Fifth Session, 41st Parliament

(2020) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, July 28, 2020

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 350

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 4 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2020

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 18 — Economic Stabilization (COVID-19) Act

(continued)

S. Bond

Hon. C. James

S. Cadieux

S. Furstenau

Reporting of Bills

Bill 18 — Economic Stabilization (COVID-19) Act

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 23 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2020

J. Martin

Hon. H. Bains

M. Lee

Schedule of Estimates

Hon. M. Farnworth

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 4 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2020 (continued)

TUESDAY, JULY 28, 2020

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call third reading on Bill 4.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 4 — BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT,

Mr. Speaker: The question is third reading of Bill 4, Budget Measures

Implementation Act.

A division has been called. Pursuant to the sessional order

adopted on June 22, 2020, this division will be deferred until 30

minutes prior to adjournment this evening.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage on Bill 18, Economic Stabilization

(COVID-19) Act.

[1:35 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 18 — ECONOMIC STABILIZATION

(COVID-19) ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 18;

S. Gibson in the chair.

The committee met at 1:37 p.m.

section 4.

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members.

S. Bond: I appreciate the opportunity, hon. Chair, to continue our

discussion.

Perhaps the minister would like to respond to the question around

the motor fuel tax at the same time as she deals with the sales tax. As

I foreshadowed to her in our previous discussions, the questions are the

same. How much, in this case, sales tax was deferred during COVID? How

many businesses deferred sales tax? What is the new revenue number for

the sales tax?

I think we were going to come back to some of those answers. I’ll

leave it for the minister to respond.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Welcome back, Chair. Welcome back, Members.

The question first was on fuel tax, the number we were going to

get, coming back from lunch. The July number is $907 million, which is

down $117 million from budget. That’s for the July statement. Then on

provincial sales tax, in the budget, $7.9 billion, and the July number

was $6.6 billion.

S. Bond: To the minister, then, could she speak to the number of businesses

that deferred the sales tax and exactly, you know, the percentages that

she reflected in her earlier answers on other taxes? Can she give us a

sense of how many businesses deferred sales tax and how those numbers,

again, will be used to increase the certainty with her budget

assessment?

Hon. C. James: So 68 percent of businesses deferred their provincial sales tax. A

number of them used the opportunity. There would be no difference from

the discussion we had around carbon tax and how we take a look at,

obviously, economic growth, what’s going on in the economy and all of

the statistics available. This would, of course, include the number of

businesses that have looked at deferral as well.

S. Bond: I have no further questions on that section, hon.

Chair.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

S. Bond: Again to the minister, then, can she describe for us how much of

the tobacco tax was deferred during COVID — if she has any specific

numbers regarding businesses that deferred tobacco tax? Also, what is

the new revenue number that she will be using for the tobacco

tax?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: The budget number for the tobacco tax was $755 million. In the

July update, the fiscal scenario was $730 million. That shows the

decline, as we mentioned earlier. And 30 percent of collectors have

deferred on the tobacco tax. That doesn’t correlate to businesses,

because it’s not the individual businesses who submit the tobacco tax.

It’s, in fact, the top of the chain. It’s those who are importing and

selling who actually provide it. So that doesn’t actually correlate to

the number of businesses, when it comes to who sells tobacco.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for those numbers and for her patience

as we work through these tax sections. As I said earlier, the number

that was given was a cumulative total in the update. Now we have a

better sense of what those deferrals and losses of revenue look like,

potentially, in some of those key tax areas.

With those comments, those would be my last questions on this

particular section.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

S. Bond: The minister and I — and of course, our colleagues — can see the

bill in front of us. This

section is about regulation, and it’s about

new dates. I’d like to ask the minister, specifically, if she has

received any submissions for new dates in terms of deferrals, other than

the September 30 date.

[1:50 p.m.]

If yes, or no, it would be interesting to know whether or not she

is considering any other specific dates in terms of an extension or a

change in those dates. Again, can the minister speak to whether or not

she’s received any specific submissions for a new due date other than

September 30?

Hon. C. James: This kind of comes back to our previous conversation that we had

this morning, just around the consideration. As the member points out,

this

section talks about regulations to give the ability for those dates

to be changed. As I mentioned, we’re reviewing all of those dates now

for the deferrals, for the consumption tax and other pieces, as part of

a group of measures that we’re looking at.

Yes to the member’s question around “have groups written in about

other dates.” We’ve had groups write in to talk about the end of the

calendar year. We’ve had groups write in that have talked about the

fiscal year. We’ve had groups write in that have asked about payment

plans — begin paying in October, but pay on payment plans. Change the

payment plan

schedule to give more time between payments. A whole

variety of ideas have come forward.

People have really engaged in all of the ideas around recovery,

including this piece. At this point, as I said earlier this morning,

nothing’s off the table. We’re reviewing everything at this

point.

S. Bond: I thank the minister for that answer. Yes, this is a recurring

theme, because as the minister well knows, the opposition has also been

talking and calling for, in particular, a look at a payment-plan

approach. Deferral is one thing, but when suddenly there’s a lump sum

due on a particular date, the stress and the ability to be able to pay,

for many of those businesses, will be very, very challenging. So I do

appreciate that nothing is off the table. I think that’s

important.

The opposition, as I said, have been calling for some kinds of

potential options that would look at, potentially, that stretched-out

payment period. I know the minister has been reluctant to…. I mean, it’s

ironic. We’ve had this conversation. It’s called the Economic

Stabilization Act, and from all of the information — and I’m not being

personally critical of the minister — it’s hard to feel like there’s any

sense of economic stabilization with the discussion we’re having about

deferral, about revenue loss, about potential deficit size, all of those

things. It’s just part of the world we’re living in.

What I would like to ask the minister: is she prepared today,

considering she has the ability now, with this section, to look at

potential changes in dates? She’s having discussions. They’re

listening.

Businesses are feeling a sense of urgency. Many of them are

literally holding on by their fingernails. Is the minister prepared

today to commit to a date where she is going to tell small businesses

across British Columbia when, or if, or some detail about, a deferred

payment plan that stretches out for a longer period of time, a change in

the date…? When will she be telling those businesses, to give them some

ability to plan and feel some sense of relief?

Hon. C. James: As we discussed this morning and, in fact, as we’ve been

discussing for the last number of months — and certainly, when we all

came together in the Legislature to put the $5 billion COVID package in

place — I recognize how critical it is that we provide support to

individuals, to businesses, to sectors in our economy, to the people of

this province who are really continuing to struggle.

