20200706pm Hansard n333

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fifth Session, 41st Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (HANSARD) Monday, July 6, 2020 Afternoon Sitting Issue No. 333 THE HONOURABLE DARRYL PLECAS, SPEAKER ISSN 1499-2175

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Janet Austin, OBC Fifth Session, 41st Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Darryl Plecas EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................... Hon. John Horgan Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance............................................................................................................................Hon.

Carole James Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Training..................................................................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Minister of Agriculture.........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Attorney General.................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

David Eby, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ............................................................................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Minister of State for Child Care...................................................................................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Minister of Citizens’ Services...................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Anne Kang Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................ Hon. Rob Fleming Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources ..................................................................................................... Hon. Bruce Ralston Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy............................................................................................. Hon.

George Heyman Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development ..............................................Hon. Doug Donaldson Minister of Health .....................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Adrian Dix Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon.

Scott Fraser Minister of Jobs, Economic Development and Competitiveness.............................................................................Hon. Michelle Mungall Minister of State for Trade...............................................................................................................................................Hon. George Chow Minister of Labour ...................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Minister of Mental Health and Addictions............................................................................................................................ Hon. Judy Darcy Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.................................................................................................................. Hon. Selina Robinson Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ........................................................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction..............................................................................................Hon. Shane Simpson Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture.....................................................................................................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure................................................................................................................ Hon.

Claire Trevena LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition................................................................................................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Leader of the Third Party .................................................................................................................................................................Adam Olsen Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Assistant Deputy Speaker............................................................................................................................................................. Simon Gibson Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ................................................................................................................ Spencer Chandra Herbert Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ...........................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel.............................................................................................................................. Seunghee Suzie Seo Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services...........................................................................................................................

Artour Sogomonian Clerk Assistant, Committees and Interparliamentary Relations ..............................................................................................Susan Sourial Senior Research Analyst ................................................................................................................................................................. Jennifer Arril Senior Research Analyst ...................................................................................................................................................................

Karan Riarh Acting Sergeant-at-Arms..................................................................................................................................................................Greg Nelson

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal) ......................................................................... Penticton Bains, Hon. Harry (NDP)................................................................ Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) .....................................................Cariboo-Chilcotin Beare, Hon. Lisa (NDP)..............................................

Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Begg, Garry (NDP) .......................................................................Surrey-Guildford Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal) .........................................................Peace River South Bond, Shirley (BC Liberal)...........................................Prince George–Valemount Brar, Jagrup (NDP).......................................................................Surrey-Fleetwood Cadieux, Stephanie (BC Liberal)........................................................

Surrey South Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) .......................................Vancouver–West End Chen, Hon. Katrina (NDP)...................................................... Burnaby-Lougheed Chouhan, Raj (NDP) .................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Chow, Hon. George (NDP).................................................Vancouver-Fraserview Clovechok, Doug (BC Liberal) ..................................Columbia River–Revelstoke Coleman, Rich (BC Liberal) ................................................................ Langley East Conroy, Hon.

Katrine (NDP)...........................................................Kootenay West Darcy, Hon. Judy (NDP) ............................................................. New Westminster Davies, Dan (BC Liberal) ........................................................... Peace River North de Jong, Michael, QC (BC Liberal) ..............................................Abbotsford West Dean, Mitzi (NDP)................................................................ Esquimalt-Metchosin D’Eith, Bob (NDP) ................................................................Maple Ridge–Mission Dix, Hon.

Adrian (NDP)....................................................... Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Hon. Doug (NDP)...................................................................... Stikine Eby, Hon. David, QC (NDP).............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP).........................................................Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Hon. Mike (NDP) ........................................................Port Coquitlam Fleming, Hon. Rob (NDP) ......................................................

Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal).............................................................Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Hon. Scott (NDP) ..................................................Mid Island–Pacific Rim Furstenau, Sonia (BC Green Party) .............................................Cowichan Valley Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ...................................................Abbotsford-Mission Glumac, Rick (NDP).........................................................Port Moody–Coquitlam Heyman, Hon. George (NDP) ................................................Vancouver-Fairview Horgan, Hon.

John (NDP) ................................................ Langford–Juan de Fuca Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) ........................................................ Surrey-Cloverdale Isaacs, Joan (BC Liberal) .......................................... Coquitlam–Burke Mountain James, Hon. Carole (NDP).................................................... Victoria–Beacon Hill Johal, Jas (BC Liberal).................................................Richmond-Queensborough Kahlon, Ravi (NDP)............................................................................... Delta North Kang, Hon.

Anne (NDP)......................................................... Burnaby–Deer Lake Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal)..............................................................................Shuswap Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .............................................. Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Michael (BC Liberal) ........................................................Vancouver-Langara Leonard, Ronna-Rae (NDP) ..................................................... Courtenay-Comox Letnick, Norm (BC Liberal).............................................

Kelowna–Lake Country Ma, Bowinn (NDP) .....................................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Malcolmson, Sheila (NDP) ........................................................................Nanaimo Mark, Hon. Melanie (NDP) .......................................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Martin, John (BC Liberal)....................................................................... Chilliwack Milobar, Peter (BC Liberal)..................................... Kamloops–North Thompson Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ........................................... Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Hon.

Michelle (NDP)......................................................Nelson-Creston Oakes, Coralee (BC Liberal) ............................................................ Cariboo North Olsen, Adam (BC Green Party)............................ Saanich North and the Islands Paton, Ian (BC Liberal).......................................................................... Delta South Plecas, Hon. Darryl (Ind.) ........................................................... Abbotsford South Polak, Mary (BC Liberal) ............................................................................. Langley Popham, Hon.

Lana (NDP)............................................................... Saanich South Ralston, Hon. Bruce (NDP) ............................................................Surrey-Whalley Redies, Tracy (BC Liberal) .......................................................Surrey–White Rock Reid, Linda (BC Liberal) ................................................. Richmond South Centre Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ............................................................................. North Coast Robinson, Hon.

Selina (NDP) .........................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Ross, Ellis (BC Liberal)................................................................................... Skeena Routledge, Janet (NDP) ....................................................................Burnaby North Routley, Doug (NDP) ................................................. Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, John (BC Liberal) ................................................................Nechako Lakes Shypitka, Tom (BC Liberal) ..............................................................

Kootenay East Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ......................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Hon. Shane (NDP)..................................................Vancouver-Hastings Sims, Jinny (NDP) ........................................................................ Surrey-Panorama Singh, Rachna (NDP) .........................................................Surrey–Green Timbers Stewart, Ben (BC Liberal) ................................................................. Kelowna West Stilwell, Michelle (BC Liberal)...............................................

Parksville-Qualicum Stone, Todd (BC Liberal)..........................................Kamloops–South Thompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal)........................................ West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal)................................................ Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ...........................................West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ................................................................. Fraser-Nicola Thomson, Steve (BC Liberal)......................................................

Kelowna-Mission Thornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) ...............................North Vancouver–Seymour Throness, Laurie (BC Liberal) .......................................................Chilliwack-Kent Trevena, Hon. Claire (NDP) ................................................................North Island Wat, Teresa (BC Liberal) ................................................. Richmond North Centre Weaver, Dr.

Andrew (Ind.)................................................Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Andrew, QC (BC Liberal) ................................Vancouver-Quilchena Y ap, John (BC Liberal)............................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission............................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South....................................................................... Hon. Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West......................................................................

Michael de Jong, QC Boundary-Similkameen...................................................................... Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake....................................................................... Hon. Anne Kang Burnaby-Edmonds................................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Burnaby North .................................................................................

Janet Routledge Cariboo-Chilcotin .............................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North.................................................................................... Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ............................................................................................... John Martin Chilliwack-Kent ...............................................................................Laurie Throness Columbia River–Revelstoke .........................................................

Doug Clovechok Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.................................................................. Joan Isaacs Coquitlam-Maillardville ...................................................... Hon. Selina Robinson Courtenay-Comox................................................................... Ronna-Rae Leonard Cowichan Valley .............................................................................

Sonia Furstenau Delta North.............................................................................................Ravi Kahlon Delta South ..................................................................................................Ian Paton Esquimalt-Metchosin ..............................................................................Mitzi Dean Fraser-Nicola .........................................................................................

Jackie Tegart Kamloops–North Thompson .............................................................Peter Milobar Kamloops–South Thompson..................................................................Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country .....................................................................Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission ..............................................................................

Steve Thomson Kelowna West ..........................................................................................Ben Stewart Kootenay East.......................................................................................Tom Shypitka Kootenay West........................................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Langford–Juan de Fuca .............................................................. Hon. John Horgan Langley .....................................................................................................

Mary Polak Langley East.........................................................................................Rich Coleman Maple Ridge–Mission.............................................................................. Bob D’Eith Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows............................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Mid Island–Pacific Rim................................................................ Hon. Scott Fraser Nanaimo......................................................................................

Sheila Malcolmson Nanaimo–North Cowichan............................................................... Doug Routley Nechako Lakes........................................................................................ John Rustad Nelson-Creston ................................................................... Hon. Michelle Mungall New Westminster........................................................................... Hon. Judy Darcy North Coast ...........................................................................................

Jennifer Rice North Island.............................................................................. Hon. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale................................................................... Bowinn Ma North Vancouver–Seymour........................................................Jane Thornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head............................................................Dr.

Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum.......................................................................Michelle Stilwell Peace River North ................................................................................... Dan Davies Peace River South ................................................................................ Mike Bernier Penticton ................................................................................................. Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam...................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam.......................................................................Rick Glumac Powell River–Sunshine Coast....................................................... Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie....................................................................Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ..................................................................

Shirley Bond Richmond North Centre..........................................................................Teresa Wat Richmond-Queensborough.........................................................................Jas Johal Richmond South Centre ......................................................................... Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ...................................................................................

John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands .............................................................Adam Olsen Saanich South .............................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Shuswap...................................................................................................... Greg Kyllo Skeena........................................................................................................... Ellis Ross Stikine....................................................................................Hon.

Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale ................................................................................ Marvin Hunt Surrey-Fleetwood.....................................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey–Green Timbers........................................................................Rachna Singh Surrey-Guildford......................................................................................Garry Begg Surrey-Newton ..............................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ...................................................................................... Jinny Sims Surrey South ................................................................................ Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Whalley ......................................................................... Hon. Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock .............................................................................. Tracy Redies Vancouver-Fairview.............................................................. Hon.

George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek........................................................................ Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview...............................................................Hon. George Chow Vancouver-Hastings ............................................................... Hon. Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington....................................................................... Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..................................................................... Hon.

Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara................................................................................ Michael Lee Vancouver–Mount Pleasant..................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Vancouver–Point Grey ............................................................Hon.

David Eby, QC Vancouver-Quilchena........................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Vancouver–West End .....................................................Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee ....................................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill.................................................................. Hon. Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake.................................................................... Hon. Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano...................................................................

Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky................................................................Jordan Sturdy Party Standings: BC Liberal 42; NDP 41; Independent 2; BC Green Party 2

CONTENTS Monday, July 6, 2020 Afternoon Sitting Page Routine Business Tributes ................................................................................................................................................................................... 11829 Ed Conroy Hon. M.

Farnworth Introductions by Members................................................................................................................................................... 11829 Statements (Standing Order 25B) ....................................................................................................................................... 11829 Nanaimo high school graduates S. Malcolmson Sorrento Centre and community response to COVID-19 G. Kyllo COVID-19 information and role of local media R. Singh Prince George business directory and Support PG program S. Bond SOS Children’s Village J. Sims B.C.

Grain Producers Association D. Davies Oral Questions....................................................................................................................................................................... 11831 Strata insurance cost increases A. Wilkinson Hon. S. Robinson J. Thornthwaite Government support for tourism industry A. Olsen Hon. L. Beare Strata insurance cost increases T. Stone Hon. S. Robinson J. Isaacs J. Johal M.

Hunt Tabling Documents............................................................................................................................................................... 11836 Office of the Auditor General, annual report, 2019-20 Office of the Auditor General, financial statements, 2019-20 Judicial Compensation Commission in respect of Provincial Court judges, government’s proposed reconsidered response to the 2019 final report, July 6, 2020 Judicial Compensation Commission in respect of Provincial Court judicial justices, government’s proposed reconsidered response to the 2019 final report, July 6, 2020 British Columbia Utilities Commission, annual report, 2018-19 Orders of the Day Committee of the Whole House.......................................................................................................................................... 11837 Bill 19 — COVID-19 Related Measures Act M.

Lee Hon. D. Eby A. Olsen A. Weaver Tabling Documents............................................................................................................................................................... 11859 Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, annual report, 2019-20

MONDAY , JULY 6, 2020 The House met at 1:33 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Tributes ED CONROY Hon. M. Farnworth:I’ d like to take a moment on some sad news to acknowledge the passing of Ed Conroy, the husband of the MLA for Kootenay West, who passed away on Friday at the age of 73. I had the privilege of being elected to this House back in 1991, along with Ed, who at that time represented the riding of Rossland-Trail. Ed served from 1991 to 2001. We sat next to each other down at that front bench, where the member for Saanich North and the Islands is sitting now. He was a wonderful individual.

Ed served as Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisher- ies and the Minister Responsible for Rural Development from 2000 to 2001. But he wasn’t just a member of this House. He was a father, a grandfather, a towboat operator, a school board trustee, a cattle rancher, and he helped to create what I think is his greatest legacy which was the Columbia River Basin trust. [1:35 p.m.] Ed was a remarkable individual for all of us on both sides of this House who knew him. He had many, many health challenges, including a liver transplant while he was a member.

Those of us who were here at that time — some members in the opposition and those of us in government — remember the difficulty and how he faced those chal- lenges with courage and determination that all of us will never forget. On behalf of the members of this House, I would like to express my sincere thanks for all of the work that Ed did for his community and this province. I would ask this House to extend and express their deep- est condolences to Ed’s family and to Katrine, the member for Kootenay West. Introductions by Members J.

Sims: It’s my pleasure today to stand up and introduce to the House Sohan Singh Walia, who came to Canada over three decades ago from Ranipur village in Phagwara, Punjab — surprisingly, a village very close to where I was born. He is a proud great-great-great-grandfather. He has been involved inseva, or service, in various gurdwaras in the Lower Mainland, and today is the oldest volunteer at Gurdwara Dukh Nivaran, where he works side by side with his son, Narinder Singh. Although he has to be more careful during COVID-19, he insists on being picked up and brought to the gurdwara every single day.

He stops by the gurdwara, where he can share his stories and encour- age volunteers and occasionally help as well. Much to his disappointment, he had to give up cycling two years ago. On July 1, he turned 100 years old. He was honoured at the opening of the Guru Nanak food bank, which was a fit- ting celebration for his years and years of service. Please help me celebrate and mark the 100th birthday for Sohan Singh Walia. Statements (Standing Order 25B) NANAIMO HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES S. Malcolmson:I rise to congratulate Nanaimo high school graduates.

COVID-19 has presented new challenges to our prov- ince that we could never have seen coming. Students here have risen to this challenge and met it with great heart. So congratulations, Nanaimo high school stu- dents, who graduated in a global pandemic. Who else has ever done that? Y ou overcame a lot this year. We are proud of you, proud of grads from NDSS, from Career Technical Centre, from Island ConnectEd, Wellington Secondary, Nanaimo Christian School, Tsawalk Learning Centre, and Learning Alternatives, which celebrated the most alternate student graduates in school district 68 history this year.

Of all years, this is the year they had a record. Learning Alternatives had a two-day event to space out the students for physical distancing. Their principal, Chad Jobe, who some of you might remember as an award win- ner…. He and some of his fellow teachers were recognized by the Premier for teaching excellence. This was his take. He said: “Students came out in their regalia and were honoured. They really got their moment on stage. All of the staff was cheering. We needed lozenges after all of that, but our hearts were full. Our valedictorians were amazing.

Shyla Athey from Heiltsuk Nation gave a moving tribute to her peers and her ancestors. ” That’s just a testament to how proud Nanaimo teachers are of their students, always, but especially what they’ve overcome this year. Our government has been working really hard to keep people safe and protect health and homes and livelihoods during the pandemic, and as we recover as a province from COVID-19, students finished an extraordinary year. Special thanks to the parents, the school staff — all of them. The volunteers worked especially hard to make grad and prom very special in an extraordinary year.

We’re thankful to all of you and proud of all of you. 11829

SORRENTO CENTRE AND COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO COVID-19 G. Kyllo:Today it gives me great pleasure to rise and share with the House some extraordinary work being done by some of my constituents, who have found a way to give back to the community, even while experiencing the chal- lenges of COVID-19. The Sorrento Centre, located along the banks of Shuswap Lake in Sorrento, is a popular des- tination that is used for retreats, conferences and other events, as well as camping and dining. [1:40 p.m.] Like many spaces of this nature, it quickly found itself unable to operate as normal, due to COVID restrictions.

Though facing a sharp decline in revenue, they shifted their focus to giving back to their community. The execut- ive director of the Sorrento Centre, Michael Shapcott, and his team saw an opportunity to support a community that was facing food bank shortages, a severe reduction in tour- ism revenue and a worsening situation for those already facing difficulties.

Soon after the onset of the pandemic, the Sorrento Centre helped convene an emergency coalition of more than 50 groups — including public health officials, local governments, social agencies, women’s shelters, homeless shelters and community organizations such as the Salva- tion Army — to collaborate on how to meet the needs of the community, which included increasing, growing food insecurity. Since the last week of March, the Sorrento Centre has prepared more than 6,000 quality, nutritious meals for those in need, at an average of 140 a day.

The team works with its partners to distribute meals throughout the Shuswap area, including the city of Salmon Arm. The Sorrento Centre had two key goals at the start of the meal program: to act quickly in order to respond to the urgency of the situation and to make sure that food distributed to the community would be healthy and nutritious. I’ d like to thank Michael Shapcott and his team at the Sorrento Centre for their dedication to the people of the region and for focusing their efforts on helping those in need. COVID-19 INFORMATION AND ROLE OF LOCAL MEDIA R.

Singh: This spring, as COVID-19 took hold in B.C., the world changed before our eyes. The amount of new information shared with us during the early days of the pandemic was, at times, overwhelming. We began to be asked to social distance, stay at home and wash our hands often. New announcements came every day about how communities, governments and everyone else was work- ing to slow the spread of COVID-19. In order to start addressing the pandemic, we needed to begin to understand it.

In my home city of Surrey, under- standing the pandemic is something we could not have done without the tireless work of our local media. Surrey is one of the most diverse cities in all of Canada. Our local media reflects that great diversity, whether it’s the vibrant network of local Punjabi radio stations, our local people that publish in a multitude of languages or our dedicated multicultural TV stations. Since the pandemic began, these media outlets, big and small, have been working tirelessly to share public health information to audiences.

In Surrey, as we tried to make sense of how to keep our families, our communities and ourselves safe, our local radio stations, newspapers and TV stations worked around the clock to bring important information to our communities. These outlets became yet another group of essential workers, delivering important information to the community in multiple languages. I want to recognize Surrey’s media hosts, journalists, producers and staff for the incredible contributions they have made to Surrey during this pandemic.

To every local station and paper in Surrey that has stepped up, thank you for everything you have done and for everything you con- tinue to do to help our communities stay informed and stay safe during these challenging times. PRINCE GEORGE BUSINESS DIRECTORY AND SUPPORT PG PROGRAM S. Bond: The impacts of COVID-19 have been felt by all of us. While our primary focus has been on the health crisis that the pandemic caused, we all recognize that the economy has also changed dramatically and that small businesses in particular have struggled to survive.

Sadly, some have already been forced to close their doors, lay off employees and deal with uncertain cash flow. Support PG started as a directory of local businesses that were listed on the Prince George chamber of com- merce website to inform residents about which busi- nesses were still operating. It has since grown into a much larger initiative. The Support PG directory has become a centralized access point for resources that have been announced by all levels of government.

It is home to the “open now” list- ings, where our community can find out what businesses are operating and how they can support them by shop- ping local. Businesses can easily add their information and highlight some of the creative ways they are providing services during these unprecedented times, including takeout, curbside and online shopping options. [1:45 p.m.] But there is more. Residents are encouraged to take the Support PG pledge to show their commitment to Prince George businesses. There is also a

section that highlights local heroes, sharing heartwarming and inspiring stories about people who have stepped up and made a significant difference during these challenging days. Y ou can also 11830 British Columbia Debates Monday, July 6, 2020

learn about Takeout Wednesday and Thankful Thursday. While the initiative was started by Todd Corrigall and the team at the PG Chamber of Commerce, 11 community organizations partnered to create the centralized Support PG website. I want to say thank you for the vision and hard work that led to the Support PG program. Now more than ever, we need to shop local, and Support PG is an excellent resource for those of us who call Prince George home. SOS CHILDREN’S VILLAGE J. Sims: Today I want to talk about a little, well-hidden gem in Surrey-Panorama.

