Fifth Session, 41st Parliament

(2020) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, June 24, 2020

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 331

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

Tributes

Rob Sutherland

Mr. Speaker

(Hon. D. Plecas)

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 18 — Economic Stabilization (COVID-19) Act

Hon. C. James

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

White privilege and anti-Black racism

J. Routledge

Multiculturalism and anti-racism movement

T. Wat

Finance and Government Services Committee budget consultations

B. D’Eith

Rebound Oceanside business recovery program

M. Stilwell

John Hillman

A. Weaver

International Decade for People of African Descent and contributions of Black community

S. Furstenau

Oral Questions

Small business employee layoffs and severance pay issues

M. de Jong

Hon. J. Horgan

S. Bond

Inspections of seniors care facilities and delivery of care hours

S. Furstenau

Hon. A. Dix

Morrison mine project

A. Weaver

Hon. G. Heyman

Funding of independent schools

D. Davies

Hon. R. Fleming

Tabling Documents

Property Assessment Appeal Board, annual report, 2019

Civil resolution tribunal, annual report, 2018-19

Reports from Committees

Finance and Government Services Committee, interim

review, budgets of statutory offices, June 2020

B. D’Eith

D. Clovechok

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 6 — Mines Amendment Act, 2020 (continued)

Hon. B. Ralston

Bill 19 — COVID-19 Related Measures Act

Hon. D. Eby

M. Lee

Hon. M. Farnworth

S. Furstenau

R. Coleman

B. Stewart

Hon. D. Eby

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 2020

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Hon. A. Kang.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Horgan: Today in the gallery are a handful of interns — not a clutch, just a

handful. I was expecting more, but I’m sure they’re on their way.

This is, of course, the end of our interns’ time with us, and it has

been quite a ride. They came during a bunch of pandemonium at the front of

the building, and they’re leaving in the midst of a pandemic. I don’t think

any collection of interns has ever had the opportunity to put those two p’s

together and be here in Parliament for a virtual sitting that involves just

a fraction of the members here in the seats but the entire Legislative

Assembly on screens before them.

With respect to those who had the good luck when the sorting hat went

around, to be here with Gryffindor we had Sam Harrison, Saige Lawson, Emilio

Caputo, Patrick Vachon and Patricia Masur, who were with the NDP caucus

helping us prepare for legislative sessions and doing a whole host of other

interesting things.

Then the sorting hat wasn’t as favourable to the other interns, but

I’m sure they had equal enjoyment while they were here. That would include

Erin Spence; Maliki Suppin; Stephen Bagan; Noelle Skillings, from here in

Victoria; Kathryn Haegedorn; Hailey May; and Federico Cerani.

They’ve all, I think, had a pretty extraordinary time. Would all of

the members present, and those far away, please give them a roaring round of

applause for a job well done.

A. Olsen: I, too, would like to raise my hands in gratitude for the incredible

work of Hailey May and Federico Cerani, who have been with us over the past

number of months as interns in our caucus office — very much a huge amount

of gratitude for the work that they’ve done.

[1:40 p.m.]

I also would like to take this opportunity to raise my hands to all of

the graduates from Stelly’s Secondary, Parkland Secondary and Gulf Islands

Secondary School — recognizing, of course, that they’ve just completed their

education, the first in the long journey of a lifelong of education. I want

to acknowledge that part of the deal is that we get to celebrate them at

their graduation. This year, as all of my colleagues have been recognizing,

it has been very difficult.

I want to raise my hands to them and congratulate them and wish them

the best as they take the next steps in their lifelong journey.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM.

N. Letnick: Today is June 24, for anyone who didn’t check their calendar. It’s the

summer solstice, the longest day of the year. It’s also la fête

nationale for francophones here in British Columbia, across our

great country and especially in the province of Quebec.

If you just look back a few months ago when we were able to travel…. I

actually went to Quebec and visited their National Assembly, where I bought

this tie. It was 30 bucks. I did not think I’d be up today in the middle of

this pandemic to advertise a wonderful tie and a great National Assembly. I

would say that ours is better, but don’t let the Québécois hear

that.

Tous mes compatriotes, je vous souhaite une bonne fête

nationale.

Would the House please make all French-loving people across our great

country and especially in the province of Quebec — celebrate with them this

great day of June 24, St.-Jean Baptiste.

B. D’Eith: I just wanted to wish my eldest daughter a very happy birthday. It’s

her 21st birthday. She had planned to go to Las Vegas, but unfortunately,

that has been cancelled due to the pandemic. I wanted to do that and also to

mention my youngest son just turned 20 last week. And my lovely wife — it’s

her birthday next week. She’s working very hard on opening the Fortius Sport

and Health clinic. So that’s a lot going on in my house.

I also, on a serious note, wanted to mention that my thoughts are

going out to all the friends, family and residents at Stump Lake, near

Mission, and Kamloops who are dealing with flooding of the lake. My thoughts

are with all of them there. I wanted to express that.

If the Legislature could please acknowledge that, I’d very much

appreciate it.

A. Weaver: It gives me enormous pleasure to introduce, watching at home today at

Carlton House in Oak Bay, Mr. John Hillman. Some of you may know that Mr.

Hillman is 101 and recently completed the amazing task of walking around his

house 101 times. I’ll be speaking more about that during

statements.

In addition, this will be the last time I get to stand up prior to the

graduation this year. In my riding, we have six high schools. I’d like to

congratulate all of the students graduating this year into what are truly

difficult times: those at Maria Montessori, Glenlyon Norfolk, St. Michael’s

University School, Lambrick Park high school, Mount Doug high school and, of

course, my own alma mater, Oak Bay High School.

Would the House please make Mr. Hillman feel very welcome virtually as

well as congratulate those high school students graduating in our riding

this year.

J. Sims: I have two introductions today. First, we all of us have unsung heroes

in our ridings. Two of them are watching us today: Narinder Singh, who works

at the gurdwara in my riding, and also Neeraj AhluWalia.

The reason they’re here today and why I want to talk about them is

that they’ve established a gurdwara food bank, and they are both on the

board of directors. We do have the Surrey Food Bank, but they’ve opened this

up during this COVID period for those people who can’t access it or don’t

qualify. They will deliver food to those in need anywhere, no matter where

they live in the Lower Mainland. They will be open from Monday to Friday, 11

to three. They will do deliveries from Tuesday to Friday. Please help me

recognize these unsung heroes in my riding.

[1:45 p.m.]

I would also take this opportunity, because it is the one before June

26, to recognize somebody very special in my life who entered my life in

1970. We got married in 1971. Tomorrow we will be celebrating our 49th

wedding anniversary.

This person, Stephen Sims, has been by my side, has been my supporter,

has been my champion, has been father to my children, a great-grandfather

and an absolutely amazing great-great-grandfather. He has given

unconditional support for the many adventures that I’ve had the opportunity

to partake in. So please join us in celebrating our 49 years.

Now that we’re talking about celebrations, I also want to do a

shout-out to the grads in Surrey-Panorama. We have Sullivan Secondary

School, and we have Panorama Secondary School. They call it Panorama. I want

to wish every student who is graduating the very, very best.

Live your dreams. Fly as high as you can. Don’t let anybody tell you

that there are things you cannot do.

As well, as the grads are leaving the school system during a pandemic,

they’ll have lots of stories to tell.

I also want to do a shout-out to the grade 7 grads as well. They are

going to be transitioning into grade 8 during a very difficult

time.

To all the students, have a wonderful summer.

S. Malcolmson: I want to wish a very happy Canada Day to Nanaimo. We’re not going to

be celebrating in an ordinary way, but I’m very grateful to the city of

Nanaimo for taking the lead on some virtual ways to celebrate our country

and how deeply fortunate we are to live in a country like this, especially

at a time like this. Happy Canada Day.

Today, especially, I’m thinking of the Nanaimo high school students

who have graduated in a global pandemic.

You’ve overcome a lot this year.

We are really, really proud of grads from Learning Alternatives, the

Career Technical Centre, NDSS. Their graduations are today and yesterday and

the day before. There are so many of them. Island ConnectEd graduates today

also. Wellington Secondary is tomorrow. Nanaimo Christian School and Tsawalk

Learning Centre both graduated a week ago, on June 17. Both invited me to

bring greetings on behalf of the Premier to the grads and to thank them for

persevering.

A particular thanks to Tsawalk. Five Indigenous grads stood up in the

park together. It was really great to see the families surrounding their

graduates, who they were so proud of, and being able to do that as a tight,

close unit and then the rest of us, teachers and others, celebrating their

accomplishments. It’s really something to be proud of.

Finally, a special thanks to the parents, the school staff and the

volunteers who, with all their hearts, made both the grad and prom

ceremonies very special for these fantastic high school students.

Thank you to all of you. We’re very proud.

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the House for indulging me with an introduction, I think, that

follows on some of the others of my colleagues who made reference to the end

of the K-to-12 careers of young British Columbians in every corner of the

province. I very much regret that this year will be a unique year for those

graduates as well.

Over the 15 years I’ve been a member of this Legislature, every

spring, every June, I enjoy going to the graduation ceremonies in my

community. I see in the faces of the young people that cross the stage a

sense of accomplishment, and it gives me hope for our future. Although some

of us have been here for an interminable period of time, we have interns

with us today. Young people, of course, are our future.

For those graduates and schools across British Columbia who will be

celebrating their last week of learning in that way, I want to remind them

all that learning is a lifetime of looking and inquiring and asking and

puzzling and asking “why,” and then often “why not.”

I’m so proud of the graduating class of 2020 for not only having

achieved that extraordinary measure of receiving a Dogwood certificate from

the province of British Columbia but also for their families, for their

elders and for their younger siblings.

[1:50 p.m.]

The celebration at this time of the year normally involves dressing

up, going out, having a little bit of fun, sometimes putting “Grad 2020” at

Sooke Potholes. I’m not advocating that this year, under any

circumstances.

To all the graduates in every community across British Columbia:

congratulations on a job well done. Always keep learning, always keep

asking, and certainly, get here as fast as you can to replace many of us who

will be moving on in the not too distant future.

Tributes

ROB SUTHERLAND

Mr. Speaker: Members, if I may, I would like to take a moment to recognize the

upcoming retirement of a most valued Legislative Assembly employee: Rob

Sutherland, our director of Hansard Services.

Rob began his career at the Legislative Assembly as an editor in

April 1993. That’s 27 years ago. He worked in Hansard and became

director of Hansard in August 2012.

Rob has been an active member of the Hansard Association of

Canada, as well as the Commonwealth Hansard Editors

Association.

Rob has also been a strong advocate for parliamentary outreach,

assisting the Parliament of Guyana and offering mentoring and expertise

toward the creation of Hansard services there.

The world of Hansard has evolved a great deal during Rob’s time

with the Legislative Assembly. Rob contributed to the modernization of

Hansard Services, including digital reporting, publishing and

broadcasting services.

His many contributions to the Legislative Assembly spanned over 27

years of service to the institution. I wish to thank Rob for his

dedicated service and exceptional contribution to the Legislative

Assembly.

Please join me in wishing Rob all the very best on this exciting

step on his new retirement adventures.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 18 — ECONOMIC STABILIZATION

(COVID-19)

ACT

Hon. C. James presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Economic Stabilization (COVID-19)

Act.

Hon. C. James: I move first reading of Bill 18, Economic Stabilization (COVID-19)

Act.

This bill implements tax relief measures previously announced by

the government in response to COVID-19. These measures will bring

financial administrative relief for people and businesses as we address

the ongoing effects of the pandemic.