[1:55 p.m.]

We’re starting to see some positive signs, but there’s still a

great deal of work ahead and a great deal of road ahead of us. It’s why,

as I said, we made sure that we first dealt with the health and safety.

We continue to see that. I think we were reminded this past week that

when it comes to the numbers around COVID-19, we have to continue to be

vigilant. We have to continue to be vigilant as individuals, as

businesses in our restart process and in the work we’re doing in

protecting health and safety.

That’s part of economic recovery: the restart, and doing that in a

measured approach, to build confidence. If there’s one reminder I’ve

heard over and over again from businesses, it’s the need to build that

confidence, so that people feel comfortable to go into businesses again.

I certainly understand the pressures; I certainly understand the issues

that are there. As I said this morning, we are reviewing all of the

submissions that have come in, all of the approaches that have come in.

We’ll be looking at all of that, and we’ll be making decisions

shortly.

S. Cadieux: I’ll be asking questions on sections 7 to 9 here. So, Minister,

please indulge me. They sort of cover all three sections at once. Can

the minister confirm that this

section forces municipalities to delay

their deadline for property tax without penalty to residents?

Hon. C. James: I just wonder, Chair, whether we want to move past, then, and onto

section 7.

The Chair: Are there any further queries on

section 6?

S. Cadieux: Yes, let’s vote on

section 6, please.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

S. Cadieux: Minister, if you could please confirm that the

section on property

taxes in the bill forces municipalities, essentially, to delay their

deadline for property taxes without penalty to residents. So the same

policy is now in place across the province?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Thanks to the member for the question. Thanks for the patience

while we all learn the technology and make sure we have the right people

in the room to be able to help answer. So thank you, and a huge thank

you to staff — if I haven’t done that already this morning — for the

extra energy they’ve had to put in, as well, when it comes to using our

technology.

The end result is the same. What it requires is a little bit

different. This requires municipalities to delay late penalties. What

that means is that people can still submit if they wish to submit. They

have the opportunity to submit, but they don’t get charged with a late

penalty until October 1. That gives the September 30 date for people to

not be penalized on their taxes.

The only exception, of course, is Vancouver, because of the

Vancouver Charter. But the city of Vancouver had already moved to do

that, to match up with the measures that we’re taking, as well. So no

additional work was needed in that area.

S. Cadieux: Thank you, Minister. Yes, thank you to staff who are diligently

supporting behind the scenes.

Minister, were the homeowner grant application deadlines also

delayed, given the deferrals for the property tax deadline, or were

people expected to still file their homeowner grant application for the

July 1 deadline?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: It’s probably a little-known fact that people can actually apply

for the homeowner grant any time. I think most people presume it comes

with their tax bill, and they pay it by the due date of the taxes, but

in fact, you can apply for your homeowner grant any time during the

year. But to avoid the penalty, yes, it has to be applied for before the

October 1 date, when the penalties start kicking in.

S. Cadieux: Thank you, Minister.

So then, with the property tax deferrals, can the minister give us

an estimated volume of total property taxes effectively being deferred

as a result of this section?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Just a little bit of clarity, perhaps, here around the two things

we’re talking about. There is a property tax deferral program. As the

member will know, people can defer — seniors can defer, families with

young children can defer — their property taxes. That’s not related to

this late payment date.

Just for the member’s information, we received 65,000 applications

this year for property deferral. That’s the piece that doesn’t impact

the bottom line, because those, obviously, are owed taxes on the house

when the person sells their house or their house is sold. So 11,000 of

those were new applications this year. Those were new people who put in

for their property tax deferral. That’s roughly $246 million, as of a

few days ago, that was deferred. That’s the deferral process.

We don’t get specifics on people who postponed — obviously, that’s

their choice, and we don’t gather the information until the taxes are

paid — but in our discussions with municipalities, most municipalities

believe they’ll get about 75 percent of their property taxes before the

deferral date. With the rate that’s coming in and the amounts that are

being paid right now, they believe that they’ll have about 75 percent of

those before the deferral date of September 30, before the penalties

kick in on October 1.

S. Cadieux: Let’s move to

section 10, please.

The Chair: Any further comments on

section 7?

S. Furstenau: I do have one question specifically, as the member opposite, on

sections 7 to 9. October 1 is the date at which penalties begin to be

payable for unpaid business taxes. It’s November 2 for unpaid rural

business taxes. My question for the minister is: why set a different

date for rural and other property taxes?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: On the issue of rural property tax, there are already two due

dates for rural property tax — one of them on July 2 and one of them on

November 1. There is no penalty on the July 2, July 3 date. We didn’t

need to make a change, because the November date was already there. So

there was no point in making a change for the October to November to

make one month’s difference. That’s already taken care of for rural

properties. There isn’t a worry there about them being penalized,

compared to other properties.

I just wanted to clarify, because with the previous question, we

were talking about two different pieces. We were talking about

residential properties and deferral of properties. We were talking about

the date being moved around penalties for commercial

properties.

I just wanted to make it clear that residential properties still

have to pay their taxes, in case anyone is watching and they’re

wondering about the due date for their residential properties. That is

set by the municipalities. What we’re talking about here are commercial

properties. We moved the penalty dates, got rid of the penalties until

September 30 for people to pay on October 1.

I didn’t want anyone to be confused about the residential

properties versus the commercial properties. The change in the date

relates to commercial properties. People who have their residential

property taxes need to look at their date and need to look at when

that’s due for their municipalities.

Sections 7 to 9 inclusive approved.

section 10.

S. Cadieux: Can the minister confirm that this

section allows the taxes

collected by the municipality, on behalf of the province, to be held for

a longer period to ensure municipal liquidity?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: We’re talking in a general sense about the sections. This specific

section actually does the opposite. It helps others with their dollars

that they’re collecting. This is related to ensuring that B.C. Transit

and TransLink — that those dollars flow through to them, that that issue

isn’t passed down to those bodies and that they end up receiving the

dollars that they have.

But the sections, as we move on —

section 13, etc. — talk about

the cash flow support for municipalities through the school tax that

would come in to the province. Yes, it is being delayed.

S. Cadieux: Thank you, Minister. I apologize. I’ve got my questions bundled

into the sort of sections on tax remittances, 10 to 14. Thank you for

the flexibility in allowing me to follow my own train of thought here,

rather than exactly, specifically the section.