Many of us have heard of SOS Children’s Village, which, as we know, exists in 136 nations, and they have 559 villages with a seat at the UN to be the voice for the rights of children. Well, nestled in the heart of my riding, in a really suburban area, is the only SOS Children’s Village in Canada. The village in Surrey is comprised of five foster families living side by side, with 27 children, 18 caregivers, five youth-in-transition suites and a village community centre on two and a half acres of wooded land.

It is a welcoming community of belonging, where everyone is part of a fam- ily, a family that is focused on providing care, consistency and healing. From the outside, it looks like any other street in our community. It’s only when you walk through those doors and you enter the 21/2 acres that you realize that you have truly entered an oasis. With a three-year organizational commitment to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, so proud that this village has committed part of their budget for Indigenous reconciliation to make sure that their staff gets the sensitivity training they need.

This takes courage, but it also takes trust and accountability. The village has developed amazing supports and part- nerships in the community, many of which are on hold during the pandemic, like many other things. The music lessons, the experiential outdoor education centre and academic clubs. I know that I’m going to be running out of time, so let me get to the most important thing I wanted to say today, which is a huge shout-out to the young people who stay at this place. I would like to say thank you to them and also to the amazing staff.

I know these last few months have been challenging, and the next few months will be as well. But their resiliency is amazing and awe-inspiring. Thank you for making a difference in so many lives. B.C. GRAIN PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION D. Davies: I’ d like to take a minute to recognize the B.C. Grain Producers Association. The B.C. Grain Produ- cers are comprised of grain and oil seed producers from throughout British Columbia. The association represents farmers from all over the province, with the majority of its members located in the Peace region.

The Peace region is typically associated with the oil and gas, mining and forest industry, which is no doubt very important to the families that I represent. But we also have the largest agricultural region in the province. Our 1,800 farms produce $100 million annually, including 90 percent of B.C. ’s grain and 95 percent of B.C. ’s canola. The purpose of the B.C. Grain Producers is to improve the viability of the grains and oil seed industry.

In addition to representing the interests of B.C. producers on local, provincial and federal levels, the association also has a research department, where grains and oil seeds are grown on a research farm located in Fort St. John, which our agriculture critic had the pleasure to visit last year. This research allows new crop varieties to be strategically tested in a northern climate to allow for successful adaptation to a short growing season. Peace region farmers are still, though, reeling from the disastrous 2019 fall harvest.

Due to cold temperatures, heavy rains and an early snowfall, many crops remained on the farmers’ fields and still do today. The crops that did come off were wet and needed to be dried, presenting chal- lenges to farmers that do not have the facilitates to dry the grain, and it added significant costs. [1:50 p.m.] As farmers struggle to salvage crops this spring, they face quantity and quality losses as well as lost time to plant this year’s crops. On top of all this, commodity prices are low, and farmers are worried. They need help.

As we look across the province today, rain, rain and more rain is in the forecast, leading to some significant challenges to farmers in the Peace country. Now more than ever it’s time to recognize our B.C. grain producers. Would the House please join me in thanking the board president, Rick Kantz; directors Malcolm Oder- matt, Barry Follensbee, Walter Fritsche, Robert Vander Linden, Ernest Wiebe, Ed Hadland and Jennifer Critcher; and the B.C. Grain Producers for the incredible work that they do in representing our B.C. grain farmers. Oral Questions STRATA INSURANCE COST INCREASES A.

Wilkinson:More than one million people live in strata condominiums and townhomes in the Lower Main- land. Hundreds of thousands of others live in strata facil- ities in British Columbia. Under this government, these more than one million British Columbians are facing a very serious insurance crisis. Last week I heard directly from more than 100 people on a telephone town hall who were worried sick. They’re frustrated by this government’s lack of action on the issue of strata insurance. They’re looking for solutions.

This is what one of them, Marilyn, told me: “Our owners are seni- Monday, July 6, 2020 British Columbia Debates 11831

ors on fixed incomes, young families with their first mort- gages, and they’re facing financial ruin right now. ” Can the Premier please explain to Marilyn and the other 100 people on that call why his government has done nothing that will actually reduce their costs on strata insurance as they face financial ruin? Hon. S. Robinson:I know that members on all sides of this House recognize the challenges and the urgency of addressing these concerns. Our bill that we have tabled in the Legislature includes many suggestions — in fact, many measures — that we heard from the opposition.

They mentioned that a good bill would include clarifying what should be covered by insurance, notifying owners of changes to their coverage, as well as strengthening depre- ciation reports. All of that is in the bill that we proposed. We’re continuing to engage with others around this very particular issue. I must, of course, emphasize what we heard from the B.C. Financial Services Authority. They were very clear. They said that there are no quick fixes and that everyone has a role to play. I’m eager for the debate around our bill that we’ve proposed.

I know that that will bring relief to many who are looking for some relief. Mr. Speaker:The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental. A. Wilkinson:That answer typifies the response of this government, in that it makes no difference whatsoever to Marilyn and those 100 people on that telephone town hall, because the bill does nothing to reduce their costs, noth- ing at all. The minister refers to suggestions we have made.

We’ve made a dozen suggestions — things like taking off the 4.4 percent tax that is suddenly a massive revenue windfall for this government because of the rapid increase in strata insurance fees. Why can’t that be taken off these strata owners, who are facing financial ruin? Instead, they’re being gouged for a revenue windfall for this government. Real steps can be taken, like a water damage prevention program that we suggested. None of this has been taken up by this government in the midst of this crisis affecting more than one million households in this province.

Will the Premier, who sits opposite me here, admit that his plan will not help Marilyn at all? Does this Premier intend to continue to extract a windfall 4.4 percent tax on this massive increase in strata insurance fees? Hon. S. Robinson:Well, we have heard from experts in the area that do speak to the introduction of our bill and about how critical it is to address these concerns.

Chuck Byrne, the executive director of the Insurance Brokers Association of B.C., said that our changes will be critical foundational pieces, that these are first steps necessary to stabilize the strata insurance market in the province. [1:55 p.m.] Tony Gioventu, the executive director of the Con- dominium Home Owners Association of British Colum- bia, says that this is a great start. He says: “I definitely want to resound a high level of support to the government for introducing these amendments. ” We are taking significant steps that will make a difference to people in strata insur- ance situations. J.

Thornthwaite:In that same Zoom conference call, we also heard from Jack, who lives in Ladner. On New Y ear’s Eve, he was told there was no insurance company willing to insure his strata. When he finally did get the coverage, it was a 310 percent increase on his strata insurance premiums. To the Minister of Housing, what action is she taking right now that will help provide financial relief to Jack and his fellow property owners? Hon. S. Robinson:Like I said before, we have tabled a bill. We have worked very quickly.

Hearing the concerns that were raised towards the end of 2019, we moved very quickly to bring in legislation to address some of these concerns. I want to point out that Tony Gioventu, again, said on CKNW , just on June 23, that the initiatives that they’ve taken in this bill are going to have a positive effect for consumers. I look forward to debating the bill in the House. I look forward to it passing so that we can take some significant steps to make a difference for these strata property owners. Mr. Speaker:North Vancouver–Seymour on a supple- mental. J. Thornthwaite:Minister, we don’t want any more studies.

These people that were on this Zoom call are really suffering. They can’t afford these increases, and they want help now. Jack went on to say that it is very distressing this year not to get insurance and then to get insurance that was 310 percent higher. But now he’s worried about next year. What is the minister going to do about next year? This is not an isolated case. Families to seniors all across this province are suffering with this strata stress. Again to the Minister of Housing, what steps is she doing now to provide immediate assistance to the thou- sands of distressed condo and townhouse owners? Hon. S.

Robinson:Well, we tabled legislation, and I’m very proud of the fact that we tabled legislation and that we did it quickly because we’ve heard these concerns. This legislation will address some of the underlying factors behind these increases. We’re taking action to end referral fees paid to property managers. We’re closing loopholes around depreciation reports that, I have to say, were left by the old government. 11832 British Columbia Debates Monday, July 6, 2020

We’re bringing more transparency to the industry, and we’re giving strata owners the tools that they need to do their part. We are taking significant steps with this piece of legislation, and I look forward to it passing here in the House. GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR TOURISM INDUSTRY A. Olsen:The cruise season is cancelled. The borders remain closed, and international travel will be limited for the foreseeable future. The B.C. government is encour- aging summer staycations to support the tourism sector devastated by COVID-19.

People should get out and explore our beautiful province, as long as they follow the provincial health guidelines and restrictions and restric- tions posted by First Nations. However, the situation is bleak. One in five tourism businesses faces bankruptcy. A report from Destination B.C. titledValue of Tourism2007 to 2017, shows that as of 2017, British Columbians made up 53 percent of the vis- itors but only just about 29 percent of the spending in the tourism sector. Even if we double the number of British Columbians touring locally, we would only be at just above half the regular spending.

My question is to the Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture. We know that a large increase in local tourism will not make up for lost revenue, yet Destination B.C. is set to spend record numbers on marketing local tourism this summer. As this will not close the gap, what oth- er measures are coming that will ensure tourism oper- ators have the lifeline they need to not close their doors forever? Hon. L. Beare:I want to thank the leader of the Green Party for this question. Our government knows and understands that the tourism sector has been particularly hard hit by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The tourism industry understands and knows that a public health response and us keeping the curve flat is key to our recov- ery here so that we can continue to explore every corner of our province. We have been working very closely with the tourism industry to hear what supports they need as we all work together on B.C. ’s recovery plan. [2:00 p.m.] For example, in May, we provided $10 million to 59 community destination marketing organizations to help them welcome guests across B.C. once again.

We’ve worked with the federal government and encouraged and advocated for programs from their government as well, including the $1.5 million to support B.C. ’s tourism resili- ency programs and Indigenous tourism businesses. It’s really important to note for the member that British Columbians have worked so hard to follow Dr. Henry’s advice. That has allowed us to be in phase 3 so that people can travel again across the province.

We know that’s not a silver bullet — having British Columbians be able to travel — but we are working with the tourism sector to address their needs and to have those conversations on what they need as we move towards recovery. Mr. Speaker:Leader, Third Party, on a supplemental. A. Olsen:For many tourism businesses, the 2020 year is already lost. Butchart Gardens, for example, in my riding — their revenue has plummeted. And they estimate that the B.C. source market would only add a few percentage points to help them out.