This bill extends the tax return filing and payment deadlines for

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

until September 30, 2020. This bill also implements three property tax

initiatives that the government has announced.

First, it delays the application of the property tax late payment

penalties for commercial properties.

Second, it requires municipalities to remit the full amount of

property taxes prescribed under the South Coast British Columbia

Transportation Authority Act and the British Columbia Transit Act by

August 1 of 2020 and 2021. This gives certainty of cash flow to

TransLink and B.C. Transit.

Third, the time period for municipalities to remit the school tax

and the police tax to the province is extended. This provides

municipalities with additional fiscal flexibility to deal with COVID-19

and to remit tax collected for other tax authorities.

The employers health tax is also amended so that the employers

health tax instalment due dates can be extended for the year

This bill also amends the Income Tax Act to enable the B.C.

emergency benefit for workers. This benefit is a tax-free, one-time

$1,000 payment for B.C. residents whose ability to work has been

affected due to COVID.

This bill also makes amendments to the Balanced Budget and

Ministerial Accountability Act, the Budget Transparency and

Accountability Act and the Financial Administration Act.

The Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act is amended

to temporarily suspend the prohibition against deficit budgets for the

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

Legislature for the ’21-22, ’22-23 and ’23-24 fiscal years.

[1:55 p.m.]

The Budget Transparency and Accountability Act is amended to

temporarily suspend the prohibition against supplementary estimates

where there is a forecast of government-directed operating debt. This

amendment will enable the government to present supplementary estimates

where necessary for the ’20-21 to 2023-24 fiscal years as the government

continues to provide relief and economic recovery measures.

Finally, the Financial Administration Act is amended to provide

special warrants if an expenditure is required during or after a state

of emergency, or if a disaster or emergency occurs or is

anticipated.

The amendments to these three acts will help ensure that the

funding remains available as the province continues to recover from the

effects of COVID-19.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 18, Economic Stabilization Act, be placed on the

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Bill 18, Economic Stabilization (COVID-19) 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.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

WHITE PRIVILEGE

AND ANTI-BLACK

RACISM

J. Routledge: It is a privilege to rise in this House to make a statement, one

shared only by a select few, and privilege is what I want to talk about

today.

My white privilege is something I’ve been thinking about a lot

lately, after watching some terrible images on TV. As have many others,

I’ve been wondering: how can I, as a privileged white person, be an ally

in the movement to end anti-Black racism?

Well, one way is to use my voice in this chamber to amplify the

voices of those who have been muted before now, voices like that of my

constituent Markiel Simpson.

Never in my life have I ever been asked by the police to prove

that I hadn’t stolen the car I was driving. Markiel has three times, and

he’s only 25. The third time he was parked in front of his own house

looking for a pen in the back seat. The officer said that looked

suspicious.

I’ve never had to worry that a family member could die as a result

of an interaction with the police — never gave it a thought. Markiel

has. In fact, his brother was having lunch with co-workers on a park

bench when police officers tackled and assaulted him from behind. As a

result, he has suffered adverse, long-term trauma, all because of a

mistaken identity.

It was experiences like this that motivated Markiel to organize

against anti-Black racism. He’s been working to get Canadian Black

history taught in B.C. schools as part of the core curriculum. He joined

the B.C. Community Alliance, an organization dedicated to combating the

structural inequities that create anti-Black racism.

But it wasn’t until the very public murder of George Floyd that

Markiel’s voice has been heard by so many.

Today in this House, I add my voice to his — not to speak on his

behalf, but to make his voice louder.

MULTICULTURALISM

AND ANTI-RACISM

MOVEMENT

T. Wat: On Saturday, June 27, communities across Canada will celebrate

Multiculturalism Day, a day to celebrate the vast cultural diversity of

our country and how it enriches our everyday lives.

Multiculturalism Day is about more than celebrating our cultural

diversity. It is about affirming our province’s commitment to making

British Columbia a place that is welcome to people of all cultures,

identities, religions and backgrounds.

[2:00 p.m.]

Earlier this week I stood in this House to reaffirm our commitment

to fighting against rising racism and hate crimes in our province. A

survey done by Canadian Race Relations in 2019 found that majorities of

black and Indigenous Canadians reported experiencing racism or

discrimination due to race or ethnicity.

A new poll from Angus Reid and the University of Alberta suggests

a large percentage of people who identify as Chinese Canadians have

experienced some type of racism since the coronavirus pandemic began. Of

the more than 500 Canadians of Chinese ethnicity surveyed, half reported

being called names or insulted as a direct result of COVID-19. Nearly 80

percent of the respondents said they felt strongly that Canadians blame

people of Chinese ethnicity for COVID-19.

Multiculturalism is something we must embrace every day. The

events surrounding us, both within and around our province, show us that

it is more important than ever for us to promote inclusion and

acceptance in B.C.

Please take a moment this weekend to reflect on and celebrate the

culture and heritage of our families, our friends, our neighbours and

our colleagues with actions and gestures that celebrate our diversity

and this beautiful, diverse province we all are so lucky to call

home.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the

2020 graduates of Burnett Secondary School in my riding of Richmond

North Centre. My warmest thoughts and highest hopes are with you as you

celebrate your graduation. Always remember: there is no limit to what

you can achieve.

FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

COMMITTEE BUDGET

CONSULTATIONS

B. D’Eith: As all members are aware, every year the Select Standing Committee

on Finance and Government Services, for which I have the privilege of

serving as Chair, holds a public consultation on the next provincial

budget. The consultation is a unique opportunity for all British

Columbians to connect with legislators from all parties to share the

challenges their families and communities are experiencing and to offer

ideas about how the provincial government can respond.

This year’s consultation, which began on June 1, is different in

many ways as we navigate the COVID-19 pandemic and its impacts. But the

importance of hearing from and meeting with British Columbians did not

change. The committee, with incredible help from the Parliamentary

Committees Office and Hansard, shifted to an entirely virtual

consultation. This year we held all public hearings by video conference,

organized into theme-based panels.

While we no doubt missed connecting with British Columbians in

person in communities across the province, the committee appreciated

everyone’s ability, adaptability and flexibility and continued

participation in the consultation. In fact, over the three weeks, the

committee met with nearly 300 organizations and individuals and had very

thoughtful discussions about a broad range of issues. Even more British

Columbians have taken time to send their written input and fill out the

online survey.

I think I speak for all the committee members in expressing my

admiration for the dedicated, passionate voices of those who brought

attention to critical issues and who advocate for change and offer

innovative solutions.

There’s still time to participate, so I would encourage everyone

who hasn’t had the opportunity to take a few minutes and visit the

consultation website at bcleg.ca/fgsbudget and share their views before

the consultation closes this Friday, June 26.

Committee members are looking forward to reviewing all of the

input as we consider recommendations for the next provincial budget, and

we’ll be very happy that a report will be available sometime in

August.

REBOUND OCEANSIDE

BUSINESS RECOVERY

PROGRAM

M. Stilwell: Today I am proud to shine a spotlight on a program that is helping

local businesses bounce back from the devastating impacts of the

COVID-19 pandemic. Rebound Oceanside business recovery program is a new

initiative coming to the aid of businesses in my constituency by

development, business strategies and advertising.

[2:05 p.m.]

It’s the brainchild of Oceanside Initiatives, a collaboration of

area municipalities and organizations focused on economic development in

the area. Its office just opened this past February. When the pandemic

hit, the businesses were faced with difficulties like revenue loss and

closure. Oceanside Initiatives responded with a program to help with

recovery.

Businesses can get assessments on what their challenges are, be

connected to subject-matter experts and access support to help them

implement recovery plans, including matching funds. There’s also a

“support local” campaign. As of last week, more than 40 business owners

had signed up for the program.

Bobbie Garnons-Williams, the co-owner of Island Highlander Co., is

one of them. She and her husband produce British baked goods and have a

food-trailer business. They usually sell to tourists and attendees at

events like the Highland Games or craft fairs or the Qualicum Beach

Farmers Market. But as we know, restrictions have affected tourism and

events this year. Bobby has turned to Rebound Oceanside for help and is

in the process of getting assistance with a strategic plan and

promotions. For her, the program has meant not feeling alone.

Rebound Oceanside, the Parksville and Qualicum chambers of

commerce and other businesses are coming together to help one

another.

I’d just like to say thank you to Corry Hostetter, the economic

development coordinator, and the team at Oceanside Initiatives for their

ingenuity and quick response to support small businesses just like

Island Highlander.

JOHN HILLMAN

A. Weaver: It gives me great honour to rise today to pay tribute to a

remarkable constituent, Mr. John Hillman.

At the age of 101, Mr. Hillman set a goal of raising $101,000 for

Save the Children Canada’s emergency COVID relief fund by completing 101

laps around the courtyard of his residence at the Carlton House in Oak

Bay. He was inspired by 100-year-old war veteran Tom Moore, who raised

over $55 million for the U.K.’s National Health Service by walking

around his garden 100 times with a walker. Mr. Hillman not only

completed the 101 laps, plus a victory lap, but he easily surpassed

expectations by raising a total of $166,551.

Mr. Hillman was born in Newport, Wales, in 1919. Like all young

Welshmen at the time, he was an avid rugby player. In fact, Mr.

Hillman’s father, Jack, represented Wales on their national team. John,

on the other hand, went on to compete for Wales in fencing.

At the age of 17 and with little prospect for local employment,

Mr. Hillman left Wales to join the Royal Air Force. In 1939, he and his

squadron were posted to France, where Mr. Hillman served as a wireless

operator. As allied forces fled to Dunkirk ahead of the rapidly

advancing Wehrmacht, John Hillman and the other 59 members of his

squadron were cut off and left behind. They were told this: “You lads

stay behind, clean up and make your way back as best you

can.”

HMT Lancastria . Blessed with a stroke of good luck, Mr. Hillman

arrived in the French port of Saint-Nazaire a day late so missed his

opportunity to board the ship.

Tragically, on June 17, 1940, offshore from the port, the

Lancastria was bombed and sank in just 20 minutes. Some

4,000 men, women and children died in what remains the greatest loss of

life in British maritime history.

Mr. Hillman subsequently made his way northwards to Brest, where

he was able to escape to England on a Royal Navy destroyer. It was in

England that Mr. Hillman met and married his wife, Irene. The couple

have been married for a remarkable 78 years. When their daughter also

married a Canadian, Mr. and Mrs. Hillman started to visit

Canada.

Mr. Hillman eventually retired in Ottawa in 1988 from his career

as an electrical engineer, and after a brief return to the U.K., Mr. and

Mrs. Hillman moved back to Canada and settled in a house on Beach Drive

in Oak Bay.

When asked why he undertook the fundraiser, John Hillman said

this: “I owed Canada something.”

A truly humble man, Mr. Hillman has a wonderful sense of humour

and brings joy to all who know him. As a lovely tribute to support Mr.

Hillman, his nine-year-old great-grandson did a parallel walk in

Kingston, Ontario.

What did Mr. Hillman do when he attained his goal of 101 laps? “I

had a cold beer,” he said. Now, that was truly well deserved.

Please join me in celebrating the remarkable accomplishments of

Mr. John Hillman.

[2:10 p.m.]

INTERNATIONAL DECADE FOR PEOPLE

OF AFRICAN DESCENT AND

CONTRIBUTIONS OF BLACK COMMUNITY

S. Furstenau: On December 23, 2013, the UN adopted the declaration to proclaim

2014 to 2025 the International Decade for People of African Descent. Let

me begin by saying, and I’m not proud to say this, that I did not know

that we are more than halfway through this decade that is meant to

promote respect, protection and fulfilment of all human rights and

fundamental freedoms for people of African descent.