Can the minister explain how the deferrals that she essentially is

allowing for the municipality are different from the deferrals for

business around taxes?

Earlier we were talking about it and around carbon tax and sales

tax. The minister was very clear that those were due to the province,

and they didn’t provide any essential liquidity for the businesses in

the interim while they’re being deferred. But in this case, with the

municipalities, it appears that the delay for the remittances is

specifically for that purpose of liquidity for the

municipalities.

Can the minister explain the discrepancy between how she is

referring to the deferrals of tax payments in these sections?

[2:25 p.m. - 2:30 p.m.]

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. C. James: There are a couple of differences. We talked about the remittances

previously. The remittances are collected by businesses, if we’re using

the example of the carbon tax. The customer is expected to pay that.

Therefore, the business holds on to those dollars. We’ve said to them:

“You don’t have to have to have the administrative burden, because your

businesses may have been closed, to actually submit those to the

Ministry of Finance. That’s deferred until October 1.” That’s why that

piece is an administrative piece.

The difference with the municipalities is that they would provide,

normally, the school tax portion, which they collect on the property

taxes, to the province. What we’ve said is: “You have permission to

utilize those dollars. You have the ability to utilize those dollars.

They have to be paid to us January 1.”

That’s the difference. They have that ability to use those

dollars. That’s why it’s not simply an administrative support to

municipalities. It is an administrative support to

businesses.

S. Cadieux: Apologies to my colleague who was going to take the floor next,

but I just have a quick follow-up because of the minister’s

answer.

I guess the question follows then: why would the minister choose

to provide that flexibility and that sort of cash liquidity support to

municipalities and not provide that same level of support to the

struggling small business community in saying, with the deferrals, that

they could similarly use the money in the interim, knowing that they

would eventually have to pay it back at a future date?

Why that difference in process? Does the minister not trust the

small businesses the way that the minister trusts municipalities, or is

there a legal difference?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Yes, indeed, there is a legal requirement, and that is the

difference between municipalities and small businesses. Certainly, some

small businesses would, in fact, benefit from this property tax piece,

so it isn’t that the property tax piece only benefits municipalities. In

fact, because of the reduction — it’s about $700 million — many small

businesses, in fact, will benefit from this piece. But, in fact,

businesses are legally required to hold those dollars that they collect

on things like carbon tax, the consumption taxes, in trust. So that

isn’t money that they’re able to utilize for cash flow.

S. Furstenau: Just on this collection of sections that we’re looking at. As we

know, municipalities are facing a pretty significant financial crunch

and don’t have the flexibility of various forms of revenue that other

levels of government do.

So my question for the minister is: can she give us some idea

about what kind of forecasting the ministry has done about the fiscal

situation facing municipalities, especially given that they are required

to still remit full taxes to B.C. Transit and TransLink? And how do we

know that extending the school tax and police tax deadline will be

enough to balance this out for municipalities?

Hon. C. James: I think there certainly wouldn’t be anyone — myself nor the

Minister of Municipal Affairs — who would say that these measures will

solve every municipality’s challenges that they’re facing during COVID.

I think, like others, that there are going to continue to be challenges.

But I think these were certainly…. We did a review of all of the

municipalities. We looked at funding. We looked at their forecasting. We

believe that this addresses a large portion of the challenges that

they’re facing.

I’m sure the member, like all of us in this House, will have heard

the issues around transit and the challenges there. It’s part of the

reason that we have asked for additional dollars for the COVID plan so

that we will have support to be able to address the issues of

transportation and the issues of municipalities. That’s part of the

recovery dollars coming from the federal government that we are

matching. Those will be dollars still to be in discussion, obviously,

with municipalities and with Transportation to look at where those

dollars and where those needs come in.

We also provided flexibility for municipalities to borrow from

their capital reserves for one-time challenges that they face during

COVID. Then, also, we worked with the Municipal Finance Authority to

provide some room and some space for municipalities there.

These are, again, ongoing discussions, just as there are going to

be with every sector that is in the province that’s been impacted by

COVID.

[2:40 p.m.]

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

Can the minister just tell us how long the deadlines for school

tax and police tax are being extended by?

Hon. C. James: Municipalities usually make monthly remittances, and we have said

that they can make those monthly remittances in mid-January for both the

school tax and the police tax.

Sections 10 to 14 inclusive approved.

section 15.

S. Cadieux: Why, during this time, did the minister not consider raising the

lower threshold of the employer health tax to enable relief for small

businesses?

Hon. C. James: I think a couple things just to mention on the employer health

tax. I think the first one is that when COVID hit, and when we were

looking at how we could provide immediate support, the immediate support

that was there — that we moved on quickly — was, in fact, to defer

payments until October 1. We felt that gave the quickest direction that

could happen, the quickest move that could happen.

There have been suggestions around looking either now or in the

future at the employer health tax and at the threshold and where the

threshold is, but that’s obviously a longer piece. It’s a legislative

piece; it’s usually part of a budget piece as well. We wanted to look —

in the pandemic and in putting together a COVID-19 plan — at how we

could do that in the quickest way to provide support, which is exactly

what we did. So discussions around whether that September 30 date stays,

whether we look at further deferral or other changes that I have

mentioned earlier…. They’re all in discussion.

S. Cadieux: Thank you, Minister. I appreciate the answer, but I guess I am a

little bit flustered by it in the sense that we know businesses are

struggling. They’ve been struggling since day one of the pandemic. It’s

not news to anyone.

[2:45 p.m.]

In fact, everyone is…. I think most of us, at least in the

Legislature, are very actively trying to help promote the need to

support our small businesses, knowing that they’re 98 percent of our

economy — at least of our businesses — and that the potential job loss,

should those businesses fail, is significant.

The minister says that they wanted to do something quickly that

they could do that would improve the situation. I applaud that. I think

that is absolutely what was necessary, and in fact, the minister did

that by saying they could defer these payments of EHT. But we are here

debating legislation to actually enable that. We could have equally been

here debating legislation that would have enabled the threshold

change.

It’s a bit of a difficult argument to swallow, I guess — that the

reason we didn’t do it was because it was a legislative requirement. The

reason the minister didn’t choose to do that was because they

fundamentally don’t want to do that, despite the fact of it being a

recommendation of many on their relief committee and so on.

I think that’s just important to note, but I appreciate that we

are here to at least approve the deferral of the tax. Certainly, that

has been, in some small way, a support, I’m sure. Hopefully, it won’t be

a tremendous burden for struggling small businesses that have still

barely reached 30 percent of revenues to pay back all at once in a

couple of months. I hope that the minister is seriously considering

making some significant additional changes as we go forward so that

businesses will be okay.

