Fifth Session, 41st Parliament

(2020) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, June 22, 2020

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 328

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Mines Amendment Act, 2020

Hon. B. Ralston

Bill 19 — COVID-19 Related Measures Act

Bill 20 — Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 2020

Bill 21 — Wills, Estates and Succession Amendment Act, 2020

Hon. D. Eby

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

National Indigenous Peoples Day and anti-racism movement

J. Rice

Bill Bond

A. Wilkinson

Surrey community response to COVID-19

J. Sims

Anti-racism movement

T. Wat

7 p.m. cheer for front-line workers and response to COVID-19 pandemic

S. Chandra Herbert

National Indigenous Peoples Day and anti-racism movement

D. Ashton

Oral Questions

Economic recovery and proposal for suspension of taxes

A. Wilkinson

Hon. J. Horgan

Small business employee layoffs and severance pay issues

J. Johal

Hon. J. Horgan

Long-term-care facilities and single-site order for

health care workers

S. Furstenau

Hon. A. Dix

Seniors care by for-profit long-term-care

facilities

S. Furstenau

Hon. A. Dix

Small business employee layoffs and severance pay issues

P. Milobar

Hon. J. Horgan

S. Bond

J. Thornthwaite

Motions Without Notice

Discharge of order for Committee of Supply to sit in two sections

Special procedures for proceedings of Committee of Supply during COVID-19 pandemic

Leave of absence for MLAs not in attendance March 23,

Hon. M. Farnworth

Tabling Documents

Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, report, Youth Substance

Use Services in B.C. — An Update

Office of the Auditor General, service plan, 2020-21–2022-23

Office of the Ombudsperson, public interest disclosure annual report, 2019-2020

Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Digital Communications, Disinformation

and Democracy — Recommendations for Legislative Change , May

Office of the Merit Commissioner, annual report, 2019-2020

Office of the Auditor General, independent audit report, Skills Immigration

Stream of the Provincial Nominee Program , June

Office of the Ombudsperson, special report, Extraordinary Times,

Extraordinary Measures: Two Ministerial Orders Made Under the

Emergency Program Act in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic

Legislative Assembly Management Committee, accountability report 2017-18 and

2018-19

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 5 — Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2020 (continued)

M. Dean

R. Singh

J. Routledge

S. Furstenau

Hon. H. Bains

Bill 11 — Attorney General Statutes (Vehicle Insurance) Amendment Act, 2020

Hon. D. Eby

J. Johal

S. Furstenau

M. Lee

Hon. D. Eby

Bill 4 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2020

Hon. C. James

S. Cadieux

P. Milobar

Bill 11 — Attorney General Statutes (Vehicle Insurance) Amendment Act, 2020 (continued)

Hon. D. Eby

MONDAY, JUNE 22, 2020

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

M. Polak: We are very happy in our B.C. Liberal caucus to be welcoming interns,

who are working with us this session. In communications, we have Kathryn

Haegedorn and Noelle Skillings; in research, Stephen Bagan, Erin Spence and

Maliki Suppin. Would the House please make them very welcome.

S. Chandra Herbert: I have a number of students who would normally be visiting us at one

point or another at the Legislature from King George Secondary. They’re, of

course, unable to do that now, but they are joining us online.

I’d like to congratulate them on their recent graduation on Friday,

welcome them online to their Legislature and celebrate all the parents,

teachers, school staff and family that helped students get to

graduation.

Well done, everybody.

L. Throness: It gives me great pleasure to report that I’m a great uncle for the

sixth time. On April 10, a healthy girl named Odelle May was born to my

niece Heather Nickel and her husband, Benton, from Abbotsford. I was only

able to meet her on Saturday because COVID kept us apart, as it has done for

so many families. Would the House join me in congratulating Heather and

Benton.

J. Routledge: Joining us in the gallery today, on this very historic occasion, is

Paul Faoro, the president of CUPE B.C., and Trevor Davies, the

secretary-treasurer of CUPE B.C. Please join me in giving them a very warm

welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — MINES AMENDMENT ACT, 2020

Hon. B. Ralston presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Mines Amend­ment Act,

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

now.

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 6, the Mines Amendment Act. This

bill introduces amendments to the Mines Act that reflect the

government’s commitment to improving mining regulation in British

Columbia. The key to having a safe and thriving mining sector is an

efficient and effective permitting process, having the right rules in

place and ensuring that everyone follows the rules. My ministry is

working on all of these areas.

The proposed changes were informed by the lessons learned from the

Mount Polley disaster, recommendations made by the Office of the Auditor

General and the Mining Jobs Task Force, and consultation with Indigenous

nations, stakeholders and the public. These changes also support

investments made in the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources in Budget 2019 to improve mines permitting and increase

industry safety.

The proposed amendments will do three things. First, they will

establish a chief permitting officer, distinct from the chief inspector

of mines, that will ensure that the mining permitting process is

efficient and effective. Responsibilities for health, safety and

enforcement will continue to rest with the chief inspector of

mines.

Second, building on recent improvements and results delivered by

the ministry, these changes will further strengthen government’s ability

to hold mines accountable by modernizing and enhancing compliance and

enforcement provisions.

Thirdly, these amendments will formalize the creation of the

ministry’s mine audits and effectiveness unit, which will ensure that

mining regulation in B.C. remains effective and aligns with global best

practice.

These changes are needed so that mining continues to be one of the

safest heavy industries and so that British Columbia remains an

attractive place to invest.

[1:40 p.m.]

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

Motion approved.

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 6, Mines Amendment Act, 2020, introduced, read a first time and

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

sitting of the House after today.

BILL 19 — COVID-19 RELATED

MEASURES

ACT

Hon. D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled COVID-19 Related Measures

Act.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m pleased to introduce the COVID-19 Related Measures Act. The

primary goals of this bill are to ensure that the province has a smooth

transition to manage the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic beyond the end

of the provincial state of emergency and to support B.C.’s restart

plan.

First, the bill enacts ministerial orders made under the Emergency

Program Act in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and allows them to be

extended beyond the end of the provincial state of emergency, some for

45 days and others for 90 days.

Second, it establishes the authority for the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations to provide for a

different expiry date for the orders, either immediately, at the end of

the provincial state of emergency or extend them for a longer duration,

with a possible extension up to one year after the act is brought into

force. Extensions of ministerial orders may only be made if the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is satisfied it is necessary to respond

to or alleviate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Third, it includes the power for the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations that provide

protection from civil liability for COVID-19-related damages in

circumstances to be defined by regulation.

The proposed legislation contains a sunset clause and will be

repealed one year after the act is brought into force.

Two related targeted amendments are pro­posed to the

Emergency Program Act. One minor amendment provides grater clarity with

respect to the minister’s powers under the Emergency Program Act. The

other amendment establishes a limited authority for the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to temporarily suspend or modify the

application and provisions of enactments by regulation.

Drawing on best practices in other Canadian provinces, the

authority to make key decisions respecting suspending or modifying a

provision of an enactment during an emergency or disaster would be

elevated to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council so that the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may undertake actions similar to what has

been done using ministerial order powers but with added enhancements to

clearly express the scope and conditions for use of such a

power.

These amendments will not affect the ongoing work on modernizing

the Emergency Program Act that is being led by emergency management

B.C.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 19, COVID-19 Related Measures Act, introduced, read a first time

and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

[1:45 p.m.]

BILL 20 — MOTOR VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT

(N o . 2), 2020

Hon. D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2),

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

On behalf of my colleague the Solicitor General, I am pleased to

introduce the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 2020.

This bill amends the Motor Vehicle Act with respect to number

plates, also known as licence plates, and validation decals, also known

as stickers, to support further modernization of the Insurance Corp. of

British Columbia as part of the transformation of vehicle insurance in

British Columbia which is being made through Bill 11.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 20, Motor Vehicle Act (No. 2), 2020, introduced, read a first

time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 21 — WILLS, ESTATES AND

SUCCESSION AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Wills, Estates and Succession

Amendment Act, 2020.

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I am pleased to introduce the Wills, Estates and Succession

Amendment Act, 2020.

This bill will provide for recognition of electronic wills and

will allow for the signing of any will to be witnessed remotely. This

bill is based upon the work of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada and

builds upon Ministerial Order No. M161, which allows remote witnessing

of wills during the current state of emergency.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 21, Wills, Estates and Succession Amendment Act, 2020,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day

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

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

NATIONAL INDIGENOUS PEOPLES DAY

AND ANTI-RACISM

MOVEMENT

J. Rice: Yesterday was National Indigenous Peoples Day, an important day

that is celebrated each year on the 21st of June to recognize the rich,

diverse and unique culture and heritage of Indigenous peoples — First

Nations, Métis and Inuit. This year celebrations are taking place in the

middle of a new awakening on the issue of systemic racism against Black

and Indigenous peoples in North America.

On this very special day and in this very momentous time, it’s

important that we acknowledge the historic, colonial injustices and

ongoing discrimination that continue to affect the lives of Indigenous

peoples. Racism is not just an American problem. Racism, especially

anti-Indigenous racism, is a problem in all of our communities across

British Columbia and Canada. It’s important that we take this day and

the entire Indigenous History Month to reflect on what we can do as

individuals and communities to combat racism.

While the road to reconciliation is a long one and one that will

inevitably be taken by our children and grandchildren, I’m proud of the

work our government has done to get this journey started, including

collaboration on initiatives such as revenue-sharing, affordable

housing, language revitalization and the Declaration on the Rights of

Indigenous Peoples Act, to name a few.

[1:50 p.m.]

In my own riding, we’ve been making important investments to

support self-reliance and self-determination of the nations on the north

coast. Just recently we opened new homes for Elders in Lax Kw’alaams,

announced funding for a renewable energy project in Klemtu and invested

in recreation projects in Hartley Bay to boost the ecotourism economy in

their community.

This is far from enough. We all have a long way to achieve

reconciliation and reverse 500 years of colonization. We are celebrating

Indigenous History Month all throughout June. I encourage everyone to

take some time to learn about the Indigenous history of the province and

think about what we each can do in our own lives to advance

reconciliation and address racism.

BILL BOND

A. Wilkinson: It’s with great sadness and a heavy heart that I rise in the House

today to pay tribute to the life of a great man and loving husband, Mr.

Bill Bond of Prince George. To the member for Prince George–Valemount:

our hearts and thoughts are with you on the loss of your husband and

best friend.

To those who knew Bill, and even those who didn’t, his death hits

hard. He was the type of person who exuded kindness, compassion and who

absolutely loved his family and his community. He worked so hard to

support the member for Prince George–Valemount and our entire team, and

we will miss him very much.

In his memory, a memorial fund has been set up through the Prince

George Community Foundation which will support the placement of

automated external defibrillators, or AEDs, in public spaces in the

community he and his wife so deeply cared for, Prince George. I

encourage all members of this House to take the time to make a donation

on the Prince George Community Foundation site.

Bill worked hard for his community and would go above and beyond

to help anyone in need. I can say easily that our province was a better

place because of Bill Bond.

I’d like to ask the House to join me in paying tribute to Bill,

thanking him for all that he has given to British Columbia and

expressing our sincerest condolences to the member for Prince

George–Valemount and her family as they cope with this terrible

loss.

Bill will be missed.