On Monday evening, I listened with interest to the speakers on a

call organized by the African Arts and Cultural Society as they

discussed the importance of this decade. One speaker, Richard Sharpe,

who is with the Dream Legacy Foundation, which fosters Black

entrepreneurship across Canada, explained so clearly why there needs to

be a commitment to support Black businesses in Canada. “Because the

white community has had a 400-year head start,” he said.

As pointed out by Stephanie Allen with Hogan’s Alley Society,

Black people have been an integral part of B.C.’s history, as has racist

community planning that has displaced Black people and erased the

contributions of Black communities to B.C.’s history. This is documented

in the film Return to Hogan’s Alley , which tells the story of

the vibrant, lively community that was literally demolished to make way

for the Georgia and Dunsmuir viaducts.

Our collective history is diminished when communities and cultures

are erased. It’s essential to have uncomfortable conversations and

actively take steps to educate ourselves, to truly understand the great

tapestry of our past and the black, Indigenous, Asian, Central and South

American communities who are intrinsic to who we have been and who we

are today in this province.

As a concrete step, we can begin, with the province of B.C.,

formally recognizing the International Decade for People of African

Descent and to work with communities of African descent to develop a

plan to combat anti-Black racism in our province. Systemic racism exists

in B.C., and it will take systemic change to ensure that we move beyond

words to achieve the outcomes that we all wish to see.

Let’s take the steps to demonstrate that we truly do believe that

Black Lives Matter.

Oral Questions

SMALL BUSINESS EMPLOYEE LAYOFFS

AND SEVERANCE PAY

ISSUES

M. de Jong: For the last several days, we have been asking the Premier to

explain why his government is refusing to grant a straightforward

extension to the mandatory layoff rules, in the way that other provinces

and the federal government have done, to protect hundreds of thousands

of workers, protect their job, and to prevent their employers from being

driven into bankruptcy.

Even though the Labour Minister has said no to that request, the

Premier’s more cryptic reply has been to assure the House that he will

be meeting with all of the signatories to the letters that his

government received on June 5 and June 22, laying out the details of the

challenge and the consequences that will follow if the request is not

granted.

Here’s the problem. We got a call, and then we did some calling of

our own. It turns out that for the vast majority of the signatories to

the two letters, there is no such meeting.

The restaurants association of Canada tells us they have no

meeting with the Premier tomorrow. The Canadian Federation of

Independent Businesses, a signatory to the letters, says they have no

meeting with the Premier tomorrow. The British Columbia Hotel

Association tells us — again, a signatory to the letter — they have no

meeting with the Premier. The ABLE — no meeting with the Premier. The

ICBA, again a signatory to the letter, says they have no meeting with

the Premier. Together, all of these groups represent thousands of small

and medium-sized businesses and hundreds of thousands of

employees.

Can the Premier explain why he purposefully left the House with

the impression that he would be meeting with all of these groups

tomorrow, when, apparently, no such meeting exists?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank Inspector Clouseau for his question. I have to say, this

is the third day.

[2:15 p.m.]

I received a letter on the 22nd, which was Monday. I attended the

House. I had questions from the Leader of the Opposition and other

members of the opposition about this issue. I said that I would take

their advice and counsel and that I would discuss it with many of the

members who signed.

Now, if we’re going to split a hair, I will tell you that I’m

going to be meeting with the B.C. Business Council; the Surrey Board of

Trade, which was referred to by one of the members over there in the

questions; the Vancouver Board of Trade; as well as the B.C. Chamber of

Commerce, which overwhelmingly represents the vast majority of

businesses in British Columbia.

I will, of course, reach out to those other organizations after

the discussion has taken place and the determination has been made,

which will happen tomorrow.

I just had a discussion with the Attorney General, who advises me

he meets with ABLE regularly, and not once have they raised this

question with him. I talked to the restaurant association, and not once

have they raised this issue with me. Those that have, I will be talking

to tomorrow. The other signatories I will be corresponding

with.

But the vast majority of businesses represented by those

extraordinary agencies — two boards of trade, the chamber of commerce,

the B.C. Business Council — will be on a call with me tomorrow. It’s the

first agenda item, and we’ll deal with it at that time.

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

M. de Jong: Well, how can the Premier stand in this place and say these

organizations have never raised it with him? They wrote to him on June

5, and they wrote to him on June 22. How else are you supposed to raise

an issue with the Premier of the province of British Columbia? Yesterday

he dismissed their correspondence as being salacious, whatever the heck

that means in the context of organizations trying to protect their

employees and businesses that are in jeopardy of going

bankrupt.

Forgive me for splitting hairs when the Premier stands in the

House and says, as he did, “I will be meeting with them,” referring to

the letter on Thursday. “I will revisit the issue and meet with all of

them.” Those were his words, not mine. Imagine how surprised the vast

majority of the organizations were to discover that the Premier was

having a meeting that they weren’t invited to. That’s an interesting

approach to social distancing.

What’s at stake here….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member for Abbotsford West, if you would like to

proceed.

M. de Jong: The Premier can try to dismiss this and make jokes about it.

What’s at stake here is the continued existence of thousands of

businesses, mostly small and medium-sized, and hundreds of thousands of

jobs for the employees that they employ. What’s interesting is the risks

associated with those businesses and those employees can be averted by

the signing of a two-line OIC that alters two numbers in an existing

regulation.

Will the Premier stop stonewalling, will he stop making jokes

about it, will he stop making accusations about the people who have

brought the issue to his attention and stand up and do what other

governments in this country have done? Do what makes sense, and grant

the extension necessary to ensure that these workers have jobs and that

these businesses continue to exist.

Hon. J. Horgan: Well, at the beginning of the pandemic, we did extend the period

by order-in-council. We also offered a variance opportunity, which is

part of

an act that was passed in 1995. In the 16 years that the people

on that side of the House had an opportunity to amend it, they chose not

to. So that variance opportunity may well have been appropriate then but

not appropriate now.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: I do take this issue very seriously, and I’m going to be meeting

with the vast majority of the signatories representing businesses in

every corner of the province tomorrow morning. The first order of

business is to address this issue. I said that on Monday, I said it

yesterday, and I say it again today.

I’m sure there are other issues that the opposition would like to

raise with us. I guess this cooperation and collegiality that was

working so well for British Columbians is now out the door. Question

asked on Monday answered. I believe it’s appropriate to sit down with

the majority of people who contacted me and have a discussion. That’s

what we’re going to do.

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

supplemental.

[2:20 p.m.]

M. de Jong: The Premier seems bothered and even a bit confused by the fact

that the official opposition would stand up and bring to the floor of

this Legislature an issue that impacts hundreds of thousands of workers

and thousands of businesses. Well, he’s apparently going to have to

continue to go on being bothered, because as an opposition, we’re going

to continue to bring issues like that to the floor of this Legislative

Assembly.

You know, there is magic in words and the accuracy of words. The

Premier just repeated a statement that is clearly not in line with the

facts. He says: “I’m meeting with the majority of the signatories.” He’s

not. Eight of 12 signatories are not invited to participate in the

meetings that the Premier is having tomorrow, and they represent

hundreds of thousands of employees, workers, and tens of thousands of

businesses. So for the Premier to continue to repeat something that

simply isn’t true is, I think, reprehensible.

Look, there’s an easy solution. There’s a solution that the

federal government has adopted — that other provinces have adopted. I

can’t explain why the Premier’s Minister of Labour, speaking for the

government, said no.

You know, earlier today the Premier renewed the state of

emergency. Circumstances have changed. The state of the emergency

continues to be in place. These advocates are saying to the Premier: “As

long as that state of emergency is in place, our opportunity to operate

is compromised, and that puts our employees and businesses at

risk.”

Make the adjustment. It doesn’t cost the government a single dime.

It is in keeping with what other governments in Canada have done and

will protect workers and protect the businesses that rely on those

workers and save them from being driven into bankruptcy.

Hon. J. Horgan: As I said on Monday, I will be meeting with the economic recovery

task force. It is not a comprehensive inventory of the signatories on

the letter, but this….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Order, please.

Hon. J. Horgan: Three months — and what did the opposition bring to the floor of

this Legislature? A letter that I have received and that I have

responded to. And the first question, saying: “We would revisit the

issue.” I’m going to talk to, okay, four of the number of

groups.

Interjections.

Hon. J. Horgan: I mean, listen…. Look, if the people of British Columbia are

watching today, they’re seeing Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition asking the

same questions they asked on Monday and on Tuesday, and they’re getting

the same answer. We’re just a day closer to when I sit down with the

vast majority of employers in British Columbia, represented by the B.C.

Chamber of Commerce, the Surrey Board of Trade, Vancouver Board of Trade

and the B.C. Business Council. They raised the issue with me and the

economic recovery task force.

They wrote to me on Monday, and I’m responding, face to face, on

Thursday. If that’s all the opposition has got, perhaps I’ll read

instead from Business in Vancouver , which had interviews with

four prominent economists about how they see the economic recovery going

here in British Columbia.

If the members on that side don’t want to raise these issues, I’ll

raise them myself. The question from B.C. Business in

Vancouver : “How is B.C. managing the re­open­ing of the

economy compared to other prov­inces?” Pierre Cléroux, the chief

economist with the Business Development Bank, said that our forecast is

that the impact on B.C. will be much less than on others in Canada: “In

general, the B.C. economy is going to come back faster than the rest of

Canada.” I’ve got pages to read, hon. Speaker. I can’t wait to do

it.

S. Bond: I find it absolutely astounding that the Premier of British

Columbia thinks it’s an insignificant issue when the opposition brings

the issue of keeping thousands of employees working in the

province.

Here’s what we know. He can bluster and be as loud as he wants,

but here’s what we know. Since this issue was raised in the House, and

the Premier received a letter that can only be described as scathing

from the representatives of thousands of employees and employers in our

province, he has been nothing less than defensive and dismissive of

those concerns.

What did he say? “Don’t worry. I’m meeting with this group on

Thursday.” Well, now what we find out is that that wasn’t accurate at

all. In fact, key sectors and representatives are excluded from this

solve-it-all meeting on Thursday. Here’s what one of the sectors’

representatives said. The CEO of the B.C. Hotel Association, Ingrid

Jarrett, is one of the signatories who is excluded from the Premier’s

meeting.

[2:25 p.m.]

Here’s what she said. “Nobody wanted to lay anybody off. The last

thing they want to do is sever their employer-employee relationship….

They have no intention of severing that relationship as long as they

can…. If the law isn’t changed, the majority of the hotels will go

insolvent overnight.”

Well, for the Premier’s attention, I think insolvency of hotels in

British Columbia is absolutely worthy of debate and discussion in this

Legislature. So to be clear, the Premier could have fixed the problem on

Monday. He could have fixed the problem on Tuesday. He can fix the

problem today.

Will the Premier today stand up, do the right thing and extend the

leave for six weeks past the emergency?

Hon. J. Horgan: The hotel association will be pleased to know that today we

announced that British Columbia is moving into phase 3 of our economic

restart, which includes the local hotel associations.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: Yeah, my goodness. Champions of British Columbia on the other

side.

Let’s go back to the economists who were commenting on how we’re

doing in British Columbia — how British Columbians are doing responding

to COVID-19.

The chief economist for the B.C. Business Council, one of the

individuals I’ll be meeting with tomorrow, responded to the question:

“How have we managed reopening the economy?” Ken Peacock said, reading

the plan: “B.C. is in line with what’s going on in other provinces. The

reopening is good. I think B.C. managed the crisis much better. We’ve

had better outcomes, and some of that is attributable to how we’ve

managed it compared to other provinces.”