Now, moving on, though, to another aspect of the employer health

tax. That is that there were businesses in B.C., certainly, that were

eligible for the federal Canada emergency wage subsidy. That was of help

to those businesses and continues to be as it’s been renewed.

Will the Canada emergency wage subsidy be exempt from the health

tax, or will those payments be counted as payroll on behalf of the

businesses?

Hon. C. James: I appreciate the member raising this. This has certainly been

something that has come forward as part of the discussion we’re having

on recovery. A number of businesses have asked for this to be looked at

in context of all the other pieces that are being looked at. So yes,

it’s being looked at now.

S. Cadieux: Sorry, I’m not clear which piece is being looked at — the possible

exemption of the Canada emergency wage subsidy to be exempt from the tax

or the broader raising of the threshold. It wasn’t clear from the

minister’s answer.

Hon. C. James: Whether the dollars coming from the wage subsidy will count as

part of the employer health tax. Right now it would count as part of

payroll, so people have written in, as part of their recommendations, to

say that that should be looked at in the context of all the other things

that we’re looking at. So it is added to that list.

S. Cadieux: The minister may wish to consider the fact that WorkSafeBC, a

government body, has already exempted the CEWS from premiums for

WorkSafe. So the same principle should apply, I would expect, for the

employer health tax. I would hope that the minister would consider that.

But that’s just a statement, not a question.

With that, unless there are other members who have questions, we

can move on.

S. Furstenau: Just one question on this section, which is applicable to the 2020

calendar year. My question is somewhat technical. Given that the change

is for the 2020 calendar year only, why is this

section not repealed

until December 31, 2021?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: It’s technical but understandable. It impacts the calendar year

and the fiscal year. So the reason it extends into 2021 is because the

returns are actually not due until March 31. There’s the three-month lag

there, and that takes us past the calendar year and into 2021 for those

payment dates.

Section 15 approved.

section 16.

S. Bond: Just a quick question. Can the minister confirm that the coming

into force date of this

section effectively renders it as a sunset

clause on the deferral of the EHT? Perhaps she could also answer,

quickly: why is this

section structured differently than the other tax

deferrals?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I think the most straightforward way to explain it is that the

employer health tax is paid in installments. It’s not taxes due. It’s

installments that are due. So that’s why it’s structured in a different

way than the other taxes.

The consumption taxes have a very specific due date when those

taxes are due. There aren’t any loose ends, so to speak,

whereas the

employer health tax is paid in installments. Then March 31 is basically

the last date where the calculation is done. It’s not a final

installment date. It’s a calculation of the year and what the actual

payment was, and it ties that up on March 31.

It’s basically because of the installment structure of this tax

versus the consumption taxes, which have a tax due on a certain

date.

S. Bond: I appreciate the response from the minister.

I have no further questions on this section. In fact, if there are

none from other colleagues, hon. Chair, we could move on to

section 18,

when you’re ready.

Sections 16 and 17 approved.

section 18.

S. Bond: Obviously, one of the key factors around this bill that the

opposition considered as we brought our concerns to second reading and

elsewhere is that many of the initiatives that were announced by the

government previously are included in this bill. In essence, it breathes

life and gives permission to do those things, in some cases,

retroactively.

Section 18 is one of those critical pieces: the B.C. emergency

benefit for workers. I think all of us in the House wanted to be sure

that individuals and families have the kind of support they need through

COVID. I do think that today we would ask for some details from the

minister. Anything that she could provide would be most

helpful.

Perhaps my first question is: how many people have claimed the

workers’ benefit as of today or as close to today as possible? Does the

minister expect that those numbers will increase before December

31?

Hon. C. James: Numbers hot off the press, as of last night, so current. We have

received 651,000 applications, and 623,000 have been paid. It’s very

strong numbers on the…. This is our $1,000 benefit, as the member

knows.

[3:00 p.m.]

Do we expect that we’ll see any further applications? Yes, I

expect we will. I expect that there will be people who will still be

utilizing the weeks that they have left on the CERB benefit, which will

provide them the opportunity to be able to claim this benefit as

well.

S. Bond: Can the minister tell me whether the enforcement and audit

measures that are in this section…? Are they standard? If so, could she

give us a sense of what they might be similar to, or of where else we

might find these same enforcement and audit measures?

Hon. C. James: Yes, the member is quite correct. These are standard. They’re

standard clauses in the Income Tax Act, for example. So they’re mirrored

in this act as well.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for the response. That’s very

helpful.

I’d like to ask the minister a further follow-up question. We know

that we can extrapolate and do the math when it comes to the number of

people that have applied for a $1,000 grant. Could the minister advise

whether or not there were additional staff required to process these

claims?

Obviously, that is a significant number in a very tight time

frame. The minister — I know her — would be committed to getting that

out as quickly as possible. Were additional staff required to process

the claims? If the answer is yes, how many?

Hon. C. James: I know the member has worked with staff as well, so I know she

would agree with me that the extraordinary measures that have been taken

by staff continue throughout COVID. In fact there were no new hires

brought on for this payment. We utilized their revenue division staff

who would have been looking at some of those tax payments that were

coming in and that have now been deferred. We redeployed those staff to

be able to help in getting these payments out.

Once again, as I said, exceptional work by the staff in the

Ministry of Finance, to be able to do things as efficiently and

effectively as we possibly can.

S. Bond: The minister and I don’t always agree, but we do agree, certainly

and strenuously, on that point — that the public servants who serve not

just this ministry but all of the ministries that I was privileged to be

a part of are spectacular.

[3:05 p.m.]

I can tell you that we’ve heard nothing but positive commentary

about the way that public servants have managed the extra pressures. On

that note, I would just like to confirm, then, that there were no extra

staff required for audit or enforcement. In fact, perhaps the minister,

then, as I bundle these questions, really generally…. I think both of us

would agree that we have a lot of faith in British Columbians to do the

right thing.

Were there additional audit or enforcement staff required? Have

people actually been audited? Has the minister had to deem any of the

claims ineligible or perhaps ask for claims to be repaid? So just a

general sense of where we’re at with compliance and the audit and

enforcement side of the grant.

Hon. C. James: At this point, we haven’t had to hire additional compliance and

audit staff, but as business picks up, as we start seeing more

businesses back at work and more payments coming in, there may be a

need. So I don’t want to rule that out. But at this point, we haven’t

had to hire additional audit or compliance staff in place.