For the tourism sector, this is a marathon that they’re facing, and they need more help than they’re getting. Industry leaders have been crystal-clear. They need liquid- ity rescue and payroll support to retain staff and stay afloat. Otherwise, we are likely to see many tourism businesses in our province fail. COVID-19 has decimated the ministry’s strategic framework and Destination B.C. ’s strategic plan. For tourism operators to keep their doors open, they need a plan that gives them certainty over the next 18 months and into the future. My question is, again, for the Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture.

The summer season is over for most oper- ators. Advertising is too little, too late. When will we see updated plans from the provincial government and Crown corp. that will address the supply-side issues and put a sec- tor-specific plan in place that will help tourism operators stay in business over the next few years? Hon. L. Beare: Our government has been listening.

And we have been working very, very closely and working regularly with groups like the Tourism Industry Associ- ation of B.C., the regional destination marketing organiz- ations, sector associations and businesses directly, who’ve asked us for a range of supports. We’ve provided a number of these supports, such as…. The sector asked for a program encouraging work- ers who’ve lost their jobs as a result of the pandemic to help them find work. So we partnered with go2 HR to help match workers with other sectors, including the agritourism.

The sector asked if we could help provide support and extend a one-time grant to sector associations. We know how important these organizations are for the tourism industry’s recovery, and Destination B.C. provided $400,000 to 15 sector organizations. We’re going to continue working very closely with them. We have ongoing dialogue as part of our recovery plan that the Premier and the Deputy Premier laid out in the past weeks. We’re going to keep working closely with the sector. We’ve been taking actions to provide the right supports for this important sector.

We’re going to take action to make sure that we provide the supports they need moving for- ward towards recovery. Monday, July 6, 2020 British Columbia Debates 11833

Thank you to the member for asking such great ques- tions for such an important sector here in B.C. STRATA INSURANCE COST INCREASES T. Stone:The financial impact of skyrocketing strata insurance costs on British Columbians is, frankly, massive. Some have seen their monthly fees go up by a couple hun- dred dollars per month, some more. Others are facing one- time assessments of often thousands of dollars. Leanne in Penticton is facing an 800 percent increase in her strata’s insurance premium — 800 percent.

She had this to say: “With this shocking amount that we’re being offered, we’re being advised by our lawyers that we really don’t have an option but to take it. ” My question is this. To the Premier, why will the Pre- mier not offer Leanne and the thousands of British Col- umbians just like her the financial relief that they so des- perately need? [2:05 p.m.] Hon. S. Robinson:I certainly have heard from folks like Leanne and others around how challenging it is. And it is very difficult. It’s an issue that we started to see very late in 2019. We certainly heard from the B.C.

Financial Ser- vices Authority that this is not just limited to here in Brit- ish Columbia. We’re seeing it elsewhere, although it is a significant challenge here in British Columbia because of some additional risks. I want to say that we have recognized — I think every- body has recognized — that this is not an issue where there is an easy fix. Certainly, the B.C. Financial Services Authority has said that. In fact, the member for Kam- loops–South Thompson himself said: “There is no silver bullet. ” That was back in February of this year on CKNW .

He even points out that their own proposals are “not going to solve the problem in and of itself. ” We recognize that we have some work to do. We have brought forward some legislation. I look forward to debat- ing that legislation and having it pass in the House so that we can do the work that people need us to do. That is to help mitigate some of the challenges they are seeing so that people can rest assured that there is a government that has their interests at heart and in mind and in effort and so that we can start to tackle this challenge. Mr. Speaker:Kamloops–South Thompson on a supple- mental. T.

Stone:For months now, strata owners all across Brit- ish Columbia have been pleading with this government to provide them with some financial relief. Instead, the government’s plan, which they announced recently, prom- ises more studies and engagements and consultations and changes that will take a significant amount of time to actu- ally make any kind of a difference for people who are facing this financial distress. The last thing that people need is another study. People don’t have time to waste. They need financial support, and they need that support now.

Leanne wants to know how are we going to help strata owners get back on their feet. Again, my question is this. Why is the Premier leaving strata owners in significant financial distress by not providing them with any financial support whatsoever? Hon. S. Robinson: We have a bill, which is on the table, that is going to bring some significant relief. It is going to end the practice of referral fees between insurers and property managers. We know that that drives up premiums.

It sets up clear guidelines for what should be covered by insurance to help strata councils make informed decisions when they choose their policies. It requires greater trans- parency for condo owners on their strata’s insurance cov- erage, including notice of any policy changes and increas- ing deductibles, so that they can plan appropriately. It allows stratas to use their contingency reserve fund to pay for any unexpected premium increases. We know that this has been very, very difficult for them.

It also protects strata unit owners against large lawsuits from strata corporations if the owner was legally responsible for a loss or damage. We have a bill that’s before the House. I look forward to the debate and to passing it so that we can bring the relief that these strata owners desperately need. J. Isaacs:Jack is a senior living in Coquitlam. He’s upset, and he’s worried. His insurance went up 200 percent, increasing his maintenance fee by an additional $115 per month just due to the insurance.

He cannot see one good reason for such a year-over-year increase in his building, and he wonders why they even bother with insurance, except that it is in the Strata Act. Jack wants to know how he is supposed to enjoy his retirement without any money. To the Minister of Housing, will she take immediate steps to help seniors like Jack with rising insurance premi- ums? Hon. S. Robinson:I appreciate Jack’s challenges around how to manage these unexpected costs. This is a challenge for many right across our province, which is why we took very significant steps and brought in legislation. It’s before the House.

I look forward to the debate. I look forward to it passing so that we can implement these changes and bring relief to people living in stratas in this province. Mr. Speaker: The member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain on a supplemental. [2:10 p.m.] 11834 British Columbia Debates Monday, July 6, 2020

J. Isaacs:Not only is Jack dealing with high premium costs. His deductibles also increased. The water damage deductible went up tenfold, from $15,000 to $150,000, making the suite insurance also more expensive. Jack is asking for help. He can’t afford these deductibles. To the Minister of Housing, what steps will she take to provide seniors and residents assurance that they won’t lose their homes due to the high cost of premiums and deductibles? Hon. S.

Robinson: I again want to reiterate how important it is that we bring in this legislation and that we pass it in this House, because it is going to help make a difference to people like Jack and the others that the oth- er members opposite have presented to us. These are real concerns, and they’re valid concerns. We are committed to working together with the insur- ance industry, with the condo strata folks, Tony Gioventu and others to make sure that we can tackle what is a chal- lenging issue, not just here in British Columbia but in the insurance industry itself.

In fact, we heard from Aaron Sutherland, who is with the Insurance Bureau of Canada. This is what he had to say: “Today’s reforms” — he’s speaking to the introduction of our bill — “are an important first step to help improve strata risk and the affordability and availability of strata insurance over the long term. ” We’re committed to continuing to deliver for the people living with very difficult strata insurance challenges. J. Johal:I was listening to the minister here. What she seems to forget is that people need help now, today.

Y et all the government has done is make minor changes with promises to talk some more. Here’s what Marilyn, who lives in Richmond, had to say about all of this talk: “Our owners can’t renew their mortgages. They can’t renegotiate them, and worst of all, we can’t even sell a unit anymore, so their own home equity is vanishing, and our owners are terrified. ” To the Minister of Housing, why won’t she help people like Marilyn right now? Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I want to remind every- body about the fact that strata corporations can use their reserve funds for unexpected increases.

That is some- thing that is in this bill. We are being responsive with this bill. Again, there is a range of issues that we have identified. We have put them in this bill here. I look for- ward to members opposite working with us to make sure that this bill passes quickly so that we can make sure that those who need relief can get the relief that they are seeking from all of us. Mr. Speaker:The member for Richmond-Queensbor- ough on a supplemental. J. Johal:There is no relief in that bill that has been intro- duced by this minister. The minister also said that strata owners can use their reserve fund.

My response to that would be: what would you do in year 2? That’s the problem here. There’s an urgency to this. She keeps talking about this bill. It doesn’t answer the core question. At the end of the day, there are 900,000 condo units in British Columbia — 600,000 in Vancouver alone. That’s a significant amount of B.C. taxpayers who are now on the verge of having their life savings wiped out. We’ve offered up dozens of ideas on our side, and strata owners have offered up ideas that could be implemented right now. But this government does nothing while strata own- ers anguish.

To the Minister of Housing once again, why won’t she provide strata owners real assistance now? Hon. S. Robinson:Again, I want to point out that there is a range of detail in this bill that we have proposed that will bring relief in the long term. I know that strata owners are living there for the long term, and they’re looking for long-term relief. So clarifying what should be covered by insurance is really critical, making sure that we can strengthen the depreciation reports. I have to say that the previous government didn’t address that. It left a loophole.

We are fixing that so that we can mitigate the risks, so that we can make sure that people can get the insurance that they need. This is a step towards a long-term fix to a situation that is very challenging right now. There is no doubt about that. No one is suggesting otherwise. [2:15 p.m.] We’re taking significant steps. Again, I want to leave this chamber with the fact that even the member for Kam- loops–South Thompson said — I’m going to reiterate this — on CKNW , on February 25 just this year, that there’s no silver bullet.

He said that even their own proposals that they were putting forward are “not going to solve the prob- lem in and of itself. ” So I know that the opposition recognizes that there’s a long-term challenge here that we need to address. We are taking immediate steps. We are eliminating the abil- ity for referral fees to happen between insurers and property managers, because that drives up premiums. We’re setting out clear guidelines for what should be covered by insurance.

We’re allowing strata corporations to use contingency reserve funds to pay for unexpected premium increases, because we know that that’s urgent and that needs to hap- pen. They need some help. We’re protecting strata unit owners against large lawsuits from strata corporations if the owner was legally responsible for loss and damage. We’re also outlining when stratas are not required to get full coverage. We’re strengthening depreciation require- ments. We’re changing the minimum required contribu- Monday, July 6, 2020 British Columbia Debates 11835

tions made by strata unit owners and developers to the contingency reserve fund. We are working diligently, and we’re working closely with the insurance sector. We’re working with the B.C. Fin- ancial Services Authority. We’re working with the Con- dominium Home Owners Association. Everybody has a role to play. I look forward to the debate in the House, and I look forward to the bill passing quickly. M. Hunt:Diana notes that her strata faced a 280 percent increase in their strata insurance premiums and that they did, in fact, dip into their capital reserve funds to pay for it.