Again, hon. member from Prince George, I absolutely agree with

you. This is a serious issue, and we’re going to be discussing it face

to face — not, apparently, effectively with the members of the

opposition but face to face with the B.C. Business Council, two boards

of trade and the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, representing tens of

thousands of businesses in British Columbia.

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

supplemental.

S. Bond: The Premier can filibuster all he wants by reading out articles.

What the sectors that are excluded from the meeting tomorrow are asking

for is for the Premier to say yes today. This is a critical issue. Sixty

percent of hotels remain closed, yet this entire sector, which is in

every community in British Columbia, critical to the restart of the

economy, is simply being dismissed by the Premier as not being important

enough to attend the meeting.

Just today Ingrid said, “Out of the 56,000 employees laid off,

there will probably be about 35,000 of them that will not have a job to

go back to because those businesses will not survive,” and: “For our

industry, it is crippling…and an undue stress and hardship on employees

who are frightened they will not have a job to come back to next week or

the week after.”

Hoteliers feel desperate. It is time for the Premier to do the

right thing. It’s a simple step the Premier can take. Right now all the

hoteliers know is that the Labour Minister said no to their request.

It’s a critical issue. Thousands of jobs are on the line.

To the Premier — very simple for him, a simple yes or no: will he

extend the temporary leave request today?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for her question. I do agree that the

hospitality sector is a critical, important part of the B.C. economy.

That’s why I was so excited that Dr. Henry and I could announce today

that phase 3 of the B.C. restart plan is effective today. That means the

hard work of British Columbians to flatten the curve and to keep

COVID-19 under control…. But let’s be under no illusion: COVID-19 will

be with us through the summer. It will be with us through the fall and

likely into the new year as well. We need to be vigilant.

I am committed to making sure that British Columbia gets back to

where we were as fast as we possibly can. I am going to do the courteous

thing and sit down with the people — the majority of the people, or a

portion of the people, whatever hair the member from over there wants to

raise…. I’m sitting down with the vast majority of the leaders in the

industry, and I’m going to have a direct conversation with them. I think

that’s the appropriate way to go.

[2:30 p.m.]

I appreciate that the official opposition is not satisfied with me

engaging directly with British Columbians. When I said and the Minister

of Finance said that we wanted to ask British Columbians what they

thought, what did we get? Scorn and contempt from the official

opposition. That was the end of the collegiality, I guess. When we said,

“Why don’t we all together, all 87 of us, ask British Columbians what

they think,” what was the response from the B.C. Liberal Party? “Health

doesn’t matter to the economy.” That’s from the Leader of the

Opposition.

Health is fundamental. Public health is absolutely fundamental, so

much so that the Business Council of Canada, Goldy Hyder, said the

following: “Public confidence is essential to a successful economic

restart. By following the advice of health officials and actively

committing ourselves to fight COVID-19, we can assure Canadians that

business owners and managers are working to mitigate risk and get the

economy moving.”

Health is fundamental to have confidence in the economy. It’s a

shame the Leader of the Opposition doesn’t understand that.

INSPECTIONS OF

SENIORS CARE FACILITIES

AND

DELIVERY OF CARE HOURS

S. Furstenau: I’d like to begin by thanking the Minister of Health for his work

and answers over the last couple of days. We look forward to seeing the

changes that he’s promised. Thanks to his continued work, the scenarios

reported by the military and the truly horrible state in some care homes

in Ontario and Quebec have, thankfully, not been documented to the same

extent here in B.C.

However, here in B.C., we have heard from elders and family

members about serious maltreatment, and in the months leading up to the

pandemic, the provincial government did have to take control of four

care homes due to dangerously low standards of care.

The latest report from the B.C. seniors advocate highlights the

many areas we are continuing to fail to regulate and where care homes,

despite increased funding, fall short.

My question is for the Minister of Health. Will the minister

commit to increasing the frequency and length of inspections in B.C.

long-term-care homes and assisted-living facilities as a measure to

assure British Columbians that seniors are living with the dignity and

respect that they deserve?

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you to the member for her question. In British Columbia,

health inspections, inspections under the Community Care and Assisted

Living Act, are done under the auspices of medical health officers and

the health authorities. Last year there were 677 such inspections in

British Columbia, and this year we’re at about the same rate. Through

five months in 2020, we’ve done about 293 inspections, or those health

officers have.

The member refers to the care homes that have been taken under the

administration of health authorities. Those are, I think, examples of

how vigorously and how seriously our teams in public health take these

issues. In all of those cases, standards weren’t met, and action was

taken by health authority boards, by me and by licensing officers. So

we’re continuing to ensure and work to ensure the quality of

care.

I want to add to this. Some of the most important ways we’ve done

this are the 2.293 million care hours we’ve added under the 3.36

initiative. Two million of those care hours have gone to public beds in

private not-for-profit and for-profit facilities. It’s an indication of

our determination to improve the quality of care. It is the effort of

everyone together — of team B.C., of care operators public and private —

over the last number of months that has allowed us in B.C., while facing

the huge challenges for long-term care in this pandemic, to have a

record that I think deserves respect.

We’re going to continue that work, continue the significant effort

by public health. I want to thank everyone involved in public health who

works with the care home sector, who has fought and worked to ensure

that seniors are kept protected in the pandemic. I want to thank them,

and you know they will continue to have the resources they

need.

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

S. Furstenau: I do want to join the Minister of Health in commending all of the

hard work of people who have taken care of our most vulnerable in this

pandemic. However, I do think there is a role that government does need

to play in oversight.

The minister mentions the number of care hours in B.C. In fact, he

has pointed to the government’s increased funding of direct care hours

in the last few days to the provincial standard, to 3.36 hours of care

per resident, per day. While we support this initiative — and of course,

the issue of care hours is incredibly important — the question of

sufficient oversight and monitoring remains.

We currently lack a system robust enough to accurately monitor the

actual hours of care delivered. So while the government may fund 3.36

hours of care per resident, per day, there is no system robust enough to

ensure those hours are actually being delivered.

[2:35 p.m.]

In fact, according to the B.C. seniors advocate, the current

system used to try and calculate delivered care hours may actually

overstate the actual number of care hours delivered. I’d hope and expect

that the minister is as concerned as we are about the 207,000 hours of

taxpayer-funded care that were not delivered in the for-profit sector in

2017-2018.

My question is once again to the Minister of Health. What

additional steps is the government going to take to create a more robust

monitoring system for delivered direct care hours to ensure that public

funds are being used for the sole purpose of providing direct care to

seniors?

Hon. A. Dix: I want to make the distinction between the licensing inspections

that take place to ensure the quality of care. Those are separate from

the financial decisions that are made, for good reason — so that there

is no conflict of interest and so that our licensing officers can focus

on what they need to focus on, which is the quality of care.

When we decided on the 3.36 initiative at that time, 44 of the 293

eligible care homes met provincial standards, and now a majority do. All

44 of those were health authority–owned and –operated at that time.

We’ve made significant improvements. And when we decided to spend, on an

annualized basis, the $110 million required to lift the average care

standard up to 3.36, we put in place monitoring measures.

I agree there are things to learn from the report of the seniors

advocate, which, as the member notes, assessed statistics from 2016-17

and ’17-18. I think improvements can be made. As I suggested in my

answer yesterday, more improvements will be made.

I think all of us can say that the increase in care standards and

the response of the entire health system, both those offering care in

for-profit, non-profit and health authority–owned and –operated care,

has been extra­ordinary and a collective effort — a team B.C.

effort that all of us can be proud of.

MORRISON MINE PROJECT

A. Weaver: On March 5, I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources a question concerning regulatory inconsistencies in the

provincial government’s handling of Pacific Booker’s proposed Morrison

mine. I’d like to explore this a little further.

In 2015, after reviewing the project for a second time, the

Ministry of Environment issued a

section 17 order that the project

undergo further assessment. Despite numerous exchanges with the

environmental assessment office and the completion of an in-depth study

of Morrison Lake, Pacific Booker has been unable to clarify the precise

nature of what is actually required in the

section 17 order. For Pacific

Booker, this order has been tantamount to a rejection of its project

without the ministry formally saying no.

Government recently amended the environmental assessment process

to provide certainty of process and clarity of regulatory

considerations. When presented with an application for an environmental

assessment certificate, the minister is given three options under the

2018 Environmental Assessment Act: (1) grant the certificate, (2) grant

the certificate with conditions attached or (3) reject the

project.

Pacific Booker’s treatment doesn’t align with the new assessment

standards. They’ve been given the opposite of regulatory certainty, and

their project has been shunted off for a further assessment.

My question is to the Minister of Environment. Considering the

recent changes to the environmental assessment process, will he amend

the 2015 order to clarify the nature of the work required by Pacific

Booker Minerals?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. I recall the question to

my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources in

March quite well. As the Minister of Energy and Mines said at the time,

he and I can’t speak to the specifics of why the old government made the

decision that it made with respect to the proposed Morrison

mine.

The member is also correct that we made significant changes to the

Environmental Assessment Act through revitalization, and we’re proud of

that, as our government. We’ve brought new transparency to the act,

we’ve included engagement of Indigenous peoples and local communities at

the front end, and we have taken steps to ensure that good projects that

respect the environment, that respect Indigenous peoples and that

respect the public can be approved more quickly, with greater

certainty.

[2:40 p.m.]

However, with regard to Pacific Booker, the member is correct.

Under the old act, the decision was made to require additional

information from the proponent before a final decision on the proposal

was made. Under the new legislation or the transition regulation, there

is no ability to take a project like Morrison that has proceeded this

far down the process and transfer it to the provisions of the new act.

It’s my understanding that the company is currently working through the

required regulatory process for further assessment in tandem with the

environmental assessment office.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head on a supplemental.

A. Weaver: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. I think the minister may

have missed the point. Pacific Booker doesn’t know what the

section 17

order does because what they’re supposed to do has not been conveyed to

them with any certainty. They are left with an uncertain order to which

they don’t know how to respond. It’s not possible for them to move

through the regulatory process when that process has not been defined in

which they could go.

They have conducted detailed assessments of Morrison Lake and its

internal wildlife, including measuring water quality and lake mixing

patterns as well as investigations into fish habitat and spawning

patterns. They have pledged to use cutting-edge technology to reduce

groundwater seepage from the tailings storage facility. They’ve even

completed a request, and they were the only one asked to do so, to

comment on the implications of Mount Polley for their tailings

management.

Throughout the protracted environmental assessment process,

Pacific Booker has stated its preference to use local suppliers and to

hire local workers. The project would generate over 1,000 jobs in the

region near Smithers, and it would provide millions of dollars in tax

revenue. At a time when the provincial economy is reeling due to the

efforts of COVID-19, the project would give that region a much-needed

economic boost.

My question, again, to the Minister of Environment is this. Given

the extensive work undertaken by Pacific Booker Minerals to examine and

reduce the environmental impact of the potential Morrison mine project

and the potential economic benefit to the province, will this government

commit to ensuring that the company receives a timely, unbiased review

of the latest proposal and, in particular, is given clear instructions

from your office so that it knows what boxes need to be ticked and so

that they can follow due process, rather than second-guessing certain

people who haven’t made that very clear?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you again to the member for the supplemental

question.