There has been audit work done. That certainly happens as

applications come in, as the system flags applications or as there are

routine checks done. Yes, there are some reviews that are going on right

now. I don’t have any numbers on this, but there have been people who

have repaid, who realized that they made a mistake and have repaid the

payment. There have been denials as well. The majority of the denials

are people applying more than once. Obviously, if they get one

application approved, they are denied on any subsequent applications

that come in.

On penalties…. The member asked about penalties as well. There are

penalties for gross negligence. The intent is not for people who, by

mistake or innocently, applied, not realizing that this was not a

benefit for them. I think we would all agree, given the COVID benefits

that have come out from the federal government and the provincial

government, that there’s understandably some confusion sometimes around

benefits for people to apply for.

[3:10 p.m.]

The idea is not to penalize those people, to work through. As I

said, we have had some people repay that. But there are certainly

penalties for people who deliberately try and deceive the system to be

able to access dollars that they know they are not eligible

for.

Section 18 approved.

section 19.

S. Bond: This is the

section that’s related to an exemption from

balanced-budget legislation. My co-critic and I would want to be clear.

I don’t think there is anyone in the House or in the country, for

example, that didn’t realize that there were drastic measures being

taken to support families and small businesses.

This isn’t a discussion about the need to support British

Columbians, whether families or small businesses. We do want to walk

through, however, what this exemption means and get a sense of the

minister’s plan or thinking around how having deficit budgets will

impact the economy and what her plan looks like.

Let’s start with this, then. Can the minister confirm whether

ministerial holdbacks are affected by these changes? Will salary

holdbacks continue to occur?

Hon. C. James: No changes to the salary holdbacks. They remain as the legislation

is.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for that response. Can the minister,

perhaps, give us a sense of her overall perspective on balanced-budget

legislation?

I know we don’t want to turn this into the differences in our

policy directions as a past government and as a current government. But

I think that it is important for British Columbians to have a sense from

this minister…. Here, this legislation is basically sending a message to

British Columbians. There could well be, in many ways, three

years….That’s the best-case scenario.

Perhaps the minister can give us a sense of what is her overall

perspective on balanced-budget legislation, more broadly.

Hon. C. James: We had a little bit of this discussion yesterday, as well, on the

previous bill, on Bill 4. I certainly believe…. There are a couple

principles that I think are critical and that we certainly believe in as

a government. I suspect most governments would see this as critical:

spending every dollar wisely. These are not government’s dollars; these

are not our dollars. These are the dollars that belong to British

Columbians. I believe that the people of this province expect us to

spend those wisely.

I think we will have a difference of opinion around where those

priorities are. That’s part of democracy. That’s part of why people look

at different governments and different political parties and go through

the democratic process. But I think it is an expectation to spend those

dollars wisely.

As the member will know well, we have in fact tabled three

balanced budgets in the Legislature in our time period, while making

investments that are critical to British Columbians. I believe in a

balanced approach, no pun intended. I believe it’s important to make

sure that we are supporting the people who help build this economy. An

economy doesn’t exist without the people of British Columbia. We need to

ensure that people have the opportunity, through the budget.

I’ve said this again, that a budget isn’t simply numbers on a

piece of paper. A budget really is a descriptor of the priorities of a

government and where they feel that the province should go. For us as a

government, we set three key priorities: to address affordability for

families; to improve services that people count on — the basics, which I

consider as health and education, which are critically important; and

building a long-term, sustainable economy that benefits every British

Columbian and doesn’t leave people behind.

[3:15 p.m.]

That, again, includes, from our perspective, a requirement to do

our part when it comes to climate action, a requirement to look at

diversification, a requirement to make sure that people have the

opportunity for good jobs in every corner of British Columbia and to do

that wisely with the dollars that we have. I’m very proud of the fact

that we’ve been able to provide that balanced approach.

Now, when we’re in the situation we’re in, I think, as the member

has described well, every jurisdiction, every part of our globe, is in

this situation where people are going to have to both watch what occurs

over the next number of years with COVID and what is expected, and be

able to manage their dollars. I go into this upcoming budget, as I’ve

gone into every budget, saying: how do we spend every dollar wisely? How

do we set priorities? You can’t do it all. It’s not possible to do it

all.

I think one of the toughest jobs…. I’m sure colleagues who’ve been

in this position, and in fact, in every part of government as ministers,

would agree that it’s pretty rare for something to cross your desk that

isn’t worth funding, because most people bring things forward that have

some connection to the people of British Columbia, our province. But it

is impossible to do it all. It is about setting priorities and

determining your priorities. As I mentioned, our government set those

three priorities, and we will continue those into the upcoming budget as

well.

S. Bond: The minister is right. There will be degrees of disagreement.

There is no doubt about that. I know that she will want me to be clear.

The budget that was tabled, we need to remember, was balanced, based on

a significant number of tax increases to British Columbians. That,

again, is a difference in approach from our perspective and the

minister’s.

I appreciate hearing the minister’s comments. I would just,

perhaps, want to add that one of the reasons I think we end up with

balanced-budget legislation is…. I would agree completely that it is

taxpayer money and that that requires a rigorous and transparent process

of accountability. When there aren’t those legislative requirements,

we’ve seen in the past that perhaps there isn’t quite as much rigour and

transparency on the part of elected governments as there could or should

be. That’s probably a look back, and why we ended up there in the first

place.

Let’s get back to the numbers. Can the minister tell me what the

servicing costs are for the current debt, and if she has a sense of what

the future costs will be?

Hon. C. James: Debt-servicing costs in the budget, when the budget was tabled,

are $1.197 billion. Then in the July update, the debt-servicing costs

have gone up by $176 million.

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

[3:20 p.m.]

Can the minister tell us whether or not…. I mean, risking a credit

downgrade is a concern for Finance ministers, for sure. It’s not often

easy to explain to the rest of British Columbia why credit downgrades

are important. But if the minister is unable to maintain an adequate

debt-to-revenue ratio, will our province risk a credit

downgrade?

Hon. C. James: Obviously, I think the credit-rating agencies will be reviewing

all jurisdictions. This will be a very different kind of situation for

them as well, when it comes to their ratings. Often credit-rating

agencies will look to see if you have a plan. How is your plan going to

be addressed, and how are you going to manage that? So I think all of us

will be watching those pieces, and we’ll be working on our numbers as

well.