SURREY COMMUNITY RESPONSE

COVID-19

J. Sims: These last few months have been challenging for every British

Columbian. Terms like social distancing, flattening the curve and

virtual meetings have become familiar to all. We have had to learn to

meet, celebrate and even mourn differently.

Amidst the challenges, we have also seen awesome human spirit and

individuals and groups coming together. Today I would like to thank and

acknowledge some individuals and groups in Surrey who have gathered to

help care for those most in need during this pandemic. I have been

fortunate to meet with several groups doing great things and have been

impressed with the generosity, commitment and creativity of their effort

to support the community.

Although they have not been allowed to gather in person to

worship, groups representing all religions have found ways to serve.

Gurdwara Dukh Nivaran Sahib, in collaboration with other gurdwaras and

the business community, has dedicated volunteers who every day cook and

prepare meals to go for those in need as well as hundreds of front-line

workers. They have also been delivering groceries and meals to

individuals and families — in Surrey, yes, but also across the

province.

The Surrey Jamea Masjid and the Fiji Centre raised a significant

amount of money during Ramadan this year to help support vulnerable

members of the community. Horizon Church, in collaboration with City

Dream, has been collecting food and other donations and preparing

thousands of food hampers for those in need.

Two and a half months ago, a group of women set a goal of sewing

10,000 masks by July 1, masks that will be distributed free of cost,

coordinated through Our Global Village foundation. They met once a week

from 11 to 11. This past Saturday they surpassed their goal.

Together we can make a difference and build more just communities.

A huge shout-out and thank-you to all who stepped forward to support. We

are all in this together.

[1:55 p.m.]

ANTI-RACISM MOVEMENT

T. Wat: I’m rising in the House today to speak in support of the

anti-racism movement rising in our province and around the world. I have

been devastated to witness recent events both within our province and

outside of it, and I have no doubt that every member of this House

shares my sentiments.

Since the outbreak of COVID-19, we have seen a horrific spike in

hate crimes, racism and intolerance here in British Columbia, many of

which are being targeted towards our Asian-Canadian communities. On top

of this, the world has been shaken by the recent killing of George

Floyd. The worldwide protests that have followed the death are now

serving to highlight the racism that Black, Indigenous and other people

of colour still certainly endure on a daily basis.

Recent allegations of racial profiling in our health care system,

particularly towards Indigenous people and communities, highlight that

racism is taking place in every aspect of our society. It’s being

experienced by every culture and minority group in our

province.

On the first day of our historic parliamentary session, I want to

take this moment to affirm with everyone present that all parties and

members must stand together to show the world that there is zero

tolerance towards racism of any kind in our province. It is our

responsibility to do whatever it takes to ensure every British

Columbian, regardless of race or ethnicity, feels safe, accepted and

welcome.

Together we must show the world that every British Columbian

should be proud to call our province home.

7 P.M. CHEER FOR FRONT-LINE WORKERS

AND RESPONSE TO

COVID-19 PANDEMIC

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, it started quietly — in fact, so quietly, few would ever

know it was going on. Just a mom and her two kids reaching out to a few

neighbours by text, Facebook, what have you, to say: “Can we join

together? Can we unite every night at 7 p.m. to say thank you?” It

started in the West End when Rory Richards decided we needed to do

something more.

With so many people stuck at home due to COVID-19 restrictions and

the need to flatten the curve and look out for each other, many felt

alone. Many felt scared. Many felt they didn’t have the connections in

the community that they’d had before. So she and other neighbours of

ours in the West End decided to unite — to bang pots and pans, to shout,

to play trumpets, to play deejay sets, to dance, to cry, to hold each

other as family, to hold each other across the distance.

There’s something amazing when you look out your tiny apartment

window and see the entire building across from you also coming out

together at 7 p.m. to say thank you to front-line workers: the health

care workers at St. Paul’s whose shift changes at 7 p.m. at night, but

every front-line worker — grocery store worker, trucker, driver, medical

staff, anybody who is interacting with the public and had to keep coming

to their job despite their fears. This was a thank-you for them and

still is a thank-you for them. It spread across our province and,

indeed, across our nation.

I want to unite and say thank you to my constituents for thinking

about all of us and for giving us something to look forward to in the

dark days of COVID-19. The 7 p.m. celebration is truly a thing that I

look forward to every day — even if it’s at 6:45 p.m., as my son insists

he needs to go bed early, or at 7:15 p.m., when he remembers we didn’t

do it at 7 p.m. and insists we go back out and bang even if we’re

banging by ourselves to say thank you.

Thank you, West End. Thank you, everybody, for joining us to

celebrate our front-line workers.

NATIONAL INDIGENOUS PEOPLES DAY

AND ANTI-RACISM

MOVEMENT

D. Ashton: Today I am honoured to rise and speak on our National Indigenous

Peoples Day, a day where we honour the history, culture and

contributions of Indigenous people throughout the country. This

coincides with June being National Indigenous History Month, where we

proudly acknowledge the unique culture, heritage and achievements of all

First Nations, Métis and Inuit people.

[2:00 p.m.]

Unfortunately, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many were prevented

from getting together this year to mark the occasion with public

festivities and wonderful cultural activities. That does not mean that

we cannot collectively recognize the strength of all 203 First Nations

bands in British Columbia and their valuable contributions to our

province and our country.

We must also acknowledge the history of Canada’s relationships

with First Nations and pledge to continue working together to build a

better future for everyone. Working on a better nation-to-nation

partnership and creating economic opportunities are important steps on

the path towards strengthening these relationships. Together we can

build a path forward that will bring security and prosperity for

everyone who calls this wonderful province their home.

It is also necessary to acknowledge that the past weeks have been

highlighted with the debilitating racism that still persists with the

poor and with many Indigenous people. This has been front of mind for

many in light of the anti-racism protests across Canada and the United

States and by the shocking news last week regarding serious allegations

of racial profiling and unacceptable treatment by members of our

province’s health care system.

There’s no place for racism anywhere in British Columbia. I know

that every one of us is united in our condemnation of these alleged

actions. As we celebrate National Indigenous Peoples Day, let us be

reminded of the incredible heritage, diverse cultures and outstanding

achievements of First Nations, Inuit and Métis of our

country.

Oral Questions

ECONOMIC RECOVERY AND

PROPOSAL FOR SUSPENSION OF

TAXES

A. Wilkinson: It’s been more than 100 days since we’ve been able to gather in

this chamber, and certainly a lot of history has been made during that

time. It’s had a profound impact on British Columbians. There have been

impacts on families, there have been impacts on communities, and of

course, there have been those who have been stricken by the disease and

those who have unfortunately died due to the disease.

Now our task and what brings us here is to move British Columbia

into the future, to talk about making British Columbia a better place

and to talk about recovery. We’re concerned, as the opposition, because

we heard last week that rather than disclosing a plan for economic

recovery in British Columbia, the Premier’s decided to embark on another

survey that will last for weeks.

We have to turn to the Premier and say: “We can do better. You can

do better as the government.” We must do better so that British

Columbians have some sense of hope that they can recover from this

without massive job loss and business insolvency.

The question goes to the Premier. Will the Premier take a simple,

straightforward step, like suspending sales tax, hotel tax and employer

health tax for 90 days?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question. I want to also welcome those

who are sitting in their offices across British Columbia and those that

are joining us here in the Legislature today for what will be, I think,

an extraordinary question period for all of us.

I do appreciate the member’s question. I do know he would agree

with me that the past 100 days have been extraordinary for British

Columbians, whether they be employees or employers. We’ve been taking

steps collectively to address issues as they’ve emerged, whether it be

in the hospitality sector, whether it be in construction or whether it

be in a range of sectors. We’ve been working hand in hand with leaders

and with workers to come forward with proposals and

suggestions.

I’d also say that members of this House — on all sides, in all

parties — have been providing advice and counsel to government. We’ve

been taking that greatly and putting it into action in many sectors.

What we’re doing now is asking British Columbians what their thoughts

are. We have the opportunities and the luxury and the privilege of

sitting in this place, of penning letters, of making comments and

engaging with people in a way that British Columbians don’t.

This is not a delay in restart. We have been going since the

middle of May. We have been adding to the basket of initiatives a $5

billion commitment that the Minister of Finance and I made in our action

plan not that long ago. I know that the member on the other side will be

supporting us as we go forward. But action does not mean precluding

British Columbians.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: I’ve had the fortunate opportunity to speak to British Columbians

all over this province in the last 100 days in electronic town halls of

up to 11,000 people, listening to their concerns and listening to their

worries. British Columbians are extremely concerned about the future —

starting now but certainly going into the fall, when bills will become

due, including all the deferred taxes and fees from this government.

They’re looking for ideas about how we can recover.

[2:05 p.m.]

It’s not just about opening the doors again. That’s a public

health declaration. It’s not an economic plan. British Columbians are

feeling impoverished. They’re feeling worried about the ability to go

out and spend and participate in the economy. We see on the streets of

Victoria…. They’re virtually empty during the business day because

people do not have confidence that they can get out there and

participate in the economy again. So we’re asking this Premier to think

about the people who have mortgages, the people who have kids, the

people who want to go to work, whether as an employee or as an employer

— or both, for that matter.

We ask the Premier a simple query that we’ve had on the table for

three months now. Will the Premier suspend sales tax, hotel tax and

employer health tax for 90 days to jump-start the B.C.

economy?

Hon. J. Horgan: We have been working since March to put in place initiatives to

protect workers, to protect businesses — $5 billion. And $1.5 billion of

that remains for a stimulus package that we’ll be rolling out in the

days ahead to make sure that British Columbians stand in good stead

across the country and, indeed, around the world.

I think it’s important for the Leader of the Opposition and

members in this House and at home to remember that this is not a British

Columbia problem. This is an international problem that requires

extraordinary efforts on all of our parts to make sure we’re doing

everything we can to ensure that British Columbians come out ahead at

the end of this.

Certainly, we have bent the curve as British Columbians by

listening to the counsel and guidance of Dr. Henry and Minister Dix, as

we laid out the health challenges that people were facing. I would

suggest to the member, and I’m sure he knows this, that in order to

build confidence for consumers to go back into retail, into hospitality

and into other sectors that require that type of activity, we’re going

to have to do a couple of things. We’re going to have to make sure that

the workplace is safe. WorkSafeBC has been working with the public

health officers to make sure that we put in place guidelines so that

customers can be comfortable when they go into an establishment, so that

they’re going to be safe and so that the workers in there are safe as

well.

This cannot be done by snapping fingers. It cannot be done by

edicts brought forward in question period. I’m happy, as I have been for

the past number of weeks, to read suggestions and hear suggestions from

members of this House any time, anywhere. The member put forward some

tax changes. I suggest he take those issues up with the Minister of

Finance, who’s always happy to talk about how we can make sure our

economy continues to grow.

It’s going to be a challenging 100 days ahead of us, hon. Member,

and you know that full well.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: We hear the Premier talking consistently about public health

measures, which actually don’t have anything to do with economic

recovery. The federal government has spent $7,000 for every living,

breathing human being in this country in an economic support and

stimulus package. So far, the provincial government has spent one-tenth

of that, $700. It’s a paltry contribution to a colossal

problem.

We have more than 500,000 British Columbians who are not employed

now, compared to a year ago. This crisis has disproportionately damaged

the careers of women and youth. I think we all know young people who are

now adrift, living on a federal cheque for $1,250 a month, wondering

where their future lies. It cries out for leadership from this

government to talk about what the future holds for British

Columbians.