The company, of course, has to provide some very specific

additional information that was required under the order. The order was

specific. Some examples of the type of additional information required

are sockeye salmon use of Morrison Lake, upper and lower Tahlo Creek and

the Morrison River; hydrogeological and groundwater data for areas

between the mine and Morrison Lake; and further engagement with the Lake

Babine Nation and other impacted First Nations.

I am advised that the company made its latest submission to the

environmental assessment office in December and that environmental

assessment office staff met with the company this past February as

additional information was required from the company. It is certainly

not the intention of our government to make proponents guess at what is

required. I checked with the environmental assessment office, and my

understanding is that staff there are working to help answer any

questions the proponent has with respect to the information

required.

I am advised that the company plans to provide an update to the

environmental assessment office regarding their next steps, and the

environmental assessment office will be very happy to assist them in a

timely answering of the questions required by the order. As minister, I

assure that when the application is complete and ready for

reconsideration, it will be considered in a timely manner.

Mr. Speaker: Exercising my discretion, I’m going to allow a question from Peace

River North. As you will all know, that there have only been two members

from the official opposition who have had an opportunity to ask a

question.

Proceed, Member.

FUNDING OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

D. Davies: Thank you, hon. Speaker. A pleasant surprise, I might add. I

appreciate it.

The Premier made a promise to parents in 2017, just before the

election. I am going to read a little piece of that promise. “We do not

have any plans to change the existing funding for independent schools,

nor the legislation that governs them.” But that’s exactly what happened

by slashing 21 percent from their budget.

Elsa, a grade 5 student, also wants to know why the Premier broke

his promise. I have received hundreds of letters, emails, and phone

calls from parents who want to know why the Premier broke his

word.

[2:45 p.m.]

Many students that attend IDL schools come from diverse learning

backgrounds — students that are struggling in traditional learning

environments as well as students that learn in remote areas like my area

in the Peace country. Parents feel like they have been singled out for

choosing how they want to educate their children and that the Premier is

picking sides with how he wants to teach kids.

Furthermore, schools were told directly by the ministry that this

was a political decision.

To the Premier and to his promise, I am going to read Elsa’s

question: “I want you to talk to me as an 11-year-old and tell me why

it’s okay to wreck my schooling, please. Tell me why I can’t learn the

best way that works for me.”

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question and the opportunity, as

well, to join in with all members of the House who have congratulated

the 64,000 members of the graduating class of 2020.

I want to also take this opportunity to thank all of the parents,

teachers, support staff, principals and vice-principals, school leaders

around British Columbia, under the direction and capable leadership of

Dr. Bonnie Henry, for managing, over the last 100 days, our school

system during a pandemic. We have fared very well in British Columbia,

and we’re very pleased that, being able to restart schools in a safe way

for the month of June, we have had 200,000 students who returned back to

the classroom, which sets us up for a very strong restart in

September.

To the member’s question, the changes we have made bring

independent distributed learning funding in line with every other

independent school in the group 1 rates. This is consistency with

funding rules that govern Catholic, Sikh, Anglican, Jewish, Montessori

schools in the bricks-and-mortar independent school sector.

I would add that even the opposition, when they were in

government, had concerns around funding rules with IDL schools. They

brought in a cap on supplies. They brought in a moratorium, in 2012, on

certifying additional IDL providers.

We are proud, as a government, I have to say, that we have raised

special education funding for all students in both independent and

public school systems by 35 percent. I’ve received the letters that the

member has. Those students who have learning disabilities or unique

abilities and whose their parents feel that the choice to enrol in IDL

schools is the best for them and their family are benefiting by an

increase of $15 million in new funding.

The member can call this a cut if he likes, but the facts are that

IDL schools will receive a 4 percent funding increase next year. This is

an adjustment that brings it into consistency and in line with every

other independent group 1 school in the province of British

Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: Peace River North on a supplemental.

D. Davies: It’s quite shameful, actually, how the minister has completely

dismissed a $12 million cut to IDL students. That’s $800 per student

that has been cut. He can twist it around however he wants, but at the

end of the day, the Premier has said that he would not make any cuts or

any changes to the legislation regarding independent schools.

Again I ask the Premier, why did he break his word?

Hon. R. Fleming: Well, it’s unfortunate. The member has all of his numbers wrong,

and he’s just wrong on the facts.

As I have said, independent distributed learning funding will

increase by 4 percent next year. Students with special education needs

in IDL schools have benefited through a 35 percent increase to the rates

to which we fund students who fall into those assessment

categories.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Fleming: The independent school sector, which we’ve been in regular

communication with, has benefited by the massive $2 billion additional

operating investments into the school system writ large in British

Columbia that was outlined in Budget 2020. That massive investment,

which is long overdue in public education, also flows to the independent

school sector.

Look. Students and families in British Columbia are benefiting

from a government that has wasted no time over the last three years to

bring labour peace to the school system, to bring record levels of

investment, to increase overall student funding in British Columbia from

being the second-worst in Canada and increased it by $1,400.

[2:50 p.m.]

We have increased investment in British Columbia at four times the

rate of any other provincial jurisdiction in Canada. That’s a record

we’re proud of. That’s a promise we made to British Columbians, and

that’s a promise we’ve delivered on.

[End of question period.]

Point of Order

M. Polak: Mr. Speaker, some time ago you ruled that the opposition should not

refer to ministers by joke names. I trust that the same ruling would apply

to those of the executive council referring to members of the

opposition.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I have a very good recall of that.

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the hon. Opposition House Leader for raising the issue. I took

advantage of a collegial, long-standing relationship with the member for

Abbotsford West, and I regret that. I will conduct myself more appropriately

in the future, and I am sure he will as well.

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Eby: I have the honour to present the 2019 annual report of the Property

Assessment Appeal Board and the annual report of the civil resolution

tribunal for 2018-19.

Reports from Committees

FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT

SERVICES

COMMITTEE

B. D’Eith: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the

Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for the

fifth session of the 41st parliament entitled Interim Report on

Statutory Offices , a copy of which has been deposited with the

Office of the Clerk.

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

Motion approved.

B. D’Eith: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the

report.

Leave granted.

B. D’Eith: In moving adoption of the report, I’d like to make a few brief

comments.

This report summarizes the committee’s spring 2020 meetings, which

were held virtually with British Columbia’s nine statutory offices. As

part of the committee’s process for overseeing statutory office budgets,

statutory officers met with the committee to discuss their financial and

operational situations and their strategic priorities and goals. The

committee also heard about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the

operations of each office, in addition to meeting their ongoing

important oversight and accountability functions, statutory officers and

their staff adapted their work processes and developed new, innovative

ways to serve members of the Legislative Assembly and all British

Columbians.

On behalf of the committee and all Members of the Legislative

Assembly, I extend our sincere appreciation to all statutory officers,

their offices and their staff for their dedication and service during

this very challenging time and throughout the fiscal year

ahead.

I would also like to extend my thanks, on behalf of the committee,

for all of the work that the Parliamentary Committees Office has done

during the pandemic for this committee, in allowing us to proceed

without interruption. In particular, I would like to thank Kate

Ryan-Lloyd, Karan Riarh and Katey Stickle for all their hard work in

facilitating the presentations and preparing the report.

I would also like to thank Hansard for their incredible efforts in

pivoting to virtual meetings during this time. I am sure I speak for

everyone on the committee in extending our heartfelt thanks.

Finally, I would like to thank the Deputy Chair and member for

Columbia River–Revelstoke; and the members for Cariboo-Chilcotin,

Langley East, Esquimalt-Metchosin, Courtenay-Comox and also Powell

River–Sunshine Coast.

Everyone simply rolled up their sleeves and got to work. As the

Chair, I sincerely appreciate that.

Thank you so much, Members.

That’s all I have to say. I believe the Deputy Chair has a few

words.

[2:55 p.m.]

D. Clovechok: As all the members in this House know, it’s an honour to be a

member of the select standing committee. As Deputy Chair, I’ve been able

to participate firsthand in the work and the efforts that are involved

in the creation of this interim report and the ongoing work that’s done

by committee members. I, too, want to express my sincere thanks to our

Chair. He’s done a very, very good job.

On behalf of all the members on our side of the House, I’d like to

personally thank all the committee members, the staff, the Clerk and the

assistant clerk for all their efforts. They have absolutely been amazing

during this time. The constructive dialogue and the absolute

collaboration that I have witnessed across party lines is done always in

the best interest of British Columbians and the province of

B.C.

While this year has been incredibly difficult with the virtual

meetings, the flexibility, the adaptability of each member of the

committee and staff has led to the ongoing success of the work. Like our

Chair just said, too, I’d like to thank the statutory officers for their

understanding and their perseverance during these unprecedented times,

doing the jobs that they do under these conditions and for their

continued support for the Legislative Assembly and to all of our

members.

We all look forward to continuing this collaboration as we move

forward into the next phase of this. I want to again thank

everybody.

Mr. Speaker: Hearing from no other members, Members, a vote is about to take

place. The question is the adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call Bill 6, second reading, Mines Amendment Act.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — MINES AMENDMENT ACT,

(continued)

Deputy Speaker: The minister to close debate.

Hon. B. Ralston: I had believed that the member from West Vancouver had reserved

his right to continue, but if he’s not going to take that opportunity,

then I certainly wanted to respect that choice of his, but I am prepared

to make some closing comments.

I want to thank the members for their participation in the debate.

A number of themes emerged, which I think bear some comment. I

appreciate that we will expect some questioning in the course of the

further proceedings of the bill at the committee stage. But I do want to

make a few comments in closing in response to some of the comments that

have been made by members.

I was pretty excited when the Premier asked me to take on this new

file at the end of January, particularly the mining part of the file. I

was born and grew up in British Columbia, and mining has always been an

important part of the B.C. economy and something that I think that

everyone who lives in British Columbia is very aware of. Indeed, mining

permeates much of our economy and even the local economy.

Last year, when I was in the previous file, I was asked by the

B.C. Mining Association to express my thoughts about Surrey as a mining

town. Actually, I did a very short video recognizing that Surrey has 180

companies that depend on the mining industry for their livelihoods and

the livelihoods of those who work for them. The member for Langley East

pointed out in his comments that his town, too — Langley and Surrey,

particularly in the Port Kells region of our respective ridings — houses

many of the companies that I was referring to.

[3:00 p.m.]

So it’s not simply an activity that takes place in rural or remote

locations. It’s an activity that’s intrinsically linked to towns and

cities throughout British Columbia. I had some fun doing the video. I

think it’s still out there, if anyone has got an idle moment and they

want to look at it.

When I took on the job, I also wanted to go out and tour all the

operating mines in British Columbia. I got started on that, although

COVID interrupted that process.

I should add that Tyson Craiggs of the Stone, Sand and Gravel

Association also pointed out to me that I should include in my ambition

the opportunity to visit some aggregate operations throughout the

province. I promised him that I would do that, although I didn’t get

started on that.

I did set out to tour those operating mines. I just want to talk a

little bit about it, because I think it gives a little bit of a flavour

of what mining is about in this province.

I visited the New Afton mine just outside the municipal boundaries

of Kamloops. It’s not in Kamloops. There’s a story there about a wish to

extend the boundaries of Kamloops to include New Afton, but we’ll leave

that for another day.

I did speak to the people at New Afton about their mining plan,

their effort to expand production, and they have some very ambitious

plans. I think it’s significant, because there have been some comments

about a lack of investment in B.C. mining. I’ll give a number of

examples. Unfortunately, I appreciate that the members opposite live

sometimes in ideological boxes, but it just doesn’t accord with the

facts of what has taken place in the mining sector in recent

years.