But that’s not any kind of a solution. As Diana says: “We can’t do that every year. We’ll run out of our funds. ” To the Minister of Housing, a simple question: does she want the strata owners to go bankrupt? Hon. S. Robinson:What I want is for people to have access to the appropriate insurance that they need. This bill helps us to get there. It’s about clarifying what needs to be covered. It’s about making sure that people have depre- ciation reports.

It’s about making sure that the appropri- ate risk is mitigated so that the insurance sector has some comfort in knowing that they, too, can make money in the private sector. This is a challenge — absolutely. It’s a challenge for all the strata owners in the province. No one is denying that. We need to be working together in order to deliver the kind of resolution that people need. A resolution means fixing the loophole, for example, around the depreciation reports.

Really, it’s been a loop- hole, I would say, left by the previous government, when strata owners could opt out of putting together a depreci- ation report. What we’re saying is: why should you be able to opt out? If you don’t know what you’re going to have to do to maintain your property, then it creates a significant risk. The risk profile, then, is a real challenge for the insur- ance company. What we’re saying is that we need to mitigate those risks, and we’re putting rules in place that will help mit- igate those risks. That’s what we need.

We need a robust insurance framework here in the province of British Col- umbia so that we have the competition that is so needed. I know that the members opposite value competition. They recognize what that means for people. We don’t have that right now. So making sure that we have a more robust insurance product available here in British Columbia will be better for consumers. The legislation that we have pro- posed will help us get there, will help us reduce those risks. The other thing it’s going to do is, it’s going to bring transparency. Right now….

I have to say, I was quite shocked when I learned that there was the opportunity to get a referral fee between insurers and property managers. We’re putting an end to that practice. It’s unacceptable. [2:20 p.m.] There’s a lot of work for us to do here. I look forward to the debate from all the members on the opposite side, making sure that they support this bill, to get it moving forward, so that strata owners can have the relief that they’re looking for and can have the long-term knowledge that they are going to have insurance products that they can purchase at a reasonable fee. Mr.

Speaker:The member for Surrey-Cloverdale on a supplemental. M. Hunt:Well, nearly 15,000 people have signed a peti- tion asking the government for immediate help. These are people who are now facing paying more in strata fees than they actually pay in their mortgages. As one signee said: “This is not fair or right for people that have put their life savings into their homes. ” Again to the Minister of Housing, will she take immedi- ate steps to help these thousands of strata owners that need the help now? Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I want to…. I guess I’m going to finish off by reiterating what I started with.

The B.C. Financial Services Authority was very clear. There are no quick fixes, and I know that that is hard. It’s hard for all of us — I think everyone in this House. I certainly feel for those who are challenged now with these incred- ible insurance costs. But they also said that everyone has a role to play. As a government, we have a role to play, and that is about bringing in legislation to help mitigate these challenges, reducing risks so that the insurance industry recognizes that there’s reasonable opportunity, reasonable return for insuring these properties.

Again, even the member for Kamloops–South Thomp- son…. I’m going to say it one more time. Even he said that there’s no silver bullet.

He said that even their own propos- als are “not going to solve the problem in and of itself. ” I look forward to continuing to work with the oppos- ition, making sure that we can deliver on legislation that starts to get at these challenges, starts to mitigate the risk, so that the insurance industry sees that there is a viable industry here for them, and that people will have choice — that consumers will have choice and be able to purchase product that best meets their needs. [End of question period.] Tabling Documents Mr.

Speaker:Members, I have the honour to present the following two reports from the Office of the Auditor General of British Columbia, the first being theAnnual Report 2019-20; secondly,Financial Statements 2019-20. Hon. D. Eby: I rise to table two documents respecting 11836 British Columbia Debates Monday, July 6, 2020

judicial compensation in British Columbia. They are gov- ernment’s proposed response to theJudicial Compensation Commission 2019 Final Report in respect of Provincial Court judges and government’s proposed response to the Judicial Compensation Commission 2019 Final Report in respect of Provincial Court judicial justices. I also have the honour to present the British Columbia Utilities Commission annual report for 2018-19. Orders of the Day Hon. M. Farnworth:I call committee stage on Bill 19. [2:25 p.m.] Committee of the Whole House BILL 19 — COVID-19 RELATED MEASURES ACT The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 19; S. Gibson in the chair. The committee met at 2:29 p.m. On

section 1. M. Lee: The comments made by the Attorney General and the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General on second reading….

I would like to, just at the front end of this bill, take the opportunity to walk through it so we have a common understanding of the nature of why this bill has come forward. [2:30 p.m.] Certainly, we all recognize the importance of our Emergency Program Act and the emergency orders that this government has put in place — over 30 emergency orders over the last 11 weeks — and the importance of ensuring that we have a smooth transition, as we go forward, through the balance of this pandemic and the aftermath of it.

But I’ d like to just start here in terms of understanding, and recognizing, as well, that there is the ongoing work done by this government to modernize the Emergency Program Act. So certainly, I acknowledge that. In the course of that work, we’ve had COVID-19 occur. That, as we’ve heard from the government, has led to certain refinements or adjustments or amendments to the Emer- gency Program Act to come forward in this Bill 19. As we look at this, the Ombudsperson did quite a bit of work to review the Emergency Program Act and the 30-plus emergency orders that were put forward by the government.

In the comments that the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General indicated…. He said: “The Ombudsperson thinks that we should have done things differently. I respect that, but we disagree. ” Could I ask: in what areas did the government dis- agree with the Ombudsperson in how they brought for- ward changes to this act and the emergency orders themselves? Hon. D. Eby:I am joined virtually by staff, who include but are not limited to Alex Stirling, Natalie Barnes, Paul Craven and Heather Fraser, both from my ministry and Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. I thank the member for the question.

I think the core of the disagreement with the Ombudsperson is that our…. First of all, I think it’s important the member understands that this bill was prepared independently of the Ombud- sperson’s report and is not a response to the report, but it does address some of the issues raised by the Ombudsper- son. The core of our disagreement is that the Ombudsper- son is of the opinion that the authority for, I believe it was, two or three of the orders just didn’t exist.

Our position is that when the act says that the Public Safety Minister can do any act or establish any process, that includes the acts and processes that were established during the emergency. So we have a difference of opinion on that. But it may be of no moment — that disagreement — because the proposed amendments here in the bill address that issue, regardless of your perspective on that legal issue. The important thing to underline is that there is the modernization of the act and that work will continue on that process.

I don’t think that anybody expected — but that is the nature of an emergency — to have an emergency arise in the period that we were engaging in the process of reviewing and modernizing the act. The Ombudsperson’s report, his suggestions, will definitely be included and con- sidered as part of the broader reform, as will, I know, prob- ably additional pieces of feedback that the Ombudsperson may have to share. So there’s definitely a core disagreement on that one piece.

But I think that, in terms of the bill that’s in front of the House, regardless of your perspective on that legal issue, the bill should address it. [2:35 p.m.] M. Lee: I appreciate the response and do acknowledge that the Ombudsperson, in his report, acknowledged the correction, at least to one order, and the understanding that legislation was coming forward and then went on, of course, to provide recommendations for the government to consider as to what adjustments ought to be considered to be made to the Emergency Program Act.

Those recom- mendations, though, we certainly will be talking through in the balance of this committee process. I wanted to note that in terms of…. Because of the sig- nificant body of work that was done by the Ombudsper- son and his office on short order, in the midst of this emer- gency, provincially and elsewhere, I think it’s important that we understand and look at some of the important Monday, July 6, 2020 British Columbia Debates 11837

points that were considered to understand the govern- ment’s responses. One of the indications is that…. On page 18 of the Ombudsperson’s report, he indicates that he and his office proceeded with the investigation of the government’s emergency orders “despite government’s objections and without its cooperation. ” To the Attorney General, did the Attorney General in any way restrict the investigative powers of the Ombud- sperson, including under

section 18 of the Ombudsper- son Act? Hon. D. Eby: I’m afraid I don’t understand the mem- ber’s question. I don’t understand how I could restrict the Ombudsperson’s authority to do the Ombudsperson’s job. It would be helpful for me if he could clarify how he believed that I might do that. M. Lee:I’m first referring to a statement that was found on page 18 of the report. It indicates that when the Ombudsperson and his office proceeded with the investig- ation, he did so without….

On the top of the page: “In pro- ceeding with the investigation despite government’s objec- tions and without its cooperation…. ” I’m just trying to understand — having not spoken dir- ectly with the Ombudsperson, only on the basis of his report, which has now been made public — the nature of that statement. I would suggest to the Attorney General that when we look at

section 18 of the Ombudsperson Act, there is an ability of the Attorney General to make certain certifica- tions under the act, which would suggest that it would lim- it the inquiry of the Ombudsperson into certain matters.

For example, where the Attorney General certifies that giv- ing the information would “result in or involve the dis- closure of proceedings of the Executive Council or a com- mittee of it, relating to matters of a secret or confidential nature and that the disclosure would be contrary or preju- dicial to the public interest. ” I’m just trying to understand, when I look at a statement in the Ombudsperson’s report, where it is that the gov- ernment did not provide the cooperation to the Ombud- sperson’s investigation and, secondly, whether the Attor- ney General exercised his authority under

section 18 of the act to provide for a certification, which would, in effect, limit the ability of the Ombudsperson to conduct his investigation. [2:40 p.m.] Hon. D. Eby: Y ou do find something new every day, in terms of the responsibilities and duties of this office. As Attorney General, I was not aware that I had the ability to stop the Ombudsperson from investigating using

section 18 certifications. So I thank the member for drawing that to my attention. I can advise him that I did not issue any such certifications. The Chair:Just a reminder that we are on

section 1. M. Lee: I am just establishing the underpinnings of this bill and wanting to understand the nature of the review, where issues that were pertinent to this bill were raised by the Ombudsperson. So I just have a few more questions to clarify that point. In hearing the response from the Attorney General, the question is: how did the government fail to cooperate with the Ombudsperson’s investigation? Hon. D. Eby: It seems to me that that is a question for the Ombudsperson. M. Lee: Well, I think that opens up a certain line of inquiry which….

Certainly, if that is an invitation to make that inquiry with the Ombudsperson, I would expect that members of our caucus will certainly look for that opportunity. Let me just say this then: what requests for cooperation were received by the government from the Ombudsperson that the government did not comply with? Hon. D. Eby: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and keeping your reminder in mind, I’ll point out to the member that I was quite clear to him that this bill is not a response to the Ombudsperson.