The debt-to-GDP, which is the measure we used in the July update,

just to remind the member, was at 15.5 percent in the budget and is now

at 22 percent in the scenario, again recognizing that scenario could

shift, given the number of risks that we included in the July scenario.

Certainly, it’s important. Certainly, we’ll be watching that.

But, again, I think — as I know, I’m sure, from the members on the

other side as well — our priority right now is doing everything we can

to support businesses, to support people and to get our economy back on

track and making sure that we’re doing that in a way that addresses the

values that matter to British Columbians — everything from our

commitment to climate to reconciliation to equity. As we’ve referred to

it, building B.C. back better in a way that addresses those pieces —

that’s really our priority at the moment.

S. Bond: Perhaps the minister can just give us a sense…. I mean, I think

they’re fairly obvious to most of us, but I think it would be important

to have it on the record. I mean, obviously, revenue is going to be a

major factor when we look at maintaining debt-to-revenue ratio. Maybe

the minister can just give us a general sense of what other factors the

minister is watching to ensure…. I can understand the catchphrase

“building B.C. back better.” Well, we need to make sure that B.C.’s debt

is actually affordable. From the minister’s perspective, obviously, I am

assuming revenues would be a major concern for B.C. maintaining its

debt-to-revenue ratio.

[3:25 p.m.]

What other factors is the minister watching to look at whether or

not B.C.’s debt will remain affordable over the longer term?

Hon. C. James: The member mentioned revenue. Obviously, that’s a critical piece.

Economic growth, all of the usual kinds of factors that one would

imagine are factors that have to be considered when taking a look at

debt…. But I think another piece that’s important, of course, are

interest costs as a percentage of GDP.

We are in a very low-interest environment right now. We’ve looked

back on debt back to the early 1990s. We, in fact, when you look at the

numbers currently — because of the interest costs as a percentage of GDP

— continue to be holding very manageable debt when it comes to our

jurisdiction.

Those are pieces, certainly, that we’ll be watching as we start

building budgets and as we start looking at how we get our economy back

on track.

S. Bond: Can the minister tell us why three years of deficits were chosen

as a timeline? From everything the minister has described to us today,

in the days past and for British Columbians more broadly speaking, she’s

characterized the situation — I’m certainly not going to argue with that

— in terms of the uncertainty. The loss of revenue. We don’t know who’s

going to pay what back. What are we going to do in terms of deferrals?

We’re not sure about a lot of factors.

Can the minister tell us why three years of deficits were chosen,

and can she describe her update and the decision to include three years

as a best-case scenario for British Columbia?

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

Hon. C. James: The member asked why we looked at the three years. It fits the

budget cycle. As the member knows, we put out a three-year budget cycle.

We felt it was important to look at those three years. Certainly, within

those three years, we will be looking at a deficit budget, so we felt

that was a reasonable approach.

[3:30 p.m.]

Every year, obviously, gets reviewed. Every year, certainly, we

hope that you’ll see the economy recover, but I think we also have to be

realistic. No one has a crystal ball. No one knows what kind of

situation, how fast the economy is going to come back, what’s going to

happen to international travel, what’s going to happen to exports, etc.

I think it is tough to know where the situation will be in the

future.

But I think the reasonable approach is to look at the three-year

budget cycle and to acknowledge, within those three years — that’s what

gets put out for the public — that certainly there will be a deficit,

reviewed each year, and then, obviously, reviewed at the three-year mark

as well.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister. I appreciate that.

You know, I obviously assumed that we would be taking a look at

the number of deficits and, each year, taking a look at an assessment of

where the province sits. Can the minister tell us the timeline that she

anticipates for paying down the operating debt that will result from the

new fiscal plan?

Hon. C. James: I think at this stage, certainly, the operating debt gets assessed

as we go through the fiscal year. We’re not through the fiscal year yet.

We’re obviously only in the first quarter. The first quarterly report is

coming out in the fall.

Then I think the most important piece, of course, is you need to

have a surplus to be able to start paying back your operating debt.

Again, as we’ve talked about, the three-year cycle for a deficit budget

is there. Again, my hope is that we’ll see the economy recover sooner

and that we’ll be back to strength again. But I think we also, again,

have to be realistic about the situation we’re facing. I don’t expect

that we’ll be back in a surplus position within three years.

S. Bond: I will certainly make this my last comment on this section. I

don’t know if others have questions.

I just want to be clear that the minister, in one of her recent

answers, didn’t make a significant endorsement of a campaign that’s

going on in British Columbia. The minister used the phrase “build B.C.

back better.” I’m not sure if she’s aware of the fact that that’s a

slogan of several environmental campaign groups that are suggesting

British Columbia basically abandon the oil and gas sector as part of the

recovery plan. Perhaps the minister could just clarify whether, indeed,

that was an endorsement or simply the use of a very descriptive phrase

about the government’s intent in terms of the recovery

process.

I think it would be important for many listeners in British

Columbia to know that the minister, in those comments, wasn’t endorsing

or was endorsing that particular campaign.

Hon. C. James: I’m endorsing making sure that we address the gaps that occur in

the economy and that have really been highlighted by the challenges of

COVID-19: the gaps of inequality, the gaps of climate action, the gaps

of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. Those gaps have widened the

need for good supports and strong supports for people across our

province, the need to not leave people behind.

As far as I know, there is no specific use of “building back

British Columbia” in a way that is better than it was before. That’s

certainly something, as I said, that we’re committed to and we have been

committed to since we were elected government.

[3:35 p.m.]

S. Bond: As noted, that was my last question. I’m glad the minister

provided some degree of certainty there that that wasn’t a policy

endorsement.

With that, my questions on this

section are complete. I have one

question in the next section, but my questions on this

section are

complete.

S. Furstenau: Just to canvass this topic a little bit further. As the other two

— the opposition member and the minister — noted, there’s some

disagreement. We’re going to add a bit of disa-green-ment into all of

this on the balanced budget question.

We look at this idea of enforcing balanced budgets year over year

as more of a political decision than a fiscally responsible one. We

advocated for looking at balancing budgets over four-year terms, as

opposed to year over year, because it can often result in an incapacity

to plan for longer than a year. It can have impacts on decisions that

are made for budgeting.

The minister has spoken to this quite a bit in her discussion with

the opposition member, but can the minister speak a little bit more to

the issue of the holdbacks under this legislation that has been left in

place? Amending to allow for three years of deficit budgeting did not go

to amending the fact that ministers who do not have balanced budgets

themselves will be facing up to a 20 percent impact to their own

salaries.

