minister’s watch; $1 billion had suddenly disappeared through, I would

say, certainly not conservative investments of those funds. There are no

funds in this province that are more important than those funds that are

set aside specifically to look after workers that are injured and unable

to return to the workforce, yet, under this minister’s watch, $1 billion

was lost from that fund.

Here the minister stands, suddenly with all of the answers, with

many new initiatives that are going to cost an untold amount of money,

and businesses in B.C. should be very concerned. We need to have

stability, and we need to remove uncertainty.

The business community has written to Premier Horgan and to this

government and asked them: “Please, whatever you do, do no further harm.

Do no harm. Do not put any additional costs on the backs of businesses

when they’re struggling or looking for recovery.” As we know, many of

the changes that are set out in the Workers Compensation Amendment Act

will put additional cost pressures on WorkSafeBC, and we have yet to

have numbers pro