It was prepared independently of the Ombudsperson, not out of any kind of malice or spite or ignoring the advice of the Ombudsperson. It’s just that we knew that the state of emergency would end at some point and bring with it the end of the emergency orders that have been made during the emergency, and we needed some way to wind down those orders in an orderly fashion to address the core issues and try to min- imize the impact on British Columbians who have been affected by those orders. That is what this bill is about.

So I do appreciate that the Ombudsperson has issued an important report and has a number of concerns that he has put on the record about some of the orders — three, I believe — that were issued during the period as well as about the act itself. Fortu- nately, some of those concerns are addressed by this bill. Happy to canvass them with the member. I don’t believe that the member’s questions relate to this bill at all, but to the extent that the Ombudsperson had an exchange with my office and the Minister for Public Safety, I can certainly refer him to the report.

I believe the Soli- citor General’s letter is included in the report as well as the response from the Ombudsperson over a discussion on jurisdiction of that office. The member might find that helpful. None of those issues are addressed in this bill. M. Lee: I appreciate the opportunity to go through the considerations raised by the Ombudsperson. As I say, when we are called back into special session, as we are doing right now, I could think of no more pressing matter 11838 British Columbia Debates Monday, July 6, 2020

than to spend the time of this House going through what is a bill, Bill 19, that changes the Emergency Program Act. [2:45 p.m.] When this province is in a state of emergency, and this government is proposing a bill that amends that act, I think we should take all time, care and attention to review the provisions of what’s being proposed. So when the inde- pendent Ombudsperson comes forward with a 60-page- plus report, with appendices, and takes the time to walk through the nature of emergency order management in this province, I think members of this House should take the opportunity to consider that report.

That’s the reason why I’m raising those issues today. That’s the reason why I believe all the issues that I’m raising here on

section 1 of this bill are directly pertinent to this bill itself. The Attorney General just mentioned the letter dated June 12, 2020, which is appendix B of the report, the response from the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General. It does have a statement which I would like to ask the Attorney General…. If he could please explain the basis for which the government took the view when the Minister of Public Safety said that “the government is also of the view that it has no obligation under the Ombud- sperson Act to respond to your draft report or its recom- mendations. ” Hon. D.

Eby:Now, noting that government was already working on the legislation before we were aware of the Ombudsperson’s planned report, I will note that there are some specific areas that the Ombudsperson raised as con- cern that the legislation does address. In particular, if this bill passes, it’ll make it clear that orders were valid from the date they were issued.

That was a concern of the Ombudsperson. [2:50 p.m.] The second is that it will amend the Emergency Pro- gram Act to clarify authority to amend or suspend pro- visions of other statutes, which was also a concern of the Ombudsperson and is contained in this bill. And it will amend the Emergency Program Act to require an assess- ment of the proportionality of the benefits and impacts of a regulation which amends or suspends the provisions of another statute.

Now, this bill is not intended to replace the more com- prehensive modernization of the EPA that’s underway, and further changes can certainly be considered as part of that process. But I note that the Ombudsperson did comment to media that when this bill is passed, it will address any concerns that anyone would have that was relying on these orders. The Ombudsperson also expressed an interest in having some additional oversight of emergency orders, in partic- ular, among two concerns. One of them was that there be an obligation to report to the Legislature. I trust that the other member has received notice.

My staff advised him the Third Party, the Green Party, has put forward a proposed amendment that would require the Minister of Public Safety to report to the Speaker’s office, which I’ll be moving at the appropriate time in this process. That will address, hopefully, yet another of the Ombudsperson’s concerns. We have the Ombudsperson saying that when this bill is passed, it’ll address any concerns that anyone would have who relied on these orders. We have another concern of the Ombudsperson that’s been raised.

The Third Party has put forward in an amendment — and I’ll be actually putting it forward formally here in the House — around reporting to the Speaker’s office and, by extension, the Legislature. So a number of those concerns of the Ombud- sperson have been addressed. We have, obviously, a couple disagreements with the Ombudsperson’s office. The first is that the Ombudsperson disagrees with our understanding of jurisdiction under the emergency act — in particular, that any act and any pro- cess does not include the acts and processes that the Min- ister of Public Safety put forward in three of the orders.

It’s a disagreement. We also have a disagreement about the Ombudsperson’s ability to review law and declare it valid or invalid. These are exchanges that happen between legislative officers and governments. I know the member knows that. But at the end of the day, I think a couple purposes of both offices have been achieved. One is that the Ombudsper- son had a number of concerns, and a number of them are addressed here and will be addressed through an addition- al amendment.

The second is that the government, during the pandem- ic, the height of the pandemic emergency, was called upon to alleviate the problems that resulted from significant and quite dramatic public health orders that had to be issued. That included things like ensuring that municipalities were able to conduct their business. I can advise members of this House, as Attorney General, it’s certainly my opinion that that was done in a manner within the statute. It was done in a legal manner, and it was done with best efforts. That goal of alleviating the suffering of the pandemic through emergency orders was achieved.

The goal of the Ombudsperson’s office around raising concerns about areas of the statute that need improvement — successfully raised, happily addressed and will also be further addressed in a secondary process that’s coming. I hope that helps the member understand some of the dynamic of this very fluid situation that we were in and our work now to make sure that those emergency orders can be unwound appropriately to continue to minimize the impact on British Columbians of the pandemic and, by extension, the end of the state of emergency.

Also, the need to clarify the act so that these disagreements between our office and the Ombudsperson are not important about what the act actually means, because it says explicitly what we believe it means right now…. Monday, July 6, 2020 British Columbia Debates 11839

The Chair:Just a reminder that it would be recommen- ded that the member ensure that his remarks relate to sec- tion 1. Thank you. M. Lee: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for that reminder. The exchange that we are having, I believe, relates to the entire bill. [2:55 p.m.] As the Attorney General just summarized, there are a number of elements, either in the bill or in his response, that address parts of the Ombudsperson’s report. I am con- cerned that there are still a number of other recommenda- tions that are not addressed.

The other aspect that the Attorney General just spoke to was the oversight function — you might call it transpar- ency, accountability — which the Ombudsperson spoke to. That’s something that, certainly, we can consider when my colleague the member for Saanich North and the Islands tables his amendment through the government in terms of the reporting function. I wanted to come back to this one piece in terms of the Attorney General’s response just now, and that is, in the absence of the oversight from the Ombudsperson….

The government is also of the view — in its letter of June 12, 2020 — that the Ombudsperson Act does not provide jur- isdiction for the Ombudsperson to conduct an investiga- tion into the ministerial orders in question. As the Attor- ney General indicated, there is a disagreement between the government and the Ombudsperson about his office’s jur- isdiction. That is summarized, in effect, in terms of the statement I just read out. To the Attorney General, if the Ombudsperson does not have jurisdiction to review the emergency orders, who does? Hon. D.

Eby: The ability to review statutes for orders or regulations for compliance with enabling statutes, in our opinion, appropriately resides with the B.C. Supreme Court. The process by which a party can apply for judicial review, or review by a judge, of whether or not an order was appropriately made exists outside of the emergency context as well. The courts have that superintending juris- diction, in our opinion, in relation to emergency orders as well as a number of other areas of government action. M.

Lee: I would note to the Attorney General that in other jurisdictions of this country when asked through the court system about the purpose of the Ombudsperson’s office, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, for example, found that the legislative purpose of the Ombudsman Act in that jurisdiction is remedial. It’s meant to oversee the workings of government by providing an independent and impartial review of provincial and municipal departments.

There is a dispute between the government and the Ombudsperson’s office about the term “matters of admin- istration” and how that comes into play under subsec- tion 10(1) of the Ombudsperson Act. We don’t need to drag through that here in detail at the committee level, but I do note that the Ombudsperson and his office are charged with the responsibility to review matters of administration. And in the Ombudsperson’s view, that includes, clearly, the emergency orders. That’s the role and function.

In the absence of that, as we go through this bill, we need to consider what the appropriate checks and balances and the safeguards are around the extraordinary powers of this government — or any government, whether it’s this current government or a future government in this province — that they will have the ability to exercise under this Bill 19. Let me just go to an aspect around timing here. From the exchanges with the Ombudsperson, there was an indication, at one juncture, that the Ombudsperson would have the opportunity to review this bill.

At the tail end of this June 12 letter, regrettably — at least, from my point of view — that window was expressed to have closed. Can I ask the Attorney General why it is that the Ombudsperson was not given this opportunity to review this bill? [3:00 p.m.] Hon. D. Eby: The timelines on drafting and getting through the various cabinet committees to get it together in order to be able to introduce it in the House in this session were incredibly tight. Unfortunately, we lost the window for the Ombudsperson to be able to provide that review.

Happily, as I’ve gone through in some detail a couple of times now, a number of the concerns of the Ombudsperson have been addressed both in the bill and also through an amendment, which I’ll be moving soon, brought forward by the Third Party. I do understand the member’s questions about juris- diction and about oversight. I think these are, without question, important discussions. However, I’m not sure that they’re related to the bill, beyond my pointing out that many of the concerns of the Ombudsperson have been addressed.

Those that remain will certainly be incorporated in the full process of the modernization of the act itself. I hope that provides the member with some assurance and confidence that this bill, which has a sunset period of a year…. That was the Ombudsperson’s other concern — that there be an expiry date on emergency orders. It can provide him with some confidence. I’m hearing his concern about oversight, his concern about transpar- ency, and so on.

This is a bill that expires in a year, that addresses many of the Ombudsperson’s concerns, that provides a necessary unwinding of emergency orders made during the pandem- ic in an orderly way to benefit British Columbians. It cla- rifies aspects of the act that both the government and the Ombudsperson agree, at a minimum, need to be clarified. I hope that will lead him to support the bill. 11840 British Columbia Debates Monday, July 6, 2020

A. Olsen:With respect to the new terms that are high- lighted in

section 1, “COVID-19 provision” and, also, an “EPA instrument…. ” That seems to suggest that all COV- ID-19 provisions were either an order or a regulation, and they are contained within

schedule 1 or 2 of this act. Were all the measures taken by this government during this state of emergency done through an order or a regula- tion? Were there any other powers exercised that fall out- side the scope of this bill? Hon. D. Eby: There are a number of questions the member asked. I’ll do my best to answer them in order, but if I miss anything, I’m sure he’ll clarify. The term “EPA instrument” means the order or regula- tion as it exists when it’s made during the state of emer- gency. When there’s an order made under the EPA, which is the shorthand I’ll use for the act, as an emergency order….