The Ontario teachers pension fund, which is one of the largest

pension funds in the country, recently invested $300 million — that’s

U.S. $300 million — buying 46 percent of the free cash flow from the New

Afton mine just outside Kamloops. That deal extends for four years, at

which point they have the option to buy a 46 percent interest in the

mine, or it could revert back to New Gold. That’s $300 million U.S.

invested in a B.C. mine. I think that’s significant, and that’s just

this year.

I toured Highland Valley Copper, which is just south of Kamloops.

Highland Valley is a long-standing mine owned by Teck. It’s also

interesting in the technological innovations.

In my previous job as minister responsible for technology, I came

to know a Vancouver company called MineSense, which has devised a

computer system that fits inside the shovel of a loader so that each

load that’s taken out of the ground is immediately assayed. In other

words, the mineral content of that shovelful is determined, and a stream

of data is sent to a central point, where it’s analyzed. Then

operational decisions are made of where to dig as they go

along.

MineSense is a very successful company. They’re on mark 2 or mark

3 of their technology. Mitsubishi Corp. has bought an interest in the

company, and they’re introducing that in their mines in Australia.

Mining sometimes is perceived as being a bit stodgy and uninnovative,

but in fact, this particular company, in association with Teck at

Highland Valley, is a global leader in mining technology.

The other interesting thing at this particular mine is the

autonomous vehicles. Autonomous vehicle is a fancy word for a

self-driving truck. It’s a little eerie when you go there, but there are

these massive trucks, which would probably be, I guess, as high as up to

where the Hansard people are sitting. They’re huge trucks, and they are

operating without a driver. They are controlled remotely. They lumber up

and down the slopes, are loaded with ore that has been extracted and

then take it to a central dump.

Teck, with those two projects, really shows, in a very competitive

global market — a deposit which is not on the high end of grade; it’s a

fairly low-grade deposit — that it’s necessary to have every advantage

that one can in order to make it competitive. Certainly, that’s a very

strong illustration of that principle.

[3:05 p.m.]

I also toured Gibraltar mine, which is north of Williams Lake near

McLeese Lake, about 26 kilometres north of Williams Lake. That mine

employs 650 employees, the biggest employer in the Cariboo. It’s a

copper-molybdenum mine — very successful, long-standing and continues to

operate.

From there, I went north to Wells, which is west of Quesnel.

People will know Wells better as the town that is a short distance from

historic Barkerville. We toured there Barkerville Gold. Barkerville Gold

has amalgamated a number of the historic gold properties that were

explored and mined in the 19th century during the legendary Cariboo gold

rush. Williams Creek, Grouse Creek, the Bonanza mine — there are a

number there.

It’s recently been acquired, and again, this is another investment

in British Columbia and in the mining sector. Osisko Gold Royalties

completed the purchase of Barkerville gold mine for a total of $338

million. That is another investment in a gold mine — again, a recently

concluded transaction.

Those tours were ended because of COVID. I couldn’t do that

anymore, but I’ve continued to meet with the people in the sector, as

part of the COVID response.

We met either weekly or biweekly, on some occasions, with the

Mining Association of British Columbia represented by Michael Goehring

and Lindsay Kislock. We met also with, in one meeting, the Association

for Mineral Exploration, Kendra Johnston and Rob Stevens; the Mining

Suppliers Association of British Columbia, Alec Morrison; and the B.C.

Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, which I talked to earlier — Tyson

Craiggs, the president, and Derek Holmes, the executive

director.

Part of that was to respond to COVID. We have taken their

suggestions. For example, for the mining sector specifically, in order

to protect jobs throughout British Columbia and to support a return to

normal operations, B.C. Hydro agreed to allow eligible industrial

customers to continue to defer a portion of their bill payments for

another three months. That’s been extended to the end of August 2020.

That’s a six-month deferral.

These industries use large amounts of energy and represent about

25 percent of Hydro’s domestic electric load. That is the amount of the

electricity that’s sold in British Columbia. This deferral helps retain

loads and revenues which, if lost, would have a significant negative

impact for all B.C. Hydro ratepayers. To date, 26 B.C. Hydro industrial

customers have taken advantage of the new bill deferral — including

mines but also pulp mills, sawmills and pellet plants — deferring more

than $25 million in electricity payments from March through

May.

In the mining sector alone, the opportunity to defer a portion of

electricity bills has helped to keep more than 1,600 workers on the

job.

Let me just quote from Michael Goehring, who is the president and

CEO of the Mining Association of British Columbia: “Mining supports more

than 35,000 jobs in Metro Vancouver, Vancouver Island, the Interior,

southeast and northern B.C. Extending the opportunity to defer

electricity payments for another three months” — that’s the second

tranche to the end of August — “will help to keep the mining sector

operating and British Columbians working through a time of volatile

commodity prices and economic uncertainty.”

[3:10 p.m.]

Kendra Johnston, or representatives of AME, yesterday, upon

introduction of the bill, tweeted the following comments: “We are

pleased to see updated Mines Act legislation introduced to make

permitting more efficient and effective.” That’s AME BC, one of the

groups that we’ve been meeting with. So there is support for government

action that’s been responsive to the concerns of the mining

sector.

Let me also talk about, since the suggestion was, I think…. Let me

just quote. There was one member who said yesterday:

“We have not seen a new mine come on line in the three years of this

government. There are not even rumours of them. Major projects that are

lined up on the books to start were lined up on the books under the

previous government. Those projects are either proceeding now or they’re

not proceeding at all. There are no new major projects being proposed in

this province on the investment docket for government to work with to

try and move forward. That should say something. That says everything

you need to know about capital dollars and investment dollars in view of

what’s going on in British Columbia.”

That’s a quotation from a member of the opposition, and sadly, it

is just completely misinformed. I’m not going to accuse the member of

misleading the House. I think it’s really just living in an ideological

box and saying what pleases or matches their political narrative but is

completely out of step with the business reality of investment in mining

in British Columbia.

I mentioned the investment by the Ontario teachers fund in New

Afton. Last March the Australian miner Newcrest acquired a 70 percent

interest in the Red Chris mine in northwest British Columbia — $806.5

million U.S. dollars. Newcrest is one of the biggest mining companies in

the world, based in Australia. They’ve indicated that they consider

British Columbia to be a premier mining destination. They’re very

bullish on British Columbia.

I think that the biggest news recently is the Artemis Gold

project. That’s a project in the Blackwater country. They announced….

This Artemis Gold is a new, relatively unknown company, but I’ll talk a

little bit about the track record. I met with the chair of Artemis Gold,

Steven Dean, just on Friday. They purchased this project for $200

million — Canadian dollars, in this case.

The chairman has a really extensive record of mining development.

He was previously the founder of Atlantic Gold Corp. He’s a former

president of Teck Mining here in British Columbia. He’s lived in British

Columbia for the last 20 years. Atlantic Gold focused on gold

exploration, development and production in British Columbia. Took the

company from, I think, purchased for a very modest amount and sold it

for $802 million after building a mine on time and on budget and

operating at the lowest cost profile in the gold sector.

This initial purchase is backstopped by Ryan Beedie, who an

Artemis director. He’s well known in the real estate sector, and many

will know him, also, for his charitable work. He has invested over $100

million in this mine. In addition to the purchase, the backstop by Mr.

Beedie, the mine also did another round of financing last week and

raised, I am told, close to $200 million.

Everyone in the sector is really buoyed up by this announcement

and the fact that it’s going forward. The location is 160 kilometres

southwest of Prince George. You go in south of Vanderhoof. It will

require the construction of a power line. Most of the road network would

be forestry roads, but it will require the construction of a road from

the forestry road network into the mine site.

Steven Dean told me he considers the Blackwater mine to be a

world-class asset. They expect, ultimately, to spend $2 billion for the

complete project. It would employ 1,200 to 1,500 people over a two-year

construction phase and 500 over the mine life. Most, 90 percent, of the

workforce would be hired from the Prince George to Burns Lake

area.

[3:15 p.m.]

They also have an agreement — a very significant and important

and, actually, condition precedent to development — with the Lhoosk’uz

Dené Nation, the Ulkatcho First Nation, regarding an economic and

community development agreement that would enable sharing 35 percent of

the mineral tax revenue.

Far from no new mine, far from not even rumours, this project is a

go — a very strong, capable team, well financed, and it’s going forward.

Sadly, I guess — or maybe mistakenly — the opposition doesn’t seem to be

aware of this or are not prepared to make an acknowledgement that steps

like this are taking place in British Columbia and in the mining sector.

It’s a great sector with a lot of action.

Let me just say a couple more comments about the premise of the

bill. There seems to be a resort to some of the usual, I suppose,

ideological clichés about the premise of the bill.

One of the many accomplishments of the previous minister in this

sector was the Mining Jobs Task Force. That was chaired by the assistant

deputy minister of the department, and there were a number of members —

a very representative group.

Let me just read some of the names; I won’t read them all. Keith

Bertrand, the mayor of Tumbler Ridge; Bryan Cox, president and CEO of

the mining association prior to Michael Goehring; Earl Graham, staff

representative of the United Steelworkers; Mark Podlasly, a senior

adviser at First Nations Energy and Mining Council; Regina Saimoto,

associate dean, Coast Mountain College, eastern region; Tom Syer, head

of government affairs, Teck Resources; Edie Thome, president and CEO of

the Association for Mineral Exploration; Richard Tremblay,

vice-president and general manager, Taseko Gibraltar mine; and Alan

Young, director of Materials Efficiency Research Group.

That task force set out a number of recommendations, and most of

those have been adopted. Many of the steps that have been taken flow

from that broad Mining Jobs Task Force report, and almost all of them

have been implemented.

The government, the department, has funded and initiated, in

addition, a number of other steps.

A standing code review with the participation of industry,

organized labour and First Nations.

Allocated $1 million in year-end funding to work with industry and

all levels of government to establish a mining innovation roadmap. The

example that I gave, MineSense, is something that can be generalized and

really hold up British Columbia mining as a global centre for mining

innovation.

Allocated $1 million for the continuation and expansion of the

Regional Mining Alliance. This is a group that works with Indigenous

nations and takes out the message of the openness of British Columbia to

investment to global mining gatherings.

Unlike the previous government, we made the mineral exploration

tax credit permanent. We made the mining flow-through shares tax credit

permanent. We allocated $5 million to Geoscience B.C. for bridge

funding. We extended the new mine allowance for five years. We exempted

PST on the purchase of machinery and equipment used for pollution

control and waste management, regardless of where it will be

used.

Among the recommendations of the task force were recommendations….

Let me just read them.

[3:20 p.m.]

“Ensure clearer division of responsibility and resources between

permitting functions and compliance and enforcement within EMPR.” The

Mining Jobs Task Force — this broadly based group including industry,

unions, First Nations and the broader public sector — recommended that,

and that’s one of the recommendations that’s coming forward in this

bill.

It also stated and recommended: “Improve health and safety

capacity and effectiveness, and establish compliance, auditing and

establish compliance auditing and effectiveness monitoring function.”

Certainly, that’s another recommendation that comes from the task force,

and that’s what this bill will work on. That’s what the essence of the

bill is.

The ministry has restructured its mining responsibilities into two

divisions with separate assistant deputy minister accountabilities.

Budget 2019 invested in both divisions. This legislation separates

decision-makers for permitting and health, safety and enforcement, and

creates a chief auditor to direct a new auditing function.

All of these flow from the concerns and recommendations of the

Mining Jobs Task Force. These are important steps to take, although I

sense a certain dismissiveness from the opposition about the importance

of these considerations.