Once more I’ll ask the Premier: is he prepared to look at a

serious, simple, immediate remedy for this problem by creating that

confidence that comes from reducing taxes? Drop the sales tax, drop the

employer health tax, drop the hotel tax for 90 days and give British

Columbians a chance to get ahead, Premier.

Hon. J. Horgan: I guess perhaps we’re not getting press releases through to the

official opposition. That surprises me. They’re readily available on the

Internet, gov.bc.ca.

The emergency benefit for workers, $1,000, is already $250 higher

than the number the member articulated there. This month another $451

through the climate action tax credit will be going to families who

deserve that. Families of up to four see $450.

A temporary rent supplement — the only province in the country to

bring forward a temporary rent supplement because of the high cost of

housing in British Columbia. The members might be aware of how that

happened over time. But we’re the only province to put that in place,

and we’re going to advance it for a couple more months as we go

forward.

There will be a $1,000 grant for those seeking a diploma, a

certificate or a degree come September, the first time a non-refundable

grant will be available to young people in British Columbia in 16

years.

[2:10 p.m.]

We’re doing our part. We’re doing our part to lay the groundwork

for a very challenging future.

I’m under no illusion. I know the member is under no illusion as

well. We need to continue to work together. I appreciate that the

responsibility of the opposition is to hold us accountable. I’m fine

with that, but don’t make stuff up. We’ve already far exceeded the last

comments in your question. I’m sure we’ll hear more as the half an hour

progresses.

SMALL BUSINESS EMPLOYEE LAYOFFS

AND SEVERANCE PAY

ISSUES

J. Johal: Small businesses are pleading with the Minister of Labour to

change employment rules to extend layoff time limits to the end of

August, plus an additional six weeks once emergency orders are

lifted.

This is what Anita Huberman from the Surrey Board of Trade had to

say: “Revisit your recent negative response to the business community.

Take action.” Severance payments will be significant, and in many cases,

will lead to bankruptcy. Is that what the B.C. government

wants?

To the Minister of Labour, will he listen to the Surrey Board of

Trade and fully extend the time limit as small businesses are

requesting?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for his question. We did hear of this issue. We

put in place the extension in the first place. There is, under

section

72 of the Employment Standards Act, an opportunity for businesses to

seek variance. I understand from correspondence from them today that’s

not adequate for their needs.

We’re quite happy to continue to engage in discussion. This is an

important issue. The member knows that. But I hope the businesses are

not saying, through you to the House and to workers across British

Columbia, that the severance that those workers earned over perhaps,

potentially, decades of employment with the companies in question, are

to give up that severance. If that’s the proposition that you’re putting

forward, we disagree with it.

The question at hand here is: can we find a way for businesses and

workers to find an accommodation so that we can get back to where we

were pre-COVID? That’s our objective. But if you’re suggesting that the

severance that’s owed to those employees should be forgiven, that’s not

on.

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

supplemental.

J. Johal: This is what I’m suggesting. In my community,

Richmond-Queensborough, the constituency that I represent, I have a

small events company. They have six employees. Five of them have been

laid off. They are getting to the point where they’ll have to pay

severance. That cost that company can’t afford. They will have to

declare bankruptcy. There will be no job for those employees to go back

to.

I remind the Premier…. Just think about that for a second. This

small business that employs six people has survived the COVID pandemic

but isn’t going to survive NDP policy. That’s the issue here.

The fact that various organizations around British Columbia had to

send a letter today…. Up until yesterday — in fact, up until two hours

ago — the answer was no from the Minister of Labour, absolutely no.

Instead, you have…. The Vancouver Board of Trade, the Surrey Board of

Trade, the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Federation of

Independent Business, ICBA, Restaurants Canada, Retail Council, B.C.

Hotel Association have collectively spoken in one voice that this is a

clear and present issue.

Just the other day BCBC also stated that with 200,000 small

businesses in this province, they expect 10 to 15 percent to go under by

the end of 2021. That’s what we’re talking about here. It’s the small

mom-and-pop shops that are impacted, the backbone of our

economy.

The business community is also saying today: “B.C. employers will

be faced with ‘regulated chaos’ as the clock ticks down to deadlines

beginning in early July, forcing many businesses, by law, to terminate

laid-off employees and pay out severance.”

Will the Labour Minister act now before it’s too late?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, we’re happy to engage with the business community on these

issues. They’re important issues. The issue of severance, however, is at

the core of this question. I hope it’s the official opposition’s

position that those workers deserve that severance, regardless of what

goes forward.

We’re happy to work with small businesses through their

representatives, either through the B.C. chamber or through the boards

of trade. I have a meeting on Thursday with them. We’ll engage in that

discussion at that time. I’m confident we’ll find a way forward that

meets the interests of those businesses as well as those

employees.

LONG-TERM-CARE FACILITIES

AND SINGLE-SITE ORDER

FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

S. Furstenau: I’d like to begin just by commending the Minister of Health and

the provincial health officer for their steady guidance through the last

100 days. I know that the people of B.C. are very grateful for their

open and transparent communication on such an ongoing basis.

[2:15 p.m.]

During this pandemic, we’ve seen outbreaks occur in many of our

province’s long-term-care homes and assisted living facilities, and 585

cases, as of June 17, can be linked to those outbreaks. Heartbreakingly,

116 residents or patients have died of COVID-19.

An important aspect of this tragedy is the part-time hours many

front-line workers are hired for. This resulted in many employees,

mostly women and visible minorities, working in multiple facilities to

make ends meet, causing them unwittingly to spread the virus between

multiple homes. I welcome the fact that the government has ordered

employees to only work at one facility and provided a backstop for those

who have suffered financial hardship as a result.

The Premier has said he thinks that “you can anticipate that that

will be — in fact, you can be certain — that that will be the norm going

forward.”

My question is to the Minister of Health. How will government

ensure that employees are being paid a living wage so that they can

afford to work at only one facility, and when can we expect to see

legislation that will make these changes truly permanent?

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you to the member for her question. The single-site order

that was put in place pursuant to the medical health officer or the

provincial health officer’s orders included a very significant change

that made it happen. This involved, by the way, 501 facilities and

48,794 employees working in those facilities, 8,800 of whom worked at

multiple sites.

So what’s happened? All 501 right now have single-site orders in

place. All 8,874 employees have been assigned to a single site. In

addition, all of those employees — all of them, not just the 8,874

affected by the single-site order — are seeing a top-up to their wages

to bring them up to HEABC-negotiated levels, and those who have a

particular pay grade go to the highest pay grade if they’re at multiple

sites. These are significant changes.

I want to say that we made this happen by making those

investments, by supporting the process. Other provinces have talked

about this. British Columbia, with the support of all political parties,

has acted, and I want to thank everyone involved in health care who has

made it happen. Those orders are going to be in place for some time and

give us the opportunity to work on the future.

I have to say that it has been the contribution of unions such as

the HEU, of employers such as those represented by Denominational Health

and the B.C. Care Providers Association who have helped make it happen.

This has been a team B.C. approach and has to continue to be a team B.C.

approach to ensure that workers are protected and that, most

importantly, those people living in long-term care are given the care

they need and they deserve.

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

SENIORS CARE BY FOR-PROFIT

LONG-TERM-CARE

FACILITIES

S. Furstenau: Thank you to the minister for that response.

Currently B.C. spends $1.3 billion per year contracting for-profit

companies and not-for-profit societies to operate two-thirds of the

province’s long-term-care beds. The not-for-profit sector spends almost

$10,000, or 24 percent, more per resident per year than the for-profit

sectors, on direct care. One of the biggest reasons for this disparity

is that the for-profit sector underpays their care aide staff by as much

as 28 percent compared to the industry standard.

Not only that, according to the latest report from the B.C.

seniors advocate, the for-profit sector failed to deliver 207,000 hours

of funded care, which means over 200,000 hours of care paid for with

public funds was never provided. In contrast, the not-for-profit sector

provided every hour they were funded to deliver and then 80,000 hours

more.

My question is to the Minister of Health. On March 4, 2020, the

minister said in relation to for-profit companies: “They have the

responsibility to provide care. We have the responsibility to regulate,

and we will.” When and how will for-profit companies be held to these

responsibilities?

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you very much for the supplementary question. I think you’ll

note that the report of the seniors advocate was based on the fiscal

year 2017-18. Since then a number of changes have occurred that are

important.

[2:20 p.m.]

Unanimously in this House, members supported Bill 47, which got

rid of Bills 29 and 94 and empowered health care workers in a way that

hadn’t happened before, gave them the same rights as other workers in

society.

In addition since that time, we’ve significantly increased funded

care hours, particularly for those two sectors — for the for-profit and

not-for-profit sectors who provide public beds in B.C. — such that at

the end of this year, we’re going to move from 3.1 care hours per

resident-day to 3.37 care hours per resident-day.

Even more important than that, 75 care homes, all private or

not-for-profit, were funded at under 2.9 care hours per resident-day at

that time, just to put that in context. That is more than three hours

per week per resident of direct care under the provincial standard.

There were 75 such care homes. Now there are zero.

We have also brought in place, again working with a team B.C.

approach, new mechanisms both to enforce contracts and a new web-based

tool, which we’ll be moving to this summer, to assist everybody in

ensuring that the hours and the funding provided by government are, in

fact, delivered by providers.

We’re doing this by working together. This is a made-in-B.C.

approach. It involves not-for-profit, it involves for-profit, and it

involves associations of employers and unions.

We are moving forward to improve seniors care in this province.

Those changes — Bill 47, the hiring of new care aides, the increasing

care standards — have made a significant difference in B.C. as we’ve

gone through the COVID-19 pandemic.

SMALL BUSINESS EMPLOYEE LAYOFFS

AND SEVERANCE PAY

ISSUES

P. Milobar: The answers the Premier gave to the member for

Richmond-Queensborough seem to be a little bit all over the

map.

On the one hand, the Premier is saying this is an issue that has

just come up. He makes it sound like it just came up. He makes it sound

like it’s something that they’re fundamentally opposed to. Yet this

government had already extended it from 13 weeks to 16 weeks for a

temporary layoff. He then makes it sound as if they’ve always been open

and willing to discuss, even though last week his minister made it very

clear there would be no extension.

There are 133,000 British Columbians who are on temporary layoff

right now, thousands of small businesses. They need that certainty now,

or there will not be 133,000 jobs for them to come back to.

Organizations representing thousands of small businesses have

written today: “Through your inaction now, Minister, you are dismissing

the gravity of the situation still facing many businesses who have been

forced to close or curtail operations and lay off workers.”

To the Minister of Labour or the Premier, will the time limits be

extended today?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for the question.

As I said to the member for Richmond-Queensborough, we felt that

the provisions under

section 72 of the Employment Standards Act were

adequate — for companies that were affected to take that avenue.

Clearly, the opposition and those that have written the letter today

have a different view on that matter, and I’m absolutely prepared to go

back and take another look at it.

This isn’t about trying to stop people from succeeding. Quite the

contrary. We’ve been spending the past 100 days doing the exact

opposite, trying to make sure we’re putting in place initiatives that

will help people, whether it be working with the very businesses that

you just articulated in convincing the federal government to fully fund

a sick pay operation that will allow people to not go back to work when

they’re sick because of an economic imperative. That was driven by the

very people that the member just articulated to me.