Can the Finance Minister speak to why this decision to leave those

holdbacks in place was there, particularly in a time when I would point

to, in particular, the Minister of Health, who has done a truly

herculean job to address what was a completely unexpected and definitely

an unprecedented crisis? I think it would be of some interest and

concern to the citizens of B.C. to know that he would be facing a

reduction to his salary for the work that he did if he wasn’t able to

present a balanced budget.

Hon. C. James: I think there are a couple of things that’ll take us back to our

conversation that I was having with the other member from the

opposition, which is really about priorities and spending your time and

energy on the priorities that are in front of you.

I think the member raises an interesting discussion around the

four-year business cycle and those conversations. But I have to say, as

government, we made it very clear that we were going to focus on our

three priorities as we came in. You can’t do everything.

That’s even more critical right now during COVID. There are some

huge challenges in front of all of us as British Columbians, most

importantly in front of the businesses and the individuals and the

people of this province. We felt, as a cabinet, that it was important

for us to focus on those priorities.

Do I feel that every member of our cabinet and our caucus is

working incredibly hard and doing the best they can in the situation? No

question. People are working beyond the call of duty when it comes to

the challenges. But so are the grocery clerks, so are the nurses, so are

the support staff, so are the municipal workers, and so are the transit

drivers. People are putting in an incredible amount of time and energy.

So are the families who’ve had to scramble to be able to manage as

well.

Given all of that, we set a priority to say that we are going to

do as much as we need to, to be able to legally address the issue of

balanced budgets over these next three years. There would’ve needed to

be more changes made, more debate and more time on the legislation

focused on ministers’ salaries. We felt that our priority needed to be

on putting together recovery for people in this province, and that’s

where we put our focus.

[3:40 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: Thank you to the minister for that. I think that there are

different views from economists and on the role of government. I think

we would be able to say with some real certainty that the last several

months have shown us that government plays an incredibly important role.

It was government that rose to the challenge of COVID-19 in British

Columbia, across Canada and, to differing degrees, around the world. But

we are being recognized here in B.C. as having mounted a response to

this crisis that is seen as world leading, thanks to the work of Dr.

Bonnie Henry but also thanks to the Health Minister.

We know that the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions has been

faced with, as we’ve called it, a kind of second pandemic of mental

health and addictions issues which has been exacerbated by COVID-19.

Yes, workers and people across B.C. have also risen to this but have not

had to face that, for their extra work, they’re going to see less

pay.

I think that that is something we should all be recognizing — that

this is a way to say to ministers that we’re going to adhere to this

notion that we can’t really trust government, that government doesn’t

have an important role to play. We’re going to maintain this notion that

first and foremost, you are not going to be rewarded for serving, in a

crisis, the needs of the people of British Columbia, particularly in the

case of this government. I commend all of the ministers for the

incredible work that has gone on through this crisis.

Can the minister tell us….? Does she anticipate that ministers

will be seeing a holdback of their salary, and if so, how

many?

Hon. C. James: I think there is no question. We will go into a deficit budget,

and that will mean a holdback for all the ministers if there is not a

provincial balanced budget. Again, I’m sure this debate will continue —

not simply this year. I’m sure that next year and the year after, this

debate will continue. But for now, given the situation that we are in,

given the situation our province is in and given the situation that the

people of British Columbia are in and the challenges that they’re

facing, we feel it’s important right now to spend our focus, time and

energy on supporting the people of British Columbia. As I said, I’m sure

these will be future debates, but that’s where our focus is.

S. Furstenau: Further to the discussion that happened earlier about building

back better, I think that it is important to recognize that we have a

very serious weight on all of our shoulders, to recognize that the

conditions that have created the crises we are in are conditions that we

absolutely want to change and not go back to.

I was, earlier, writing a piece that I’ll be speaking about

tomorrow about the efforts in Cowichan, undertaken by Nourish Cowichan,

to feed 800 families over the COVID period. Those children would have

had food in school to supplement their nutrition, because they were

coming to school hungry. But when schools closed, this incredible group,

working with the school district, had to find a way to get food to 800

families.

In a province where there is enough to go around for everybody,

it’s very, very distressing that we see the levels of child poverty, see

the levels of people living without a home, see the levels of mental

health and addiction issues. I think that, again, looking historically,

governments that choose to invest deeply into their future create better

futures for people. The notion of everything coming down to a balanced

budget sheet can send us to conditions that we do not want to

replicate.

[3:45 p.m.]

I do hope the minister — and I believe her to be very true to her

word — recognizes we have a lot of work to do, a lot of gaps to fill in

British Columbia. I strongly encourage her to continue on the path of

recognizing that this is a time for us to change the outcomes in this

province. I will leave it there with those comments.

I appreciate that the minister was concerned about the extended

debate that may have happened over holdbacks for salaries. But I think

that this was not the right direction to go at this time. I think that

we have to acknowledge and applaud the incredible hard work of the

ministers and their staff at a time that was incredibly stressful for

everybody. I am disappointed that we are adhering to this notion of

holding these individuals accountable when they are doing the absolute

best they can for the province. I do hope that this debate will continue

and that we revisit these decisions that were made at this

time.

Section 19 approved.

section 20.

S. Bond: Just a quick question.

Section 20 allows for the possibility of

supplementary estimates in deficit years. So does the minister, at this

point…? Obviously, she’s building in the ability to allow for

supplementary estimates. Does the minister anticipate the need for

supplementary estimates in the deficit years?

Hon. C. James: Again, I think it’s early going. But when we’ve seen the kinds of

challenges and the needs for the supports that have been put in place

over this past while with COVID-19…. Not knowing what could be coming,

not knowing second wave issues, not knowing what kind of situation we

could face, I think it’s entirely possible, and I think it’s the

responsible thing to do to make sure that it’s included in case it’s

needed.

Section 20 approved.

section 21.

Hon. C. James: On

section 21, I move the amendment to

section 21 standing in my

name on the orders of the day.

SECTION 21 , by deleting the text shown as struck out

and adding the underlined text as

shown:

Section 24 of the Financial Administration Act,

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 138, is amended

(

a) in subsection (1) by adding the following

definition:

“state of emergency” means a state of emergency

declared under

section 9 of the Emergency Program Act .