PwC just issued a report about the mining industry in British

Columbia just last week and talked about ESG — that is, environment,

social and governance criteria. That’s what investors are looking for in

order to make their decisions to invest.

Mining safety, for example, is paramount. The member for West

Vancouver–Capilano will tell you that he had an experience back many

years ago as a director for Curragh Resources. There was a major mining

disaster in Nova Scotia, the Westray mining disaster, where a number of

men were killed in a mine. It was a national issue. Ultimately, the

criminal law was changed — it wasn’t the case at the time — to make the

directors accountable for corporate criminal responsibility.

So I think there are many on the other side, and particularly that

member, who are well acquainted with the importance of safety as a first

consideration for the mining that takes place in any jurisdiction. We

want to have, here in British Columbia, the highest standard on safety.

I don’t think that anyone here would disagree with that.

Part of the reason for these divisions of functions is to make

sure that that safety function is audited and brought to the attention

of the company, of the operator and of the people who work there in

order that changes can be made. That’s not just some frill. That’s not

just some red tape. That is also a consideration that investors look at,

the ESG considerations, in deciding whether or not to make the kinds of

investments — I cited a number of them — that companies, finance,

pension funds are looking to make in mining in the future. It’s a live

concern for those investors who want to make investments in a mine.

That’s partly what motivates these particular changes.

Now, there were a number of other questions. I know that the

member for Langley East raised some questions, interesting questions,

about professionals employed in one aspect of the new division of

labour. Would they be in conflict of interest and not able to work in

another part of the legislative scheme? We’ll get those answers for him.

Those are good questions, and I’m sure that those will be pursued at the

committee stage of this particular bill. I know there are other

questions that have been raised. I look forward to that

debate.

These steps are to increase our efforts to raise the standards of

mining here in British Columbia so that it is definitely one of the best

places in the world to invest in mining, to create jobs and the kind of

prosperity that we wish for the province of British Columbia now and in

the future.

With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I would end my

remarks.

Deputy Speaker: Minister, move second reading, please.

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: I should move second reading, which I do.

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Ralston: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 6, Mines 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 19, COVID-19 Related Measures

Act.

BILL 19 — COVID-19 RELATED

MEASURES

ACT

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be now read a second time.

The COVID-19 Related Measures Act, which includes targeted

amendments to the Emergency Program Act, addresses both legal and

practical issues related to supporting B.C.’s Restart Plan for the

COVID-19 pandemic.

On March 18, a provincial state of emergency was declared due to

the COVID-19 pandemic. Since then, a number of ministerial orders have

been made by the Solicitor General under the Emergency Program Act.

These orders are due to expire as soon as the provincial state of

emergency ends.

The COVID-19 Related Measures Act provides a temporary legal

framework to allow for flexibility for when the ministerial orders

expire. It is important to ensure that when we are able to come out of

the provincial state of emergency, British Columbians are not faced with

unintended practical and legal consequences due to the abrupt end of

orders all at once on a single day. Many of the ministerial orders were

made to ensure people’s legal rights and obligations would not be

negatively affected by the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, including

the economic impacts.

Public health officer guidelines on physical distancing and

restrictions on mass gatherings have been critical to our ability to

contain the spread of the virus and keep British Columbians safe. But

they also meant that business as usual was not an option. Many British

Columbians also faced unexpected negative changes to their economic

circumstances or new expectations of how their jobs or businesses should

run.

Many of the ministerial orders were made to assist people who were

unable to comply with the law at the same time as complying with public

health officer guidelines. For example, Ministerial Order M162 allows

remote witnessing of representation agreements while long-term-care

facilities are locked down to outsiders. If this order expires before it

is safe for residents to have in-person visitors, residents will not be

able to exercise their legal right to advanced planning, which could

have significant legal, practical and emotional impacts on

people.

Many of the ministerial orders have been made to protect people in

the province. However, there is still a need to protect people beyond

the end of the provincial state of emergency if the effects of the

pandemic are still being felt. Protecting British Columbians is at the

heart of all of the ministerial orders made during the state of

emergency.

The state of emergency continues for the time being, but

government must ensure that it has the tools to keep protecting British

Columbians after the state of emergency is lifted. As an example, if the

prohibition on unconscionable pricing in Ministerial Order M115 is not

extended, consumers are vulnerable to the actions of unscrupulous

actors.

Similarly, Ministerial Order M084 was ordered to allow the

minister to make sure that essential goods and supplies could be

distributed fairly if shortages arose. By extending the effect of this

order, government keeps a tool in place to help ensure personal

protective equipment is available for front-line workers.

Bill 19 will extend some of the ministerial orders for 45 days and

others for 90 days to provide a reasonable transition period. As well,

Bill 19 will establish the authority for the

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

different expiry date for some ministerial orders. Some will expire

immediately, because they are spent, and some will expire at the end of

the provincial state of emergency.

Some, such as the orders allowing for electronic meetings, needed

to be extended for a longer duration so that the local governments,

credit unions and the Union of B.C. Municipalities are not bound by the

statutory requirements for in-person meetings while there are continued

physical distancing and mass gathering guidelines in public health

orders.

[3:30 p.m.]

The COVID-19 Related Measures Act and any regulations made under

it are temporary, transitional legislation, limiting all extensions up

to a maximum of one year after the act comes into force. The act and

regulations are automatically repealed on this date. In addition, a key

condition on extending the effect of the orders is that the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council must be satisfied that extending the

ministerial order is necessary to respond to or alleviate the effects of

the COVID-19 pandemic.

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

The COVID-19 Related Measures Act also enables government to make

regulations that provide targeted protections from civil liability for

COVID-19-related damages. The purpose is to ensure that, where

appropriate, fears of civil liability will not unduly discourage

activity that promotes the province’s response to and recovery from the

pandemic.

During the current state of emergency, the Solicitor General made

Ministerial Orders M094 and M120, which provide essential service

providers with protections from civil liability for damages associated

with exposure to or transmission of COVID-19. This was done to support

the provision of daily services essential to preserving life, health,

public safety and basic social functioning.

Similarly, the Solicitor General has made Ministerial Order M183,

which provides another targeted protection from civil liability for

COVID-19-related damages to support the provision of amateur organized

sport activities, as those play an important role in the psychological,

physical and emotional well-being of people in British

Columbia.

The protections from civil liability that have been extended

during the state of emergency are only available if the essential

service provider or sport organization is not grossly negligent and is

acting in accordance with all relevant emergency and public health

guidance. This guidance includes orders and instructions of the

provincial health officer, Dr. Bonnie Henry, as well as guidance from

health authorities and other regulatory authorities. This requirement

encourages, and in fact requires, that essential service providers and

sport organizations operate in compliance with extremely high standards

that serve to protect the health and safety of British

Columbians.

This bill will ensure that government can continue to provide

targeted protections from civil liability outside of a state of

emergency, if circumstances warrant, throughout the duration of the

COVID-19 pandemic. Enabling cabinet to prescribe targeted protections

from civil liability by regulation, rather than setting out the specific

details of these protections in statute, allows cabinet to create

precisely tailored immunity to litigation as concerns arise in real

life.

This is preferable to attempting to anticipate now all of the

potential areas of liability that may be identified as problematic

during the pandemic and creating a potentially over-broad protection in

legislation. The flexibility to create targeted regulations reduces the

likelihood of over-breadth and inadvertent protection of activities or

behaviours that do not warrant protection.

Protections from civil liability are not unlimited. The act does

not allow for protection to be provided for gross negligence and can

only provide protection from damages that are related to COVID-19. As

with other elements of the proposed legislation, this regulation-making

authority and any regulations made under it are automatically repealed

one year after the act is brought into force.

Cabinet can specify limits and conditions that must be met for

protection from civil liability to be available to a person, as was done

in Ministerial Orders M094, M120 and M183. This would allow cabinet to

require, for example, that a person comply with the orders of the

provincial health officer before receiving protection from civil

liability associated with exposure to or transmission of

COVID-19.

Bill 19 also contains two targeted, related amendments to the

Emergency Program Act to clarify that the power of the minister to make

orders under

section 10(1) is not limited to only the actions listed in

that

section and to provide new restrictions and process for modifying

or altering the application of enactments in the province. These

amendments will apply to all emergencies, not just the COVID-19

pandemic.

Under the existing act, the Solicitor General may do any act or

establish any process during a state of emergency under

section 10. But

best practice in other jurisdictions is that cabinet,

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, instead of the minister responsible for

emergencies, has the job of establishing processes or doing acts that

may modify or alter provisions of enactments. That’s why we are

proposing a change that changes the process and restricts the

significant power under the existing act.

Under the modifications, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will

now make these changes, not the minister alone. In addition, cabinet may

only temporarily modify or alter provisions of enactments by regulation

if certain conditions are met, if the benefit of making the regulation

is proportionate to the benefit of the continued application of the

enactment and if the regulation will prevent, respond to or alleviate

the effects of the emergency itself. This means that courts will have

oversight of the exercise of this power to determine whether these

important tests are met before cabinet moves to modify or alter

provisions of enactments.

[3:35 p.m.]

This power does not extend to modifying statutes with express

priority provisions, such as the Financial Administration Act. This

modification has the added benefit of responding to the concerns of the

Ombudsperson that the EPA be more specific about these important

statutory powers in a state of emergency.

My colleague will be speaking to these proposed amendments to the

Emergency Program Act in more detail. These amendments are not a

substitute for the ongoing work to fully modernize that act. Emergency

management B.C. continues with that work with a view to using lessons

learned from this pandemic to help inform the new act to be introduced

in a future legislative sitting.

Before I conclude my remarks on this bill, I wish to recognize and

acknowledge the critical role of Indigenous peoples in the management of

emergencies in their communities. Nothing in this bill alters that role.

Pursuant to our obligations under the Declaration of the Rights of

Indigenous Peoples Act, we are committed to consulting and cooperating

with Indigenous peoples in British Columbia to ensure that the laws of

the province are consistent with the declaration. As noted, our

government is engaged in an ongoing project to modernize the Emergency

Program Act, and we will continue to work together with Indigenous

peoples and organizations on that process as we look to make permanent

changes to the emergency management framework in the

province.

Throughout the tight time frame for development of this

COVID-19-focused bill, we engaged with treaty First Nations and with the

First Nations Leadership Council, and those discussions are still

ongoing. We will continue to consult and cooperate with Indigenous

peoples in British Columbia as we develop regulations and work to

implement this legislation, if it is passed by the Legislative

Assembly.

I hope that other members of this House will join me in supporting

this legislation that is critically important to British Columbians

coping with the pandemic.

M. Lee: I rise to speak to Bill 19 on second reading here — the COVID-19

Related Measures Act, 2020.

We all recognize in this House that COVID-19 has been an

unprecedented challenge globally and for all of us here in British

Columbia. With these unprecedented times, there has been a need to have

certain emergency orders passed to help this province get through this

public health emergency. Certainly, the 30-plus emergency orders of

various degrees and coverage have been put in place in order to assist

in the provincewide response to the pandemic.

As we get through the various phases of COVID-19 and as this

session has been called back this week, it is important to consider the

appropriate level of response and duration of the emergency powers that

are being exercised by this government under the Emergency Program Act.

Indeed, what other measures will the government be needing to bring

forward under that act in the event of any further waves of

COVID-19?

We have learned many lessons from COVID-19, to date, in terms of

the state of our province’s institutions — the need to increase the

level of technology so that we, even as members of this Legislative

Assembly, can continue to meet in a physically safe-distanced way

through a combination of video conferencing and more physical space

amongst us.