It’s not like we haven’t been working closely with the B.C.

Business Council, with the boards of trade, with the B.C. Chamber of

Commerce. Quite the contrary. We’ve been working very closely with them

to try and find ways that we can collaborate — workers, employers,

community groups — to find a better way forward. I hope the opposition

will join us.

I’m happy to revisit this issue with these groups as early as

Thursday.

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

supplemental.

P. Milobar: These groups have been voicing these concerns for quite some time

now. They’re not waiting for the Premier to find yet another federal

program to try to ride the coat-tails on and make it look like it’s a

provincial program.

The minister’s response last week to this issue was to say that

employers can request a variance. We heard the Premier reference the

variances, as well, earlier.

The business community responded to that today. Here’s another

quote. This is a “hollow offering” and “frankly, Minister, insulting to

the many businesses struggling to recover or simply keep their doors

open.”

Perhaps the Premier can enlighten all of us and tell us what the

average time will be for a business to get a variance application

approved by the employment standards branch.

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: We’ve been absolutely overwhelmed by the extraordinary work of

government employees over the past 100 days, doing things, going beyond

anything they had imagined when they took on their oaths of office and

they signed on to work for the people of British Columbia, whether it be

to go to airports to add more resources to protect our borders, with

federal employees, or whether it be to work on issues like

this.

We have regular meetings with the economic recovery task force

where every corner of government is coming together, a cross-government

approach.

I just said to the member’s first question…. I’m happy to revisit

this question and will do so as early as Thursday, when I have all of

these people on a telephone call. If that’s not an adequate answer, he

can ask me another question.

S. Bond: Frankly, to the Premier, that isn’t an adequate answer.

Today the Minister of Labour received an absolutely scathing

letter from organizations representing thousands of workers across the

province. We’ve heard several quotes, but let me provide the Premier and

the minister with another one.

This is what the business community wrote to the Labour Minister

today. “Your lack of appreciation for the dire situation facing

thousands of small businesses and workers calls into question” the

Premier’s sincerity. “Thousands of businesses now face what amounts to

‘regulated insolvency’ because of your inaction.”

So a very simple question: will the Minister of Labour do his job

and commit to extending the time limits today?

Hon. J. Horgan: I don’t know if the technology is not working across the province.

As I said to the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, I’m happy to

revisit this question, and I will be speaking with many of the

signatories of the letter on Thursday. If that’s not fast enough, we can

set up an earlier call.

I think it’s appropriate that we take the time. It’s already

scheduled. These are busy people working on a whole host of

issues.

If the opposition has come to the point where they demand you make

a call today instead of tomorrow, then so be it. Good

question.

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

supplemental.

S. Bond: We can save the Premier the time of making a phone call. In fact,

what he could do is commit today to extending the timelines.

That’s what business organizations are asking for. This is what

they said, once again, today. Perhaps the Premier may want to have a

conversation with his Labour Minister. “The business community

repeatedly brought this looming issue to your government’s attention,

beginning in early April. Regrettably, you have not reached out nor

responded to our concerns until last Thursday, June 17, leaving your

ministerial duties to others.”

To the Minister of Labour…. Apparently, he hasn’t had a

conversation with the Premier. This has been a discussion item since

early April. The answer was no.

Can the Minister of Labour explain why he would force the

permanent layoff of workers, whether they or their employees like it or

not?

Hon. J. Horgan: We have been discussing these and many other issues for over 100

days now. We’ve had a cross-government approach. The minister and I

reviewed this issue. We felt that

section 72, as I said, was

appropriate. Clearly, these business organizations feel differently. I

am committing today to speak with them at a scheduled phone call on

Thursday to address the question.

J. Thornthwaite: This seems to be an NDP pattern — lots of discussions, lots of

surveys, no action.

Hard hit small businesses are already struggling to survive. The

minister’s inaction will now force them to pay significant unnecessary

costs which will be the final straw for many businesses, sadly. For

example, a restaurant with 30 staff would have to pay

$100,000.

Again, can the Minister of Labour explain why he is forcing small

businesses to permanently lay off workers and incur costs that they

simply cannot afford?

Hon. J. Horgan: “Unnecessary costs” is how the opposition party refers to working

people in British Columbia. Unnecessary costs.

This is a severance question. This is….

Interjections.

Hon. J. Horgan: The whole point why they’re asking for relief is because they

can’t afford the severance. I thought that’s what one of your

questioners asked, between reading paragraphs from a letter that I’ve

acknowledged I’ve received and will respond to.

[2:30 p.m.]

For a member of the opposition to say that it’s unacceptable for

business to be responsible for their employees is a bit rich. It’s a bit

rich.

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

supplemental.

J. Thornthwaite: What the NDP does not seem to understand is that unnecessary costs

to businesses cost people their jobs.

Since early April, small businesses have repeatedly begged this

government to act. What has been asked is just a simple fix to protect

businesses from being permanently asked to fire their employees. It’s

this minister’s inaction, not COVID-19, that will penalize small

businesses and force them to shutter their operations for

good.

Will the Minister of Labour explain how businesses are supposed to

do this?

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, we’ve been working with businesses on a whole range of

issues. One that the Attorney General just resolved not that long ago

was wholesale pricing for the hospitality sector. That’s going to save

an enormous amount of money for small businesses.

We put in place provisions to ensure that businesses wouldn’t be

evicted because there were property management companies that wouldn’t

apply for federal relief. We’ve been working hand in hand with our

federal partners to find ways to fill gaps in the very generous programs

they’ve brought forward. It’s been successful to this point in

time.

I assumed that when we came back to the Legislature, when we could

talk about these issues, we would bring up more than one piece of

correspondence, albeit important, that I have acknowledged and said I

will address before the week is out. Perhaps, maybe, you should get

another refrain. You’ve had 100 days to figure out question

period.

I’ve acknowledged the issue. We felt that the variance was

appropriate. The opposition disagrees with us. They don’t feel that we

should protect the severance rights of individuals. But that’s fine.

We’re going to work through this. I’m sure that the opposition will take

credit when the time comes.

[End of question period.]

Motions Without Notice

DISCHARGE OF ORDER FOR

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

TO SIT

IN TWO SECTIONS

Hon. M. Farnworth: I have a suite of three motions for the House to deal

with.

By leave, I move:

[That the order of the House of February 27, 2020 authorizing the

Committee of Supply for this Session to sit in two sections, designated

Section A and

Section B, be discharged.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

SPECIAL PROCEDURES FOR PROCEEDINGS

OF COMMITTEE OF

SUPPLY

DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC

Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move the adoption of the Sessional Order establishing

special procedures respecting the regulation of the conduct of

proceedings of the Committee of Supply in exceptional circumstances,

COVID-19 pandemic, a copy of which has been distributed to the House

Leaders of the recognized caucuses:

[1. That the Committee of Supply for this Session be

authorized to sit in three sections, designated

Section A,

Section B,

and

Section C, to be subject to the rules that follow.

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY,

SECTION A AND

SECTION

Authorizations

2. That the Committee of Supply,

Section A and

Section C, sit

the weeks of June 22 and July 6, 13, 20 and 27, unless otherwise

ordered.

3. That the Committee of Supply,

Section A and

Section C, be

authorized to conduct its proceedings by way of Zoom videoconferencing

technology.

4. That Members who are participating in the proceedings of

the Committee of Supply,

Section A and

Section C, by the approved

videoconferencing technology must have the audio and video functions

enabled with their face clearly visible in order to be counted towards

quorum, to participate in debate, and to vote.

5. That, for greater certainty, the Committee of Supply,

Section A and

Section C, be empowered to sit during a period in which

the House is adjourned.

6. That the Committee of Supply,

Section A and

Section C, be

empowered to examine the Estimates – Fiscal Year Ending March 31,

2021 referred to the Committee of Supply by order of the House

of February 18, 2020.

Schedule of

Estimates

7. That, at every Tuesday morning sitting of the House of a

scheduled sitting week during which the Committee of Supply,

Section A

and

Section C, are to meet, the Government House Leader shall table in

the House the order of the Estimates to be examined the following

Thursday and Friday by the Committee of Supply,

Section A and

Section C,

which shall be distributed to all Members by the Office of the Clerk.

This

schedule may only be altered by agreement of the House Leaders of

each recognized caucus, and notice of any such agreement shall be

provided to the Office of the Clerk and communicated to all Members as

expeditiously as possible.

Meeting

Schedule

8. That the time for the ordinary meeting of the Committee of

Supply,

Section A and

Section C, shall, unless otherwise ordered by the

House or determined by the Committee, be as follows:

Thursday:

Two distinct meetings:

9:30 a.m. to 12 noon

1:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

Friday:

Two distinct meetings:

9:30 a.m. to 12 noon

1:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

Composition

9. That the Deputy Speaker, the Deputy Chair of the Committee

of the Whole, or their designate preside in the Committee of Supply,

Section A and

Section C.

10. That the Committee of Supply,

Section A and

Section C,

each consist of 17 Members, not including the Chair, being eight Members

of the Government Caucus, eight Members of the Official Opposition

Caucus, and one Member of the Third Party Caucus.

11. That the Members of the Committee of Supply,

Section A be:

the Minister whose Estimates are under examination by the Committee and

Jagrup Brar, Mable Elmore, Rick Glumac, Jennifer Rice, Janet

Routledge, Jinny Sims, Rachna Singh, Mike Bernier, Dan Davies, Peter

Milobar, Mike Morris, Ben Stewart, Michelle Stilwell, Jane

Thornthwaite, Laurie Throness , and Sonia

Furstenau .

12. That the Members of the Committee of Supply,

Section C be:

the Minister whose Estimates are under examination by the Committee and

Garry Begg, Bob D’Eith, Mike Farnworth, Rob Fleming, Carole

James, Bowinn Ma, Bruce Ralston, Dan Ashton, Donna Barnett, Coralee

Oakes, Tom Shypitka, Jordan Sturdy, Ralph Sultan, Steve Thomson,

John Yap , and Adam Olsen .

13. That substitutions for Members of the Committee of Supply,

Section A and

Section C, be permitted. Advance notice of substitutions

shall be transmitted to the Office of the Clerk by the respective Whip

at least one hour prior to the scheduled meeting time.

Applicability of Standing

Orders

14. That the provisions of Standing Order 45A,

Schedule 5,

setting out the time limits on speeches, apply to the proceedings of the

Committee of Supply,

Section A and

Section C.

15. That, consistent with Standing Order 6, the presence of at

least ten Members, including the Chair, shall be necessary to constitute

a proceeding of the Committee of Supply,

Section A and

Section C, for

the exercise of its powers.

16. That, consistent with Standing Order 61(1), the Standing

Orders shall be observed in the Committee of Supply,

Section A and

Section C, as may be applicable, except Standing Orders limiting the

number of times a Member may speak.

17. That, consistent with Standing Order 61(2), speeches in

the Committee of Supply,

Section A and

Section C, must be strictly

relevant to the item under consideration.

Proceedings

18. That, pursuant to established practice, a Minister may

defer to a Deputy Minister to permit such Deputy to reply to a question

put to the Minister in the Committee of Supply,

Section A and

Section

Voting and

Divisions

19. That only the Members of the Committee of Supply,

Section

A or

Section C, or duly authorized substitutions, shall vote in a

division.