Under this bill, it’s called an EPA instrument. This bill has the effect of bringing those emergency orders, or those EPA instruments, into law. When this bill, if it passes, brings them into law, they will become a newly defined term, which is a “COVID-19 provision. ” That’s the EPA instrument after it has been enacted through this act. That’s the distinction between the two terms, and those are the two novel terms the member asked about. I hope that clarifies. If not, I’m glad to go over it in more detail. [3:05 p.m.] The second is that this act only relates to orders and reg- ulations made under the EPA.

There are many other orders and regulations made under other statutes, including can- celling by-elections, amending the bylaws of various pro- fessional colleges, and so on, but this act only relates to orders and regulations made under the EPA. The third piece is in terms of availability of access to the information about these orders. Just for the member’s information, government has a practice of making all of these orders and regulations available publicly on bclaws.ca. I apologize to the member. I should say: “To the leader’s question. ” I congratulate him on that.

To the Leader of the Third Party’s questions, govern- ment makes these orders and regulations available publicly on bclaws.ca. A. Olsen:Do all the orders related to the COVID-19 state of emergency appear on schedules 1 and 2 of this bill? Hon. D. Eby: No, not all orders appear on schedules 1 and 2 of the bill. There are some exceptions, for reasons that I’ll outline now. Ministerial Order M179 is going to be added by regu- lation, because it is dependent in part on a federal pro- gram, the Canada emergency commercial rent assistance program.

Now, that program has been extended, and we didn’t know that at the time this bill was prepared. We had expected that it would have an end date and that it wouldn’t, therefore, be in this bill, but it will be added by regulation. It does not appear on

schedule 1 or 2. Ministerial Order M195, which relates to residential tenancies — it’s residential tenancy COVID-19 order No. 2 — is also being added by regulation because it had not been made when this bill received first reading. It was ordered on June 24 and narrowed the grounds on which landlords are prohibited from evicting. It increased the number of categories where evictions are allowed.

It allows landlords to evict for damage to their property and to occupy the property for their own use, but they still cannot evict for non-payment of rent — just to give you some examples about that, of what’s con- tained in that order No. 2. Now, the last two are not included in schedules 1 and 2 because the reasons for them existing have passed or are about to be, hopefully, made irrelevant. Ministerial Order M083 is the original local govern- ment order, which was superseded by a more recent local government order. So the original local government order doesn’t need to be included.

Then Ministerial Order M161, which was the original emergency order related to the witnessing of wills, is going to be replaced by the bill that we’ve tabled in the House, modernizing wills and estates processes in B.C., including allowing distant witnessing, essentially, of testamentary instruments through electronic means. The order doesn’t need to be there, because it will be replaced by a new law.

Section 1 approved. On

section 2. M. Lee:I just wanted to look at this particular provision — which is the prevailing provision where there may be conflict — when this is compared against

section 26 of the Emergency Program Act. [3:10 p.m.] Looking at the language there, 26 does not provide that orders made by the minister under

section 10.1 take pre- cedent over other legislation. The question is: why is there a difference in this provision under Bill 19? Hon. D. Eby:The reason for that — I thank the member for asking the question; I’m relying on staff for this — is that under the

Interpretation Act, emergency orders are deemed to be regulations. That is why that

section refers to regulations. A. Olsen:Perhaps you could provide an explanation as to why this

section is necessary in the short term, given that

section 6 repeals it within a year of the bill’s passage? [3:15 p.m.] Monday, July 6, 2020 British Columbia Debates 11841

Hon. D. Eby: The amount of time that the law will be in place doesn’t change that we need the COVID-19 pro- visions, which are, remember, those emergency EPA act provisions that are brought into law. They have to be para- mount because they modify or suspend — not all of them, but many of them — the application of other laws. So if they weren’t made paramount, then they wouldn’t neces- sarily be interpreted to modify or suspend the application of other laws. It doesn’t matter how long the law is in place.

If the intention is — and it is our intention — that these emer- gency orders continue for a certain duration, 45 days, 90 days, if they have to be extended, they need to take preced- ence over the laws that they modify or suspend. I hope that addresses the question. A. Olsen:Just in terms of the conflicts, what conflicts would you imagine this deals with? And can you maybe provide a couple of conflicts that this

section would avoid? Hon. D. Eby: The Power of Attorney Act is a good example of a law that an emergency order purports to amend. It requires that enduring powers of attorney need to be signed and witnessed in the presence of another per- son. Now, Ministerial Order M162 says the condition is satisfied if the process in M162 is followed. If not, for the conflict…. If there wasn’t a conflict provision, it wouldn’t be as clear that Ministerial Order M162 overrides that part or supersedes the Power of Attorney Act.

It might not be a perfect example, because, of course, that’s one of the provisions that’s not actually in the sched- ule. A better example might be the Limitation Act. The Limitation Act says that a person has to start a lawsuit within two years of the events happening that give rise to the lawsuit — in many cases, but not in all cases. That’s not legal advice. Talk to a lawyer. Ministerial Order M098 extends that time for the peri- od that the ministerial order is in force.

So if this conflict provision wasn’t there, it wouldn’t be necessarily clear that it overrides the Limitation Act so that the person is still able to go to court about that dispute, even if it’s more than two years, because, obviously, there was significant curtail- ment of access to registries in the province, court registries in the province, to file those lawsuits, especially for self- represented litigants.

We could go through different acts — the Residential Tenancy Act, Commercial Tenancy Act and commercial tenancy provisions of the law — and the goal is to have these ministerial orders, to have it be clear for any review- ing court that the ministerial order comes first. Where there’s conflict between the ministerial order and the underlying law that it modifies or suspends, the ministeri- al order takes precedence.

Section 2 approved. On

section 3. M. Lee: I appreciate that we’ve had some discussion regarding the schedules, but if I could ask the Attorney General: what was the rationale to divide the existing emergency orders between 90 days and 45 days of exten- sion? [3:20 p.m.] Hon. D. Eby: Individual ministries and, in some cases, stakeholders advised what expiry period was most appro- priate.

There were various factors considered, including how much time citizens needed to prepare for the order to end, how long it would take to make permanent changes if they’re needed and how long it would take to unwind the effects of the order after the end of the state of emergency. There’s obviously a goal here, which is ensuring that there’s sufficient time to facilitate a smooth transition. We might not get it perfect. Some orders might need to be in effect longer than others after the end of the state of emergency.

An example of that is that the ministerial orders that allow meetings to be held electronically needed to be extended for at least 90 days, because the orders were made in response to the public health order in relation to gatherings of more than 50 people and guidelines on phys- ical distancing. Now, depending on how long those orders persist for in British Columbia — how long we need them — they may need to be extended again beyond 90 days. Another example. The Prohibition on Unconscionable Prices for Essential Goods and Supplies order — that’s Ministerial Order M115 — is also continued for 90 days.

Again, we and many provinces remain…. Although we have access to significant personal protective equipment for hospitals and first responders and so on, it remains prudent for us to be able to manage supply chain issues and prevent excessive prices in the event that shortages do manifest in some area as a result of the state of emer- gency. The need is expected to last beyond 45 days, but that’s where it is on the schedule.

Those EPA instruments that could be ended immedi- ately, at the end of the state of emergency, were given 45 days to ensure that we didn’t have any unanticipated con- sequences that caused grief or distress for British Colum- bians. Really, enacting them all allows for us to extend them if necessary, if, at the end of the state of emergency, it turns out that some people…. If people don’t need for them to be extended, they won’t be extended, obviously.

Examples of orders that government plans to repeal at the end of the state of emergency are Ministerial Order M094, the Protection Against Liability Order, which was replaced by Ministerial Order M120. Ministerial Orders M128, M150, M152 and M166 dealt with encampments in Victoria and Vancouver. M. Lee: I would also like to ask why the period of one 11842 British Columbia Debates Monday, July 6, 2020

year was selected in terms of length of time for the outside date for any of the EPA instruments. Hon. D. Eby: I think that there are a number of know- ledgeable people who indicate that the effects of the COV- ID-19 pandemic may, in fact, endure beyond one year, depending on when a vaccine or effective treatment is developed.

However, this one-year period was set as the maximum expiry date for a couple of reasons, even though we reasonably anticipate there may be orders or restric- tions that last beyond one year. [3:25 p.m.] The sunset clause is really meant to balance the breadth of authority given to the executive committee with the need to ensure that the Legislature works as intended. We believe that a year provides more than enough time to identify transitional issues and identify whether perman- ent changes are needed to different acts.

It’s quite difficult in this period to understand all the effects of the pandemic, in terms of public policy, and the impacts of unwinding some of these emergency orders. When we extended limitation periods, for example, there was an unintended impact on builder’s liens processes that we didn’t anticipate. We had feedback from people affected by that and had to change the order. As we unwind, we expect there will be some unanti- cipated consequences that need to be addressed.

But we think that a year gives enough time to be able to extend as needed, but also for the Legislature and Legislative Assembly to consider and potentially pass, if necessary, more permanent measures around, for example, electronic meetings for more than 50 people in areas like societies and for other groups that need to have large annual general meetings and these kinds of things. These are permanent changes that could be brought in, similar to the manner which we did around wills witness- ing, which is in front of the House right now in a separate bill.

The reason why that one was able to come forward so quickly is a lot of work had already been done on that — not anticipating COVID, but just because the act needed to be modernized. We don’t have that for all of the other areas that have been affected by the orders. So a year felt like a good balance between the need to extend, as necessary, given the distinct possibility of a second wave, as we’re advised by Dr.

Henry, but also to understand that if, in fact, something needs to be extended beyond a year, the Legislature should be the one to pass a permanent amendment to address that, rather than to do it through an extension of an emergency order. A. Olsen:Thank you to the Attorney General for his responses. I think his responses to the member’s previous questions generally captured the question I had around the difference between

schedule 1 and 2 and how one order ends up on one

schedule and how other orders end up on the other schedules. I think, maybe to dig in a little bit deep on the difference between the 45 days and the 90 days expiry, maybe the minister can clarify a little bit. Is there a policy test that’s been developed to inform these choices — recognizing, of course, that other items could be added, at least in the extreme short term, to this as well? What is the policy test that’s being used to develop where an order may land on these two schedules? Hon. D. Eby: I do want to clarify one of my earlier responses, just around

schedule 1 and 2. I thank the mem- ber for the opportunity to do this. [R. Chouhan in the chair.] The orders that are contained in

schedule 1 are there because they are retroactive to the date the emergency started, in terms of their effect. The orders that are in

schedule 2 are effective from the date the order was made. [3:30 p.m.] Whether or not an order is in

schedule 1 or

schedule 2 doesn’t affect whether it’s 45 or 90 days. I think I garbled those two. I just wanted to be clear about why they’re in

schedule 1 and

schedule 2. The policy test the member asks about was quite a straightforward test. It was the advice that we received from individual ministries and from some stakeholders around which expiry period was most appropriate, given factors like how much time citizens needed to prepare for the order to end — in some cases, for court registries, the understanding of the courts about how much time was needed to unwind and to ramp up the services that they needed to provide as people showed up back in registries to file lawsuits and so on and other actions and matters that they might have held off on during the pandemic.