Certainly, as we go forward with some of the emergency orders that

the Attorney General highlighted in his second reading speech, there is

an opportunity to have legislation considered in this House which would

adopt some of the changes that have been done on a temporary basis to

date.

For example, Bill 21, which we will be looking at in this House

and which was introduced yesterday, is an amendment to the Wills,

Estates and Succession Act, which governs wills and estate law in

British Columbia. Bill 21 will enable courts to accept electronic wills

that are created on a computer and signed electronically and for which

there is no printed copy. The bill will also allow the use of technology

for the witnessing of wills by people who are in different physical

locations.

[3:40 p.m.]

An emergency order was passed by this government on May 19, 2020,

to allow for the remote witnessing of wills, and it was retroactive to

March 18, 2020, under the authority of the Emergency Program Act. This

is one example of an emergency order, which I think we will all find an

important change, to enable those who aren’t able to have physical

witnessing be able to do that in the course of this COVID pandemic and,

also, to make it more efficient and effective for the elderly and others

to have their wills compiled, signed and executed.

As was just mentioned, we recognize that the Ministry of Public

Safety and Solicitor General embarked, pre COVID-19, on modernizing the

Emergency Program Act and that there is more work to be done. On a more

immediate basis, this government is proposing changes to the Emergency

Program Act under this bill.

I think it’s important to recognize that in the course of the

history of this act, particularly since 1993…. The form of this

Emergency Program Act has been focused on responding to natural

disasters like wildfires and not necessarily on public health

emergencies. When you look at the various debates and discussions in

this House at the time that the Emergency Program Act was revised and

updated in 1993, you’ll see that that is evident in the course and the

nature of that discussion.

Of course, in the midst of a global, worldwide pandemic, it’s

important to consider what the necessary changes and adjustments are

that ought to be made to this Emergency Program Act. Certainly, it’s an

emergency which is of a global nature, one that extends well beyond our

borders, one that is not localized within only certain regions within

our province.

I think it’s important, as we consider this bill at committee

stage, to understand from the government what other learnings they have

had and looked at from other jurisdictions in the course of adjusting

this Emergency Program Act.

When you look at the work that was done in New Zealand following

the earthquakes in 2010 and 2011, there was a significant review by an

inquiry entitled the Inquiry into Parliament’s Legislative Response to

Future National Emergencies. That inquiry took the time to review how

the emergency powers in New Zealand should be utilized. In that report,

the main themes, which I think are very relevant to consideration of

this Bill 19, for us, include the following.

“Executive powers to override enactments should extend only as far

as is necessary to deal with the emergency itself and should only be

exercised for that purpose.”

Secondly, “emergency legislation should include safeguards: using

primary legislation wherever possible rather than broad powers to make

delegated legislation;” consider “including sunset provisions for

emergency powers,” as is being done in this bill; retain an external

panel led by a retired judge “to review orders-in-council before they

are made to ensure they are authorized and to suggest any amendments;

preserving rights to seek judicial review of the exercise of emergency

powers….”

[3:45 p.m.]

A third theme is that “any legislative response to an…emergency

should be designed to ensure that recovery from the emergency begins on

day one.” I note, with interest, that there is no mention of waiting

until day 90 or day 100 to conduct a survey, for another six weeks, to

determine a recovery plan. I’m not sure where the Premier got that

approach. Certainly, it wasn’t recommended by the New Zealand

Legislative Assembly.

In Europe, a recent report entitled Respect for Democracy,

Human Rights and the Rule of Law During States of Emergency:

Reflections by the European Commission for Democracy through

Law…. That was a report that was recently filed at the end of May 2020.

Members of the European Commission for Democracy through Law stated that

there were three key principles for the implementation of emergency

measures, which are necessity, proportionality and

temporariness.

The members of that commission went on to say that for the

delegation of legislative powers to the executive, there was a need for

the legislative powers to have a clear, legal basis. It identified the

risk that the delegation of powers could undermine democratic values.

That’s an important consideration to keep in mind as we look at this

bill and as we consider how we got to this point.

Certainly, redesigning the Emergency Program Act in the middle of

a pandemic is probably not optimal. There needs to be further

consideration. I expect that with the work that the Minister of Public

Safety and Solicitor General will be doing with his ministry, in a more

comprehensive fashion going forward…. There may be those opportunities

with the discussion paper that has been out for review.

In the meantime, we are being asked to consider this bill in front

of us, and in doing so…. I think it’s important that we keep in mind

that although great power can be utilized under the Emergency Program

Act, it needs to be managed well. It needs to be managed by the members

of this Legislative Assembly.

We’re being asked to consider this bill. That gives us the

opportunity to consider how the exercise and imposition of extraordinary

powers by the state — by the province of British Columbia, by its

government — must be balanced against civil liberties for all

individuals.

So what are the basic principles? In my second reading speech on

Bill 11 this past Monday, on the government’s introduction of a no-fault

scheme, I remarked about, at the outset, the role that each of us has as

a member of this Legislative Assembly to uphold and protect our public

institutions. Those public institutions, for a variety of reasons around

the world, are under attack, to a large degree.

We need to continue to ensure that the trust and confidence that

British Columbians put in ourselves, as their elected representatives,

are nurtured and are carried out in the fullest possible way to meet our

responsibilities. That role stems from a fundamental understanding that

in the midst of this public health emergency, we must protect our free

and democratic society here in this province, which is governed by the

rule of law.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in its decision, the case

Reference

re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court (P.E.I.)…. It

was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in 1997. It stated that a

core principle of the rule of law is the constitutional principle that

the exercise of all public power must find its ultimate source in a

legal rule.

[3:50 p.m.]

It’s certainly understood that any order by the minister

responsible made under the Emergency Program Act cannot exceed the

authority granted by that act. That should be a well-understood

principle, which I’m sure each of us here in this assembly would

respect.

In looking at the rule of law, it’s been said that there are three

key elements: firstly, that no one is above the law; secondly, that the

rule of law requires the establishment of laws to govern our province.

It sounds pretty simple; it’s sometimes forgotten. And lastly, as I

mentioned at the outset, all exercises of public power must find their

source in a legal rule.

I should have mentioned, at the outset, that I will be the

designated speaker on this bill.

When I reviewed the other jurisdictions — what New Zealand is

doing and what the European Commission is looking at — you can see that

there’s a detailed review about how emergencies ought to be dealt with

and how the powers that are to be exercised by a government under

an act

like this need to be carefully managed. What did this province do? In

the midst of this pandemic, what did this government do? Rather than

have a review, it pushed ahead. How do we know that? Well, the

Ombudsperson of this province raised it. In response, the government

tried to push it off.

As members of this Legislative Assembly, I think we should

acknowledge the work of Jay Chalke, as Ombudsperson of this province,

for the work that he has done with his team in the detailed review of

the 30 orders or so that have been put in place by this

government.

In a report that was just made public on Monday evening, less than

48 hours before this second reading debate, his special report entitled

Extraordinary Times, Extra­ordinary Measures: Two

Ministerial Orders Made Under the Emergency Program Act in Response

to the COVID-19 Pandemic , in about 45 pages or so, focused on

two specific ministerial orders of the 30 which went beyond the

authority of this government, beyond the authority that’s spelled out in

the Emergency Program Act.

Let me just start with the appendix at the back of the document,

which is a letter that was included in the report. It’s a copy of a

letter dated June 12, from the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor

General to the Ombudsperson. It does refer to another letter that the

Attorney General and the Solicitor General had written on May 29 to the

Ombudsperson, which stated: “We are of the view that the Ombudsperson

Act does not provide jurisdiction for you to conduct an investigation

into the ministerial orders in question.”

It further goes on, at the end of this paragraph in this June 12

letter: “For this reason, please be advised that government is also of

the view that it has no obligation under the Ombudsperson Act to respond

to your draft report or its recommendations.”

Clearly, the government received a copy, in draft, of the

Ombudsperson’s report and chose to ignore it or chose not to respond to

it — I’m not sure which — because it does go on to say that, in reading

the report, the government wanted to be very clear.

[3:55 p.m.]

There is a third statement, I’d like to read into the record: “The

consistency between the action we are already taking on some matters and

your recent recommendations should not be construed as acceptance of or

agreement with all of your recommendations.” It’s coincidental that this

government rushed a briefing to myself and the critic for the Solicitor

General, the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, at the end of last week

and that we’ve seen this bill come into this House in this

form.

Lastly, I would say with regret that when I look at the last

sentence in this letter, written by the Minister of Public Safety and

Solicitor General to the Ombudsperson…. I’ll just read this into the

record: “Given the need to advance this project as expeditiously as

possible and, as previously indicated, our intent to introduce

legislation at the earliest opportunity, there was a narrow opportunity

for your office to participate in that process. Unfortunately, that

window has now closed.”

Well, I think that we have a responsibility to open up that window

— that’s what this opportunity is — in order to debate this bill, at

second reading and at committee, in the absence of a response to the

report, when the Ombudsperson is carrying out his duties under the

Ombudsperson Act. I won’t go into detail here, but certainly, it’s in

the report itself — in terms of the view of the Ombudsperson as to his

duties and responsibilities, his powers to look into matters of

administration under

section 10 of the Ombudsperson Act. Clearly, this

government has a different view.

The Ombudsperson, to his credit, persisted. That report is now

public. I think that in the course of the review of this bill, we should

ensure that the considerations and concerns which the Ombudsperson has

spelled out in his report are more than adequately addressed in this

bill. If this government won’t give the opportunity for the Ombudsperson

to complete his role, we have that responsibility here in this

House.

I think I would say that in the meantime, while we are going

through this bill and going through this bill at committee level, there

is a flag from the report that we should keep in mind here in this

House: certainly, we would have every expectation that the Solicitor

General and the Minister of Public Safety won’t be issuing any

additional emergency orders that go beyond the scope and the authority

that he has under the Emergency Program Act.

Or if there’s a need for that legislation — on an emergency basis,

on a pressing nature — we should be dealing with that legislation in

this House. This is what this bill has afforded us the opportunity to

do. We have a special session that’s been called back this summer. We

should be dealing with any legislation that this government is

considering — on an emergency basis, to deal with this pandemic — but we

should also be dealing with the gaps.

We have heard — in question period, from our Leader of the

Official Opposition — concerns addressed, about urgent needs, by this

government. We’d like to see those dealt with and addressed. This

opportunity presents itself in the course of this bill. I wish to quote

the Ombudsperson, just so that others can appreciate the area of concern

here.

[4:00 p.m.]

“While the minister wields broad powers under the Emergency

Program Act, those powers are not unlimited or absolute. Even in a

health emergency, Canada remains a free and democratic society governed

by the rule of law. A health emergency does not suspend the fundamental

principle that every exercise of public authority, including authority

exercised by a minister, must find its source in law.” That encapsulates

my remarks to date, the importance of why we’re looking at

this.

If I may go into a few points in detail in the report, the

Ombudsperson found that two of the emergency orders made under the

COVID-19 pandemic did not have the requisite legal authority and were

contrary to the law to the extent that they purport to suspend or amend

provisions of other statutes. The Ombudsperson goes on to say that even

if the minister did have power to issue orders suspending or amending

the statutes of the province — even if it did have, even if the minister

had that power — the Ministerial Orders M098 and M139 do not demonstrate

sufficient consideration of the principles of good administration that

should guide the exercise of so profound a power.

M098 suspended limitation periods relating to court proceedings

and allowed statutory decision–makers to waive, suspend or extend the

mandatory time frame relating to their decision-making powers. In

application, this order waived time limits related to any civil or

family lawsuits, as well as other situations where deadlines may be

invol