20. That, when a division is requested in the Committee of

Supply,

Section A and

Section C, the Chair shall announce that a

division has been called. No longer than 15 minutes thereafter, unless

the Committee unanimously agrees otherwise, the Chair shall again state

the question. No Member shall connect to or disconnect from the approved

videoconferencing technology after the final statement of the question

until the division has been fully taken, and every Member of the

Committee present shall vote.

21. That, during a meeting of the Committee of Supply,

Section

A and

Section C, if a division is underway, the Committee shall sit

beyond the ordinary time of adjournment until the division has concluded

and any consequential business has been disposed of.

Reporting and

Completion

22. That the Committee of Supply,

Section A and

Section C,

shall report progress or resolution and completion on the Estimates

under consideration by it at the conclusion of every meeting. The Clerk

to the Committee shall deposit the report with the Office of the Clerk

in paper form or electronically, and such report shall be deemed for all

purposes to have been presented and tabled in the House. The report

shall be entered upon the Votes and Proceedings of the next

sitting day of the House.

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY,

SECTION

23. That the Committee of Supply,

Section B, continue to

operate pursuant to established practice as a Committee of the Whole

House in whose proceedings all Members may participate.

CONCLUSION OF SUPPLY

PROCEEDINGS

24. That after all Estimates have been reported as complete,

Members of the Government Caucus shall have a maximum of seven minutes

cumulatively, Members of the Official Opposition Caucus shall have a

maximum of four minutes cumulatively, Members of the Third Party Caucus

shall have a maximum of two minutes cumulatively, and Independent

Members shall have a maximum of one minute cumulatively to summarize the

Committee of Supply debate on all Estimates completed. Such summaries

shall be in the following order:

a. Independent Members;

b. Third Party Caucus;

c. Official Opposition Caucus; and

d. Government Caucus.

OTHER

25. That this order expire on August 31, 2020.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE FOR MLA s

NOT IN ATTENDANCE MARCH 23, 2020

Hon. M. Farnworth: By leave, I move:

[That pursuant to Standing Order 8, a leave of absence be granted to

all Members who did not attend the service of the House on March 23,

2020.]

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

[2:35 p.m.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour to present the following

reports:

(1) Youth Substance Use Services in B.C.: An Update from the

Office of the Representative for Children and Youth;

(2) Service Plan 2020-21–2022-23 from the Auditor

General;

(3) Office of the Ombudsperson Public Interest Disclosure Annual

Report 2019-2020 from the Office of the Ombudsperson of

B.C.;

(4) Digital Communications, Disinformation and Democracy:

Recommendations for Legislative Change from Elections

B.C.;

(5) 2019-2020 Annual Report from the Office of the Merit

Commissioner;

(6) Skills Immigration Stream of the British Columbia Provincial

Nominee Program from the Office of the Auditor General;

(7) Extraordinary Times, Extraordinary Measures: Two Ministerial

Orders Made Under the Emergency Program Act in Response to the COVID-19

Pandemic from the Office of the Ombudsperson of B.C.;

And lastly, LAMC Accountability Report 2017-18 and 2018-19

from the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 5, Employment Standards

Amendment Act.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker: This House will be in recess for five minutes.

The House recessed from 2:36 p.m. to 2:40 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2020

(continued)

M. Dean: I am very pleased to respond to Bill 5, the Employment Standards

Amendment Act, to make life better for people facing domestic or sexual

violence. These changes ensure that people have up to five days of paid

leave without the stress of losing income. This is in addition to five

days of unpaid leave and up to 15 weeks of intermittent unpaid

leave.

Domestic and sexual violence is a painful and traumatic experience

for too many people, and the impacts of abuse on children and youth can

leave a lifetime of harm and vulnerability. We know this can happen

anytime and to anyone, but women and girls are overwhelmingly at risk,

being seven times more likely to face this type of violence on any given

day. Indigenous women are 3½ times more likely to be impacted than

non-Indigenous women, and LGBTQ2S+ people are more than twice as likely

than hetero people to face it. Three out of five children in every

classroom have lived with violence.

We also know that in times of crisis, violence can really

increase. That’s been a really massive concern during this COVID-19

pandemic. Domestic and sexual violence remains all too prevalent, and in

this unusual time, many women are forced to spend more time at home,

which may be the most dangerous place for them.

I’ve worked in the social services sector for most of my career. I

remember when I was a social worker, I worked with a mom of five kids

whose second husband was incredibly violent. But eventually she did

manage to get away from him, and she tried to rebuild her life. She got

into a new house with her children, but he followed her. He found out

where she lived, and one day he set fire to the house with her in

it.

Later as an employer, I’ve seen firsthand how this bill will help

people. One Monday morning, a team member arrived at our offices, and

she was clearly in a traumatized state. I took her to one side, and we

sat down. She told me that she’d been date raped at the weekend here in

Victoria. She hadn’t known what to do, and she hadn’t gotten any help or

spoken to anybody else about it.

I helped her get to the Victoria Sexual Assault Centre. There she

could receive trauma-informed support, including a medical examination

and counselling. She took the following day off in order to access

services and build her own recovery plan before returning.

This bill is important because for many people, there is no

choice. They cannot risk losing even a day’s wages, sacrificing economic

security, even though they want to protect themselves and family. This

is, sadly, a widespread issue across all regions of B.C., and women are

making tough decisions on a daily basis. Hundreds of women are admitted

to B.C. hospitals each year with severe injuries caused by their

partners. In an average year, 12 lives are tragically lost to domestic

violence in B.C.

People who have faced domestic and sexual violence need time and

space to rebuild their lives. You can imagine that you might need to go

to the doctor or go and see a lawyer, or you might have to find a new

home, a new school for children to keep them safe and supported and make

sure they can sleep soundly at night.

For many women and children, their lives will never be the same.

Being able to access supports and services at the right time and take

those steps that are needed to rebuild their lives without additional

barriers or penalties will give them much more opportunity for a strong

and successful recovery and future.

In Canada, most provinces, including the federal government,

require some domestic or sexual violence paid leave — between two to

five days. And thousands of B.C. businesses and communities and advocacy

groups and individual British Columbians have come forward with their

support for paid leave. This will mean that someone facing this type of

violence will know that they can have the space and time to move quickly

and make the necessary changes to ensure that they and their children

are safe.

When we introduced these changes to the Employment Standards Act

on March 3, we had a number of people join us in the Legislature:

employers who want the very best for their staff, people who see the

face of those who have experienced violence in the work they do every

day, and people who have experienced violence and are looking to us to

help their voice be heard.

[2:45 p.m.]

There were tears that day from several people, and I know this

topic is not an easy one. But domestic violence and sexual abuse is not

a private matter to be kept behind closed doors, which brings us to

today and the second reading of this bill.

We want the women in our province to be safe at home and in their

communities. We want our girls to be able to play outside with their

friends without fear. We want our female colleagues and staff to be able

to walk home at night without having to always look over their shoulder.

We want a province where people of all backgrounds can live in peace and

safety. But we aren’t there yet. There is so much more to do.

With this bill, however, we do have an opportunity to provide

supports for people to find safety and rebuild their lives at a most

critical time. I want to take this opportunity to say a special thank

you to Minister Bains for his work, for his leadership and for

partnering with me on this very important topic.

Deputy Speaker: No names, Member.

M. Dean: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

R. Singh: This is my honour to speak in favour of Bill 5. As the

Parliamentary Secretary for Gender Equity has already…. She has said it

very well how important this bill is. We know that British Columbia was

one of the only two provinces in Canada which did not have this

provision of five days of paid leave for the victims of domestic

violence or sexual violence. Having worked in the field myself, having

experience, I’ve had the opportunity to hear from so many women who have

experienced domestic violence.

It is a tough topic. It is a tough topic for anybody. But for a

person who is dealing with it, it can be very traumatic. Along with the

trauma that the person is going through, what their family is going

through, and then also having to have to worry about going to work, not

missing work and not being able to take the help of the resources, go

for medical appointments, go for counselling, always being fearful that

if I miss work what is going to happen — we can’t even imagine. I heard

so many such stories while in my work as a counsellor when I was working

with a non-profit organization.

When this bill was introduced, I cannot say how pleased I was and

how thankful I am the Minister of Labour for all the discussions and all

the consultations that he did with the stakeholders to come to this

point. We know that we, our government, wants to support women. We want

to support the victims of domestic violence. Everybody has the right to

have a safe living. We want them to have a…. We want to provide an

environment that is safe for them.

I really hope that we can build a society without domestic or

sexual violence. But when these things are happening, those people

should have the proper resources. That’s why this bill is so important.

So it took us a long time, I know, to reach this point. There’s a lot

more that needs to be done for the victims, but these are the steps that

our government is taking to help them.

I can tell you that since this bill was introduced in March, I

have heard from so many organizations in my community of Surrey. So many

people who were victims themselves tell me personally how important this

bill is for them, how important it is for their families. I stand to

support this bill, and my hope is that all of the members who are going

to speak should be supporting it. I will take my seat now.

J. Routledge: It’s my pleasure and honour to speak on Bill 5, the Employment

Standards Amendment Act.

[2:50 p.m.]

Thirty-five years ago I volunteered in what was then called a

shelter for battered women. On occasion, I staffed the crisis line,

sometimes on night shift, because we would get calls from women at all

hours. Some of them were whispered calls and some of them were very

tentative calls because they felt so ashamed, so that no one would hear

them. We would talk about their options. I remember reassuring women

that they weren’t alone, that it was not their fault that they were

being beaten up and that this was not normal behaviour.

I think one of the most important things that we did in that

shelter was to believe them. Because many people in their lives did not

believe them. They did not believe that they were being abused. In those

days — still, often — the police who came to the calls didn’t believe

them, their friends didn’t believe them, and many members of their

families didn’t believe them. One of the things that we would talk about

when they called was the importance of making a plan and how to make a

plan.

I remember, often, these women would arrive in the middle of the

night, delivered by police. They had nothing with them other than the

clothes on their back. That was it. That’s all they had. In those days,

very few of these women had an independent income. In fact, in those

days, very few women in relationships — married women — worked outside

of the home.

I remember, this many years later, from my time as a volunteer in

a shelter, that escaping a violent relationship involved lots of

appointments. Often we would accompany women to some of these

appointments. It involved a lot of medical appointments, sometimes as a

result of physical injury. Sometimes women came with broken jaws, broken

noses and broken arms. To recover from that, it never just took one

appointment. There were multiple medical appointments to get past their

injuries.

Many of them arrived with an incredible amount of anxiety and

depression, and they needed to go to appointments for psychological

counselling. Sometimes they had to take their children to appointments

because of the trauma that they experienced.

They needed to find a new place to live. The shelters were

temporary, so they needed to move, which meant that they needed to find

new housing. They often weren’t able just to go to one apartment or one

house. They would often have to go and see several. They needed

appointments to take their children to get registered in a new school.

They had many, many legal appointments. They had to file police reports.

They had to prepare for family court. They had to get restraining

orders. Sometimes they had to go to trials.

So if we ever find ourselves wondering why she didn’t just leave

an abusive relationship, let’s remind ourselves that leaving is

complicated. It takes work and it takes planning to ensure that she and

her children are safe, physically and economically.

Let’s fast forward to today. What’s changed? Well, sadly, women

still are being physically and emotionally abused in their

relationships, but they still have to make a plan to escape and recover.

Implementing the plan takes a lot of appointments.