We did that outreach work with some stakeholders and, certainly, with ministries about their understanding of what was needed. It is not a perfect science or a perfect test, which is why there is that ability to extend orders as necessary. As for orders that may be made at a later date under the state of emergency that aren’t already made, they are not automatically assigned either a 45- or 90-day period. The length of time that it continues after the state of emergency would be determined, again, with engagement of stake- holders and affected ministries. A.

Olsen:Just following up on the question with respect to the one-year maximum expiry date that was asked by the member opposite, I appreciate the previous response. I think that in the context of the House here extending emergency powers beyond the actual state of emergency, just hearing the Attorney General on the fact that we have a fall legislative session currently on the books for the legislative calendar this year…. We’ve also got a spring Monday, July 6, 2020 British Columbia Debates 11843

legislative session in 2021 that falls within this one-year period. Just maybe a little bit of clarity on why the government has chosen to extend that one-year period, especially in the light that the minister has noted that this House and this chamber is the place where those extended policy decisions can be debated and discussed and then voted on. [3:35 p.m.] Hon. D. Eby: The concern that the one-year period is meant to address is relatively straightforward.

The Lieu- tenant-Governor-in-Council or cabinet can make orders much more quickly than calling the Legislature together, getting all the members here and introducing and passing legislation. The understanding that we have of this emer- gency is that conditions can change relatively quickly and that the need to modify or change orders to respond to evolving situations on the ground might come on quite urgently. So the goal of this is to allow government to respond to the emergency. The obvious question that flows from that is: well of course it’s faster, but does that mean it’s better?

What about the importance of oversight of the Legislature? I agree. It is critically important that the Legislature has oversight of government and, in the absence of that, that there be some other form of oversight established. Sec- tion 3(9) in this proposed bill creates authority for the courts to oversee any action taken by cabinet — among other areas of the bill. In particular,

section 3(9) says that cabinet can only make the order if it’s “satisfied it is necessary to do so to respond to or alleviate the effects of the pandemic. ” This is a significant restriction overseen by courts. Beyond that, certainly, with the member’s amendment that government has endorsed and will be tabling as a government amendment to require the reporting to the Speaker of all orders, to the Legislature of all orders, that will also enable…. We’re in a minority parliament. It will also enable the Legislature to, at the next sitting, repeal or change the law that enabled the provision to be passed.

There are significant…. In this situation, I would say there are more safeguards in a minority parliament. But there are significant safeguards, recognizing that not all parliaments are a minority parliament, including judicial oversight of government’s conduct in ensuring that the orders must be related to and government has to be able to show that the order is related to alleviating the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Simultaneously, another safeguard is the sunset period that we’ve spent some time discussing. A. Olsen:Thank you to the Attorney General for the answer.

He almost answered the next questions that I had. So that was fantastic foresight. Just in the context of that necessity test. That might be the correct or incorrect language, but where sub (9) says, “only if satisfied it is necessary, ” I think the minister’s response was that it can be deemed necessary if it’s in response to COVID-19. Is that correct? Are there any oth- er conditions around “only if satisfied it is necessary”? Is that just in the context of COVID, or are there other aspects of that? Hon. D. Eby: This is limited to COVID-19 only.

It’s limited to responding to or alleviating the effects of the pandemic. “Effects” has its common meaning, the practic- al and legal consequences of the pandemic. It’s important to note the word that was chosen is “necessary, ” not just “preferable. ” The words “necessity test” are right. The word in the statute, though, is “necessary. ” It’s necessary to alle- viate. It’s not just preferable. [3:40 p.m.] So it is a more strict test than “it seems better to do it this way. ” When you read the test as a whole, it’s limited to COVID-19. Government has to show that it’s necessary.

And “the effects” mean, obviously, the practical and legal consequences of the pandemic. Examples would include requirements for physical distancing, inability to meet in person, restrictions on visitors to facilities, reduced ser- vices at businesses, and so on. A. Weaver:My question is to the Attorney General on this section. I’m hoping to get some clarification as to how he sees these enhanced powers playing out.

My concern in hearing some of the aforementioned somewhat confusing statements was that I got the sense that people were con- cerned about potential government overreach — that per- haps, somehow, government may take steps to do things that, in a majority government, might be more common than perhaps in a minority government, where there are more checks and balances. My worry, at the same time, is that when we are in crises, we need to empower governments to act on the turn of a dime. I look at many of the world crises out there. Government has done a truly exceptional job deal- ing with COVID to date.

I recognize that there’s a differ- ence of opinion with some of the Ombudsperson’s remarks as well as government remarks. Those are a matter of legal difference of opinion. I suspect they could, you know, take this all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, arguing who is right and who is not. My worry about putting in too many checks and bal- ances — certainly, we need some — is that government will no longer have the power to do what it needs to do in a timely fashion if, not when, COVID returns. And it will return with a vengeance, sooner than we think. My question to the minister is this.

Right now the min- ister is armed with a number of tools, one of which is declaring a state of emergency, obviously — bring back the Legislature and start, you know, passing laws or issuing some orders-in-council. How would the minister see a 11844 British Columbia Debates Monday, July 6, 2020

situation like this playing out given the legislation before us and given any potential concerns that have been raised? Let’s suppose, hypothetically, the state of emergency is not on provincially. But let’s suppose, hypothetically, a plane arrives in Kelowna, and somebody goes to an old age person’s home in Kelowna, and suddenly there’s an out- break there. And then suddenly it starts to go in a few oth- er places.

To what extent can the government act — spe- cifically, locally, regionally — to deal with something on the turn of a dime that it needs to do, instead of actually calling back the Legislature to hum and haw? And to what extent does this legislation, as it’s put forward, allow gov- ernment to continue to be able to respond in a very timely fashion? I can’t overestimate how important it is for government to be able to respond in a very timely fashion to the issues as they play out with this pandemic. We just have to look south of the border as to what’s happening there.

All it takes is one big celebration of 10,000 people in Stanley Park, and government is going to have chaos on its hands. So to what extent does the government have the tools available to it, right now, in the legislation, in the form it is presented to us, without actually having to bring back the Legislature, call a state of emergency and so forth? [3:45 p.m.] Hon. D. Eby:I thank the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for the question. Obviously, front of mind for everybody is ensuring that the tools are in place to prevent or mitigate the effects of a second wave of the pandemic.

I know that’s front of mind for the Health Minister, for Dr. Henry, for everybody working in public health and for most British Columbians as well. I definitely appreciate the member’s comments about the efforts of those folks, including all British Columbians, to get us in the place that we’re in right now, which is a good place. But it certainly is, as the member points out, not guaranteed. I will draw the member’s attention to

section 9(1) of the EPA, which allows a declaration of a state of emergency — not exclusively provincewide, but it includes a local or regional state of emergency. It is possible that government could declare a local or regional state of emergency for an affected area, if there was an outbreak and it was necessary to do so. That’s one possible mechanism, other than recall- ing the Legislature. The second possible mechanism. This act does not affect, at all, public health orders.

They can be issued by public health, in relation to individuals or facilities, to mitigate the risk of the transmission of an infectious dis- ease, including COVID. That is another set of powers that exist. The third is, obviously, the powers that exist under this law to extend existing emergency orders and to respond if the events the member sketches for us took place within the next year. Those are three of the mechanisms. The member is right. This bill could have included provisions that allow government to create new COVID- related orders outside of the Legislature. It doesn’t do that. It is a balance.

It’s our belief, in putting this in front of the House, that with the ability to declare local or region- al states of emergency, if necessary, with the public health orders that are in place and with the ability to extend these provisions, we have the tools necessary to ensure that Brit- ish Columbians are safe, and, not just that, that the effects of the pandemic are mitigated as much as possible. The Chair:Member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, do you have any further questions? A. Weaver:I do. I’ d just like to put another example. Let us suppose….

I’m sure what’s going to happen is more and more examples are going to come forward that people haven’t thought of — the unknown unknowns, so to speak. For example, we know there is a requirement for annual meetings, AGMs, to be held under the Strata Property Act. The government did a ministerial order, and did so on the turn of a dime, to address that. Good for them. I don’t know how…. There would be problems there in terms of strata property meetings and people having to meet the legislative requirement for an AGM at the same time as you’ve got COVID going on.

What government did is it stepped in and created the ministerial order. Good. There will be other examples like this. My worry about this, of course, is that we don’t know what they are right now because they haven’t been brought to our attention. If government does not have the powers to be able to do this without declaring a state of emergency…. Y ou wouldn’t declare a state of emergency, for example, in the case of electronic attendance at strata property meetings. Y ou could do public health, but you may not have to do it everywhere. There are so many examples. Y ou might find that….

I’m going to be making something up. Never mind. I’m worried again. Let us suppose something like the strata property issue came to government now. To what extent could government immediately respond, on the turn of a dime, to put out an order to ensure that strata properties did not have to meet face to face? [3:50 p.m.] Let’s say, for example, a by-election in a local govern- ment were to happen. Could they do that? If a local gov- ernment by-election were to occur, could they, on the turn of a dime, switch and make it so that could be done through, say, electronic voting or something like that?

That’s the question, then, please, to the Attorney Gener- al. Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the questions. If Monday, July 6, 2020 British Columbia Debates 11845

the situation is urgent enough, obviously a state of emer- gency would be appropriate. The member is kind of sketching out for us a scenario that’s just below that sort of state-of-emergency justification, but where there’s a need for urgent action. Obviously, statutory amendment is potentially available. Y ou can call the Legislature together, and you could pass a statutory amendment. It’s important to note that there are a significant num- ber

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20200706pm Hansard n333
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20200706pm Hansard n333
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	b953ff86357cf99e89424f1a82dd6a9094fc4e48

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).