One of the things that is different today is that most women, most

adult women, whether they are married or in a relationship or not, work

outside of the home. That is a huge difference from 35 years ago. Having

a job, having one’s own income, can be a lifeline to someone escaping

domestic violence and trying to build a new life for themselves and

their children.

[2:55 p.m.]

That lifeline could be cut if they are denied time off work to

attend one of these appointments or to look for a new place to live, and

that lifeline can be cut if they’re afraid to ask for time off to go to

court or for one of the other appointments for fear of being judged an

unreliable or poor worker.

Bill 5 strengthens that lifeline. I am so proud that we’re

introducing it and that we’re going to make huge changes in the lives of

people who are suffering from domestic violence.

S. Furstenau: It’s great to be back in debate for this important bill after our

spring session was so abruptly cancelled by COVID in March.

Unfortunately, as with so many issues over the last three months,

things have worsened amidst pandemic conditions. As reported by crisis

and support centres, rates of sexual assault and domestic violence in

British Columbia increased as stay at home and social distancing orders

came into force.

While we collectively follow the guidelines of the provincial

health officer, staying isolated in our homes as much as possible, it’s

clear that keeping the wider population safe from COVID-19 has increased

the risk for some of our most vulnerable citizens. Women and children

have been at an increased risk of experiencing or witnessing domestic

violence during this time, with limited ability to leave an unsafe

situation or access their support networks. This risk is exacerbated by

economic hardship and uncertainty.

I can speak, hon. Minister, of the commercial that plays regularly

where women are shown how to give a hand signal over Zoom or Skype to

indicate that they’re in danger in their homes. Every time I see that

commercial I am wrenched by that experience of imagining what it must be

like in these conditions.

Noting this, the provincial government responded by supplementing

current shelter spaces with additional accommodations in hotels, working

with the sexual assault centres and shelters to increase services and

coordinating with the federal government, who announced an additional

$40 million for women’s shelters and sexual assault centres, with $10

million invested in emergency shelters meant to benefit Indigenous women

and children needing to flee unsafe situations. There has also been

additional media coverage on this issue, which is important for

awareness and combatting stigma, and crisis phone, email and text

services set up to support people.

While an immediate response to these concurrent crises is needed

to keep people safe in the short term, as policy makers, we need to

address the root causes of domestic and gender-based violence. We need

to create solutions not just for women and children fleeing violence but

for the perpetrators of violence themselves. Intergenerational trauma,

economic uncertainty, a lack of social networks and substance dependency

all contribute to domestic violence. We should strive to create support

and perpetrator accountability systems that help move us forward as a

society and away from violence and abuse.

In that regard, I support this bill because it works to address a

structural aspect of this issue — that survivors of violence and abuse

can be further harmed by a system and a society that do not support or

facilitate their recovery.

Bill 5 amends the Employment Standards Act to provide a new

employer-paid leave of up to five days for employees experiencing or who

have specific family members experiencing domestic or sexual violence.

It builds upon the unpaid job-protected domestic or sexual violence

leave this government introduced for employees last year and represents

further progress on our commitment to support individuals experiencing

this type of violence.

This change will help people who have faced domestic or sexual

violence by giving them a bit of time and space to address their most

pressing needs, as so wonderfully articulated by the member for Burnaby

North describing her personal experience as a support worker. This may

mean getting medical, psychological and legal support, or it could mean

that they have the time to find a new place to live or a new school for

their children without having to lose their job or financial security in

the process. These amendments will modernize B.C.’s employment standards

and bring our laws to protect workers in line with other

jurisdictions.

[3:00 p.m.]

The immediate aftermath of an assault is horrific enough as it is.

Survivors should not have to also worry about sacrificing their

livelihood to attend to a crisis that someone else created.

I would also like to recognize that the shift to include victims

of sexualized violence in addition to domestic abuse survivors was

instigated last year by the official opposition and is central to the

strength of this policy.

As we advance solutions, we must always be careful to not

inadvertently create a hierarchy of victims that leaves those who are

assaulted by someone other than their partner without the services they

need and deserve just as much as people in relationships. And while

today’s progress is worth celebrating, we must continue to work to

reduce and better respond to instances of sexualized and gender-based

violence in our province.

The decision by multiple governments over many decades to

consistently underfund the medical and justice services needed by

survivors of sexualized violence is inherently sexist and dangerous to

women. We have a long way to go. According to government’s data, roughly

two-thirds of those who have faced domestic violence in Canada are

women. One in four sexual assault victims were children aged 13 and

younger. Three to five children in every classroom are exposed to

domestic violence. Indigenous women and girls are 3.5 times more likely

to face violence than non-Indigenous. And LGBTQ2S+ people are more than

twice as likely to experience violence than the rest of the

population.

I would like to also acknowledge two related tragedies that have

happened since we left this House in March: the horrific mass murder

inflicted in the Maritimes in April and the appalling crime committed in

my caucus colleague’s riding earlier this month.

The day after the news about Nova Scotia broke, my heart sank when

I learned that the perpetrator began with an attack on his partner. This

means that one of Canada’s worst tragedies is yet again connected to

domestic vio­lence. Misogynistic beliefs underlie all of the worst

mass shootings that have taken place in Canada in my lifetime. The 1989

Polytechnique shooting is the most infamous. The Toronto van attack

perpetrator was radicalized by an online incel subculture. In addition

to his racist, anti-Muslim views, the Quebec mosque shooter routinely

attacked feminists online.

The latter two have not been widely discussed in the context of

violent misogyny. This is a mistake. By failing to examine the

underlying toxic views of the perpetrators, we are ignoring a critical

aspect of these crimes. Larger-scale analyses confirm this pattern. An

analysis of FBI data on mass shootings found that 57 percent of mass

shootings between 2009 and 2015 included a spouse, a former spouse or

other family members among the victims.

We need to be vigilant and uncompromising, even when the behaviour

doesn’t yet constitute outright physical abuse. Violence exists on a

spectrum. People who know the Nova Scotia shooter say that his jealous

treatment of his girlfriend was a red flag. Indeed, experts say that

misogynistic treatment of women and other family members by a

perpetrator is often observed before it escalates to mass violence.

Before the perpetrator has terrorized society, they terrorize those who

are closest to them.

The responsibility for combatting misogyny must be shared by

everyone. We all need to speak out when we encounter instances of

misogyny, educate ourselves and build the underlying conditions that

support gender diversity and inclusion. We need to do all of this

urgently, and we need to do it all the time, not just in the wake of a

tragedy.

In particular, we need to see more proactive efforts from men.

People of marginalized genders have long been at the forefront of

fighting to address gender-based violence, taking on the work of

advocating for policy change and building victim support organizations.

Men need to show that they are united in the fight for equality,

especially by fostering alternative visions of masculinity that are not

tied to the control or domination of others.

This need not be a daunting task. The majority of men already

model equitable treatment of others, and much progress towards equality

has been made. As we all embrace more learning and open dialogue, we

will build a society where everyone can enjoy a healthy sense of

identity that doesn’t diminish or threaten anyone else.

[3:05 p.m.]

Likewise, women with privilege must go above and beyond to centre

the experiences of women who face compounding threats, such as those

associated with racial discrimination and poverty. By sharing the

responsibility for combatting gender-based violence and discrimination,

we will all share the rewards of a more peaceful, equitable

province.

I thank the members of this House for their collaboration on this

important bill, and I trust we will continue working together to advance

systemic solutions to the systemic discrimination facing

women.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Seeing no further speakers, the minister will close the

debate.

Hon. H. Bains: I want to begin by thanking all the members of this House who

participated in the debate and shared their stories and talked about how

strongly they feel about this very, very important bill that we are

discussing here today. I want to especially thank the Parliamentary

Secretary for Gender Equity for all her hard work, advocacy, dedication

to gender equity and especially her work on peer, domestic or sexual

violence.

I’d also like to acknowledge the work of the MLA for Surrey South

for her passion and support of this legislation. And I want to thank the

Leader of the Third Party. I want to say thank you for supporting this

bill as well and also sharing your thoughts and stories that you’ve

brought forth. I think those are tremendous pieces of information, and

the comments, that we could all take from you and from others as we move

forward to make this province and the lives of people in this province

much better.

The paid leave will support workers experiencing or who have

specified family members experiencing domestic or sexual violence by

allowing them to relocate or to pursue legal and medical counselling or

other support services without the risk of losing their income or their

jobs. I’m grateful for the public employers, labour representatives,

Indigenous women organizations, the groups supporting individuals and

families who have experienced domestic or sexual violence, and gender

equity groups for sharing their views and perspective on how to improve

domestic or sexual violence leave.

It’s an important bill. I’m so proud that I am the one sponsoring

this bill in this House. I want to say thank you for the tremendous

amount of support that I received from members from all sides. It’s not

a political issue. It is an issue that affects all of us as a

society.

I now move second reading of Bill 5.

Motion approved.

Hon. H. Bains: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to

be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Bill 5, Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2020, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 11, Attorney General Statutes

Amendment Act.

BILL 11 — ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES

(VEHICLE INSURANCE)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2020

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be now read a second time.

[3:10 p.m.]

I think most members of this House know the current auto insurance

system in our province doesn’t work. We have a system where ICBC is both

required by law to provide benefits to people but also required by law

to provide a robust defence to drivers who are at fault in the system.

That’s what they bought insurance from ICBC for in the first place. That

dual role of providing benefits while also, at the same time, showing up

in court against the same person they’re supposed to provide benefits to

results in an incredibly problematic situation where costs continue to

go up, benefits are not keeping up and we need to do better.

We also have an issue where those injured in a vehicle crash

aren’t necessarily getting the care they need. This is especially true

in a situation of a one-car collision where someone runs into a moose,

for example, or hits black ice and goes off the road — a situation where

someone is at fault for a crash, whether due to inexperience, a moment

of inattention or otherwise. But also, people who aren’t at fault in a

collision who go to a multi-year court battle and have a significant

portion of their award eaten up by various costs — expert witness

reports, disbursements, legal fees, and so on.

In addition to the legal fees paid by those who have to go to the

court system, government, through ICBC, is spending a great deal on

legal costs as well. All of this while rates continue to go up.

Obviously, we need something that works for British Columbians and puts

the recovery of those who are injured in crashes at the forefront. We

also need a system that provides affordable rates.

Fortunately, we have two systems in Canada that have been

operating for many years that are doing just that with public auto

insurance systems. It is on those systems that the proposal in front of

the House is modelled.

Now, I know that there are many people who say that the solution

to the issue is simply to privatize the system or to “open it up to

competition.” We can look at other provinces where they’ve done that. We

did. The results are not good.

In Alberta, where the insurance system is fully private, drivers

are facing rate hikes as high as 30 percent, and they see those rate

hikes with significantly less care coverage than British Columbians have

in our basic insurance. In Ontario, their own Finance Minister said they

have the highest auto insurance rates in Canada. Even when private

insurers issued a report about what private insurance, in what they call

a full-competition scenario, would look like in our province, they had

double-digit rate increases for every driver under the age of

Now, obviously, we need to fix the situation. It’s just not

obvious to me that any of those provinces have much to offer us by way

of solution. Those are all private jurisdiction provinces with full

competition, what I’ve heard some people suggest is a solution for our

province. The provinces with public insurers and enhanced care–type

systems like we’re proposing here…. Manitoba, for example, just asked

for the largest rate decrease in their history. Already one of the

lowest-cost provinces, and the rate decrease that they’re asking for is

10.5 percent. So just imagine that.

With the amendments to the Insurance Corporation Act, this bill

fulfils our government’s commitment, as well, to ban the transfer of

ICBC profits to government by eliminating the authority of government to

direct ICBC to make payments to government from profits from the corp.’s

optional business. This means that in future, ICBC profits will only be

used for the purposes of public auto insurance — for drivers in the

province, to benefit them, because it is their money that they paid in

premiums.

With the amendments to the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, this bill will

restrict actions and proceedings with respect to bodily injury caused by

a vehicle for accidents occurring on or after May 1, 2021. Actions for

certain damages will still be permitted in limited circumstances, such

as when you have, for example, a negligent vehicle manufacturer — the

brakes on the car don’t work the way that they’re supposed to —

negligent vehicle repair shops, where a repair that was supposed to be

done to the brakes results in a collision, or a liquor licensee

overserves someone, for example, and that contributes to bodily

injuries. Those are all actions that will continue, or are proposed to

continue, should this bill pass.

Dangerous drivers will continue to be held accountable for their

reckless behaviour, so there will, of course, be the existing criminal

and administrative sanctions at the federal and provincial levels. But

it’s important to note that those that are convicted of certain

driving-based Criminal Code offences, like impaired driving and

dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, may also still be personally

sued for certain damages under the proposed system. These limited

actions would be in addition to what the injured driver would be able to

access under the enhanced care benefits under the proposed

system.

The amendments to the Insurance (Vehicle) Act also set out the

entitlement of B.C. residents to enhanced care benefits when they’re

injured in vehicle accidents on a highway anywhere in Canada outside of

British Columbia or in the United States, as well as for certain

off-highway vehicle accidents. The amendments also set out the

entitlement of non-residents to enhanced care benefits when they’re

injured in vehicle accidents in British Columbia or when injured by a

B.C.-licensed vehicle outside British Columbia.

[3:15 p.m.]

The amendments to the Insurance (Vehicle) Act impose a legal duty

on ICBC to advise and assist an individual with making a claim for

enhanced care benefits and to endeavour to ensure that the individual is

informed about and receives the enhanced care benefits that they may be

entitled to. We’re doing this to ensure that the culture at ICBC shifts

away from one of adversarial battles in the courts to one where ICBC’s

job is to work with care providers to provide people with the care they

need to get better after a collision.

The benefits people are entitled to and proposed under the act

include medical rehabilitation and related benefits, which are increased

to at least $7.5 million. That’s 24 times more care than current

accident benefits, which I note our government increased in April 2019

for the first time since 1991 — to give you an example about how long

ago it was that these benefits were increased and how dramatic the

increase under the new system will be.

New benefits will be in place for compensation for permanent

impairments and injuries. The amount will depend on the severity of the

injury. It’s expected for catastrophic injuries that the compensation

for permanent impairment will be up to $250,000. This is in addition to

the medical rehabilitation and related benefits and is intended to

replace the so-called pain and suffering awards given currently in the

court system at a similar level for the most serious injuries, which is

what British Colum­bians expect.

Extended benefits for those with catastrophic injuries are also

new benefits that will be available. They’re up to $1.2 million for

those who need it most as they transition to living with their

automobile-related injuries.

There’s an income replacement benefit for earners — including the

self-employed — and non-earners, as well as for students and minors.

There’s a loss of studies benefit for students and minors when they

can’t go to school because of their injuries from the collision. And

there are also family and caregiver benefits and death benefits to

support those closest to those injured in a collision as the whole

family struggles to adapt to a new life.

All in all, we are significantly increasing benefits so all

British Columbians who are injured in a vehicle accident can have peace

of mind that they will get the care they need for as long as they need

it. That we can do all of this while proposing to reduce rates, on

average, by 20 percent tells you how much we’re currently spending on

legal expenses in the system.

I want to point out to the members that the amendments to the

Insurance (Vehicle) Act also set out the limits on actions and

proceedings with respect to vehicle damage. It will create a new

first-party coverage for vehicle damage which further simplifies auto

insurance, improves fairness — so that those with the most expensive

vehicles are paying the most expensive rates — and eliminates

unnecessary litigation with respect to vehicle damage.

Amendments to the Insurance (Vehicle) Act also provide for

pre-litigation payments with respect to vehicle accidents occurring

before May 1, 2021, to increase the portion of an award that goes to an

injured person rather than towards legal costs. These are amounts where

there is no dispute that the person is entitled to it, ICBC should pay

it, and they shouldn’t have to pay a lawyer to access that

money.

The bill makes other consequential and related amendments to the

Insurance (Vehicle) Act in the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act.

With these amendments, British Columbians injured in a vehicle

accident will get the care they need for as long as they need it, and we

will continue to hold bad drivers accountable. Determinations of which

drivers are at fault or responsible for vehicle accidents will still

occur, and if you cause a vehicle crash, your premiums will still go

up.

These changes are fundamental and overhaul a system that was too

focused on the litigation process and associated costs. With these

changes, we’re creating an auto insurance system that provides

significantly improved benefits that British Columbians need to recover

from a vehicle accident while ensuring stability, predictability and

fairness with more affordable premiums. I hope all members will support

this badly needed reform.

J. Johal: It’s a pleasure that I get to rise here today and provide my

thoughts on Bill 11, the vehicle insurance amendment act,

Now, it goes without saying that the ups and downs and tumultuous

story of ICBC is not lost on anyone in this room or joining us virtually

from home or the office. The back and forth on the subject is such a

hallmark of this space that recently some members of the media were even

blessed with a fully playable board game satirizing the whole ordeal.

ICBC Monopoly, which I’m sure will become a bestseller, perfectly

encapsulates the issues.

[3:20 p.m.]

First and foremost, the title says it all. It is a monopoly

controlling the province’s auto insurance options, giving little leeway

for a competitive market, even though other jurisdictions seem to

operate just fine with the access to choice. The whole game is really

just a big tongue-in-cheek joke, but I guess that’s the real point. The

operations and decisions of this Crown corp. have, in their own right,

become a joke. However, in this case, the reality isn’t so

funny.

Comparative to other provinces, British Columbians pay the most

for their auto insurance — and not just by a little bit either. Our

province holds the distinction of overcharging its citizens for auto

insurance with little or no option for change. We all witnessed last

fall, when the new pricing scheme came into play and rates skyrocketed

for thousands of drivers, some by thousands of dollars a year, forcing

heart-wrenching decisions for many young British Columbians as to

whether they attend post-secondary or insure a car.

Those types of ultimatums should not be placed on people. The

question remains: what provides the best solutions for British

Columbians? Is it decades of monopoly that is generally tolerated but

certainly not well liked by most of this province? Or is it a more

modern framework that provides the right balance of options and

opportunities to give the people of this province choice and a secure

thought that their rights are protected and respected. With the

introduction of this bill, I question whether things will be getting any

better at all for your average driver here in British

Columbia.

Now, we all saw, earlier this month, when the Attorney General

touted the elimination of the previous cancellation fee that came in

with reducing or exiting your current coverage. Now, I’ll agree that was

a welcome rebate for those that saw themselves no longer in need of

insurance or their current form of insurance during the previous few

months of stay-at-home orders, home offices and business closures. But

that still does not equal anywhere close to the reductions seen in other

jurisdictions — insurance companies that provided $685 million in relief

to Ontario drivers or about 70 percent of policyholders who are

receiving some form of relief with an average savings of about $150.

This correlates to roughly 5 percent of the total annual premiums

Ontario drivers pay.

This type of reduction was similar to some other provinces that

saw insurance companies giving back to its residents that had been

facing so much hardship during the COVID-19 pandemic. This was backed by

government. Where is that type leadership here in B.C.? No rebates in

sight, just raised premiums. B.C. has also seen a large reduction in

accident claims due to a reduction in driving, yet none of these savings

will be passed on to taxpayers.

I find it truly discouraging that this government is going to hike

rates to the degree they have and then deny a warranted reduction or

rebates at a time when British Columbians are facing a uniquely

challenging financial challenge outside of their control. The Insurance

Bureau of Canada has laid out its own issues with how this government

has handled the changes forced upon drivers due to the pandemic. They

have highlighted how ICBC is not only still paying for ads trying to

convince British Columbians that a move to no-fault is great but that

they are also not engaging British Columbians to discuss how they can

reduce their rates or change their plans as their driving habits changed

over the last few months.

This, again, comes back to the issue of choice. The IBC said in a

release last month: “Where drivers have a choice, insurance companies

are compelled to return premiums because, if they don’t, their customers

are free to shop around and find a company that does.”

Why are British Columbians forced to accept this? This is just the

latest example of ICBC business practices that would never be tolerated

in a system where there was choice and competition. That is the crux of

the argument — choice. We do not have that luxury here, as ICBC controls

the auto insurance market and, accordingly, nearly all of the optional

coverage market. Choice is not even a reality here. We are at the whim

of whatever ICBC decides. How is that fair?

As we touch on the conversation of rebates that we are not

receiving, it is well known that this government has claimed that

drivers will see rebates starting next spring, which, coincidentally,

lines up with election season. Understandably, the Attorney General will

toss that coincidence aside, but we know what that is about. It is a

shiny carrot to dangle at election time. But I truly believe that the

people of this province are becoming wise to the fact that this system

is simply not working for the bulk of the province.

Choice is something that should be readily available to residents

as it is in other jurisdictions. Choice brings competition. Competition

creates the incentive to act in ways that will benefit

drivers.

One of the ways that ICBC has really separated itself from better

functioning programs is the failure to innovate its practices or improve

efficiencies. You can see this in regards to how long it has taken for

us to move to online access and to deal with the virtual world. These

are commonsense 21st-century adaptions that are needed. Innovation and

ease of use is a hallmark of the private sector as it needs to

compete.

[3:25 p.m.]

The lack of competition and choice means that this Crown dinosaur

can just continue along at its sluggish pace without stepping its game

up, and unfortunately, that means costing British Columbians

more.

Now, given the points that I’ve made, it’s important to touch on

where this government is moving this insurance scheme. This bill is

bringing in the enabling legislation for no-fault insurance, though

they’re not calling it that. But we all know this is the introduction of

no-fault insurance here in B.C. The Attorney General has spent enough

time denouncing the very framework he is bringing in to call it its real

name, hence the charmingly worded “enhanced care model.”

The claim is that the move to no-fault will also see ICBC make a

move from an adversarial and defensive operator to one that prioritizes

the care of all injured in an auto accident. Given the reputation and

history of how ICBC has fought claimants tooth and nail for settlements,

I will agree with that statement when I see it.

Even with the move to no-fault, on which the details are yet to be

outlined in this legislation, it’s important to know that we still will

not see the same rates as other jurisdictions. In fact, public insurers

in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Quebec operate in no-fault regimes. In

Manitoba, drivers pay, on average, $1,150 per year in premiums. In

Saskatchewan, they pay just over $1,200 on average. This government

itself estimates B.C. drivers will pay $1,900 for auto insurance. That

is an almost comical difference, but again, not a single ratepayer is

laughing.

Where I find concern is that cabinet retains a regulatory ability

to establish requirements, procedures and an evaluation process for

settling disputes, as well as grounds for exemptions from the process.

Where are those details, and how will we know where the Attorney General

is landing with the regulations that will follow the passing of this

bill?

The AG himself says: “Regulations are a significant part of this

new system…so it’s certainly a framework.” So I hope that the member

opposite can shed light on this in a more meaningful way.

This broad regulatory authority has, understandably, invited

skepticism from critics. Pre-COVID-19 pandemic the initial consultations

were expected to be between February and May of 2020. Where this is at

now is unknown, though I do hope we will get a better understanding of

this in the weeks ahead.

Understandably, there have been stakeholders who have argued that

there is a conflict of interest between meeting ICBC’s financial goals

and cabinet ensuring that they provide adequate compensation. On this

note, one thing is clear: there is still a substantial piece of the

puzzle missing. ICBC still hasn’t come clean on its finances and exactly

how many billions it has lost on its investments. Where is the current

update on its books? This, of course, is something that we have been

asking of the Finance Minister — as well as any budgetary projections or

models are basically trash in the wake of the pandemic.

It goes without saying that the province’s coffers have taken a

sizeable hit in the wake of the last few months, and as you know, we as

opposition have asked for an update on this. This bodes the same for

ICBC. What is the state of the books? Has it lost money like WorkSafeBC

has? Has it retained more funds over the past few months? Has its

investment been affected? Given the V-shaped recovery of the stock

market, I would hope that the bottom line has not been too negatively

affected, but we will wait to hear the results of that.

On this topic, it is prudent to point out that the Finance

Minister has stated that first-quarter financials won’t be available

until September, after the session. This seems like an obviously

intentional deflection of accountability. In some ways, it is redundant

to think of debating and discussing financials when there’s no clear

snapshot of the current state of the government’s books.

Waiting until the Q1 report, which will be right in time for an

election, does not sit right with me, and it shouldn’t with British

Columbians. We need a true and full fiscal update of where ICBC’s

finances are at.

Additionally, given the closure of legislative proceedings over

the next few months, the evidence act wasn’t passed before March 31.

This means that government won’t be able to fix its $400 million loss in

the previous fiscal year, meaning last year had a larger loss than

anticipated. So it is hopeful that the disparagement can also be

commented on. The point being that there are a lot of unknowns at play,

and I am pleased that we are back and able to ask these important

questions and get a clearer understanding of just what is going

on.

I have made it clear that the current operations of ICBC denies

British Columbians a choice, but it also affects the rights of accident

victims and puts them at the mercy of ICBC’s decision-making process.

There is story after story of ICBC lawyers trying to limit settlements,

reduce compensation and, in some cases, go out of their way to deny the

rightful claims of victims of motor vehicle accidents. To me, that

carries with it an inherent issue. Where is the recourse to ensure that

the rights of British Columbians are protected?

[3:30 p.m.]

Now, as I’ve said, the NDP are marketing the no-fault insurance to

British Columbians as the enhanced care model of insurance. They have

touted it as being able to provide higher care, treatments and income

benefits, all of this being paid for by an apparent reduction in legal

costs.

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

However, this is all being accomplished by largely removing the

ability of victims to sue an at-fault driver for a vehicle accident.

There are a few exceptions to this rule, but they are quite limited and

specific. There will still be the option to sue at-fault drivers who are

convicted of specific Criminal Code offences, like impaired driving, for

additional compensation. In addition, for those who have committed the

set-out criminal offences, people retain the right to sue certain

non-motorist parties.

In actuality, these exceptions do not amount to a large portion of

cases, which is why the government believes that ICBC will be able to

save as much as $1.5 billion due to the elimination of litigation costs

associated with accident claims.

My reservations about this bill fall into two broad categories.

First, my doubts about no-fault itself, which I believe strips British

Columbians of certain rights, while also likely failing to accomplish

its goal of making insurance more affordable for the people of British

Columbia.

Second are my reservations with the bill itself, which leaves so

much to be determined by regulation, and in doing so, means that much of

the details of the transition to no-fault are yet to be determined. This

means that we do not yet have a full picture of what it will look like

in practice, while also creating a possible situation for a conflict of

interest for cabinet.

Let’s first take a closer look at no-fault. The NDP are making the

case that the major reason ICBC is losing money, and in turn, charges

such high insurance rates, is because of the cost of litigation and

settlements. They believe that a switch to no-fault will mean a nearly

90 percent decrease in legal costs.

However, this fails to take into account the other factors that

contribute to rising claims costs. These include inflation and increase

in policies, as well as an increase in the cost of vehicle repairs,

which have increased by 56 percent over the last ten years and are only

expected to increase over time. While the government points to other

provinces as guidelines for this switch, it doesn’t highlight that few

have pure no-fault systems in place. Saskatchewan even uses a hybrid

system, where drivers can choose between no-fault and the current

system. Why have they decided against offering this option to British

Columbians?

At the heart of the problem with no-fault is that it strips rights

away from B.C. drivers. It abolishes the right to sue for compensation

for pain and suffering, and instead awards compensation to victims based

on a meat chart of pre-set amounts for specific injuries, not allowing

for unique experiences and impacts on individuals and their families.

No-fault will also force those who have a significant injury to deal

with ICBC for the rest of their lives, adding increased hassle and the

complications of bureaucracy.

The switch to no-fault will also fail to address other existing

problems with ICBC, having no impact on its failure to innovate or

improve efficiency. It will only continue to give more power to this

out-of-date government monopoly while simultaneously taking more choice

away from the people of B.C. This is directly in contrast with what we

have been hearing from British Columbians. They want choice in auto

insurance. They want to be able to choose what works best for them and

their unique circumstances. Taking away their right to sue an at-fault

driver for appropriate compensation does not allow for this.

After all this, there is still no guarantee that the switch to

no-fault will mean more affordable rates for B.C. drivers. The NDP are

estimating that there will be savings, but this is not a sure thing. The

government is asking B.C. to trust that they know best — this after they

spent years in opposition arguing against this very system and even

promising that they themselves would not introduce it in B.C. Yet here

we are today.

In addition to those overarching problems with what this bill will

usher in, there are also significant concerns with the structure of the

bill itself that are worth discussion, and we’ll certainly be asking

questions about this when we move into committee stage.

The biggest issue is how much of this bill is left to be

determined by regulation. Cabinet has the power to make regulations

establishing the amount of income replacement benefits, benefits for

non-earners, loss-of-studies benefits for students, benefits for minors

and benefits for people incapable of holding employment. These are a lot

of important details that will not be put up for debate in this House, a

lot of details that can be changed quickly based on the discretion of

cabinet.

The minister himself has referred to this legislation simply as a

framework, admitting how significant regulation will be to this new

system. This broad regulatory authority is why many people have argued

that there is a significant conflict of interest at the heart of this

bill. It leaves it up to cabinet to weigh the interests of meeting

ICBC’s financial goals against the needs to provide adequate

compensation for British Columbians.

[3:35 p.m.]

The people of B.C. deserve to know the details of how their

compensation will change. They deserve to know exactly how this bill

will affect them. Yet there is so much that is still not

known.

Now, I understand the government’s desire to make insurance rates

more affordable for British Columbians. In fact, affordability is a

significant issue here in B.C., and people should not have to work three

jobs to be able to pay for their car insurance. However, it’s still

unknown if no-fault will really bring significant savings for the people

of B.C. While the proclaimed benefit of this change may not pan out, it

will certainly diminish the rights of British Columbians in the

process.

I understand that under the current system, versus where the NDP

is taking B.C., there will be some presumed cost savings on the books.

But does that reduction in cost equal a better system for British

Columbians? Where is the recourse to not go the no-fault route like

other jurisdictions have? Again, choice and rights are the issue. This

is just another example of the NDP’s “government knows best”

approach.

Will this Crown corp. fight for every victim’s best-case scenario

or aim for settlements that benefit their bottom line? That is still

unclear, and it worries me to think that choice is simply not a factor.

It is a case of ICBC’s way or the highway, and that does not bode well.

Competition breeds choice and forces institutions to fight for

customers, which in turn could provide serious cost savings for

drivers.

Frankly, this is about choice and rights. I worry that British

Columbians will not see a benefit in either avenue with this

legislation. This bill will move us in the opposite direction of where

we should be going in B.C. — removing choice in car insurance when we

should be increasing it.

In committee stage, I hope that we’ll be able to get more clarity

about what these changes will mean for the people of B.C. But if they

are looking to see massive savings in their car insurance, I don’t think

they should hold their breath.

S. Furstenau: I’m pleased to stand today and support Bill 11, the Vehicle

Insurance Amendment Act. This bill will fundamentally reform ICBC from

its current litigation-based system and adopt a public care-based model.

The B.C. Green caucus has long advocated for the need to fundamentally

reform ICBC, and we welcome the decision to adopt a public care-based

model.

ICBC, in its current form, hasn’t served the needs of British

Columbians very well. It’s become extremely clear in recent years that

the status quo is financially unsustainable for ratepayers around the

province. At the centre of our conversation about reforming ICBC needs

to be the health and well-being of British Columbians, particularly

those who are injured on the road. Looking at the evidence, I’m

convinced that a care-based model, if implemented correctly and

carefully, can provide significantly better care for anybody injured on

our roads, particularly those who face catastrophic injuries.

It’s why I’m pleased to stand today to welcome this transformation

of ICBC. In correspondence and meetings with people since the

legislation was first introduced, I know there were many questions about

how this change is going to work. One theme that has come through again

and again is a widespread lack of trust in ICBC. For these reforms to be

successful, government and ICBC will need to earn the trust of British

Columbians as they work to implement this new system.

It is absolutely critical that the government lead the way in

creating a significant cultural shift in ICBC in order for the public to

trust that they will receive the care and financial supports they need

if they are injured. Government needs to lead the shift away from our

current adversarial model and towards a collaborative approach between

ICBC and our health care system — one that puts the recovery of people

at its centre.

ICBC’s mandate must be reformed to leave no doubt that its focus

is supporting British Columbians to get the care they need to be well.

ICBC, like all insurance, should be there to support people when they

need it. Adequate coverage to get well should not be something people

have to fight for in the courts.

Our current litigation-based model provides some support for

injured drivers, but beyond a relatively modest level, they are forced

to sue for what they need in the courts. You can only access additional

compensation if you successfully sue someone at fault. This means that

in cases where you’re injured but there’s no one to sue — like if you

run into black ice or hit an object — you can be left with completely

inadequate care. This will change with the transition to a care-based

model.

[3:40 p.m.]

It is critical that under this new system, people are able to

smoothly and quickly access the support and compensation they need for

their recovery. A care-based model only works if British Columbians can

quickly and reliably access the care they need. This includes making

sure the new system works well for the many British Columbians who do

not have a family doctor.

Throughout the province, particularly in rural areas, people

already struggle with access to medical professionals. The success of

the proposed care-based model hinges on health care professionals

working with ICBC to ensure people will get sufficient care. It is

critical that the system equally serve the needs of the many people in

our province who don’t have a family doctor. Otherwise, people without a

family doctor risk being left behind by this system.

ICBC’s finances, year after year, have led to escalating rate

hikes for drivers, worsening the already crushing impact of our

affordability crisis on people across B.C. The billion-dollar-a-year

write-offs we have seen in recent years are also fiscally unsustainable

for the government.

Fundamental reform to ICBC has clearly been needed for years. In

fact, the 2017 Ernst and Young report that was written for the

government, where they provided four options to reforms to provide more

affordable and e