(

b) in subsection (2) by striking out

“ or ” at the end of paragraph (

a) and

by adding the following paragraph:

(a.1) during a state of emergency, and for the ensuing

period ending 6 3 months after the expiry of the

state of emergency, a matter arises for which an expenditure is

required, or , and

(

c) by repealing paragraph

(b) subsection (2) (

b) and substituting the

following:

(

b) a disaster or emergency occurs or is anticipated and a

matter arises for which an expenditure is required, or for the ensuing

period ending 6 3 months after the occurrence of

the disaster or emergency, a matter arises for which an expenditure is

required, . ]

On the amendment.

Hon. C. James: This amendment is intended to do two things. The first is a minor

housekeeping change to correct for a sectional reference omission, which

has been identified by our legislative drafters in the amendment at

section 21(c). It’s a very small housekeeping change.

The second piece, I think, is an example…. We’ve been through this

before, certainly with my critic. We’ve been through this before where

we’ve had some very good discussions in briefings on the bill. Some

areas and questions have been raised on particular pieces, both in our

discussions that we had with the official opposition and the Third

Party.

These sections deal with the limitation period allowed for the use

of special warrants while the Legislative Assembly is not in session, in

order for the province to respond to emergencies and disasters. So the

previous proposed amendment would have provided for a limitation period

of six months after the emergency or the disaster event. Through this

House amendment, and through our discussions with the official

opposition and with the Third Party, we’re now proposing this House

amendment to provide, in fact, for a limitation period of three

months.

[3:50 p.m.]

There certainly was no intent to leave the impression that the

Legislature would not come back if that was possible. I think we have

shown, during this time period, our willingness to be able to be

adaptable, to be able to ensure that people have a voice, that we go

through that democratic process. This

section was certainly not intended

to circumvent that at all.

With the recommendation from members, in discussions around the

bill for a shorter period of time, I’m certainly quite prepared, as I

have done through this amendment, to look at a three-month time period.

I want to thank the members of the opposition and the Third Party for

the good discussions that we’ve had around this piece and an amendment

that I believe reaches that balance, which is the balance of recognizing

that there may be emergencies and time periods when the need for those

warrants is there.

I think we’ve seen it through COVID. But we also know the

challenges of, perhaps, an earthquake, as an example. We are obviously

in a place that has some challenges if there’s an earthquake. So those

kinds of situations could occur. But as I said, there is also a balance.

We’ve shown that we can come together as an assembly. We showed that in

March during the middle of COVID, when it was tough for people to

assemble, to be able to pass supports.

This amendment, I hope, strikes a balance that will meet the needs

of all of the members.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

A recess has been requested. We’ll return

momentarily.

The House recessed from 3:51 p.m. to 3:59 p.m.

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

The Chair: We’re continuing on

section 21, on the amendment moved by the

minister.

[4:00 p.m.]

S. Cadieux: Can the minister just provide us with a sense of why she’s

bringing this amendment forward? Why does she feel this expansion of

special warrant authority is needed? I understand — thank you to the

minister — that the amendment has lessened the time frame, but it is

still a new authority. Can she please provide some comment on why this

is essential?

Hon. C. James: To the member: thank you for the appreciation around the

amendment. I think there are a couple of pieces. The biggest piece is

clarity. The biggest piece is looking at clarity. There wasn’t,

certainly, an opportunity to be able to include a pandemic, and we

wanted to make sure that there was clarity around there and then that

there was clarity to be able to address the emergency as well as fund

operations that may be needed as you move into recovery as well. So that

really was the key: to take a look at how we ensured that there was

clarity, both for the people of the province to know that supports could

be in place, and to make sure that the resources could be there for that

emergency.

It also, as the member knows, sets a limitation on the special

warrant authority to be able to, again, recognize times when the

Legislature may not be able to meet. I think we’ve all exceeded

expectations during this session and during the March session, and that

gave extra confidence, I think, for everyone around looking at an outer

limit and how far that outer limit would be so that the Legislature

would still have the ability to come back and do their due diligence

around special warrants. They have to be made public. This isn’t

information that can’t go public. They have to be debated as part of a

return to the Legislature.

I certainly hope this authority is never needed. I hope it never

has to be used, but I think providing that clarity is really why these

amendments came forward now.

S. Cadieux: If this provision had been in place previously, would the March 23

session have taken place?

Hon. C. James: Yes, I believe that that would have been needed. I think special

warrants are an exception — therefore, opportunities when it’s not

possible for the Legislature to sit, when it’s not possible because of a

disaster. So yes, I certainly feel that the March opportunity was there

and would have been utilized.

[4:05 p.m.]

S. Cadieux: Now that we have proven as a Legislature that we have the ability

— thankfully, thanks to very capable staff and so on — to come together

very quickly to find a new way of operating in an emergency, both for

the 23rd but also with, now, video conferencing capacity, doesn’t that

mitigate the need for a broad special warrant capacity in this regard?

Can the minister point to another jurisdiction that has similar capacity

for special warrants?

Hon. C. James: I think the first piece that the member talked about, the powers

under this section…. I think it’s important to recognize that these are

very limited powers. You obviously have to meet the criteria that is

here around the emergency. This doesn’t provide the opportunity for any

government to be able to simply utilize special warrants. There’s a very

tight case around those special warrants that has to be approved by the

LG. It has to be made public. So I think that’s the first, most

important piece — that, in fact, they are limited powers that can be

utilized and limited powers that expire and then have to be debated as

well.

Around jurisdictions, it’s hard to compare jurisdictions because

every jurisdiction has a different suite of laws in place. They have

different powers to be able to look at special warrants and funding. So

it’s very hard to look at comparisons. Perhaps it’s being a Victoria

MLA. I think the example I would certainly point to would be earthquake.

Many of the challenges that we’re facing and the ability for all of us

to meet in this Legislature and to do the work we’re doing in this

Legislature rely on electricity, rely on power, rely on technology. If

all of that went down…. I think we just need to look at Christchurch,

New Zealand, and other places where we’ve seen massive earthquakes occur

to know that that is a situation we could face.

So I think that it’s putting in place very limited powers, very

structured powers, that last for a period of time to provide that

just-in-case support. It’s not as a reason for the Legislature not to

come back. I think we’ve shown over this past year the commitment that

we all have in this Legislature, regardless of who is government, to

bringing democracy and the opportunity for democracy together. But there

are extreme circumstances, and I think that it’s important to recognize

that.

S. Cadieux: So the language in the act, and to my knowledge it hasn’t been

changed with the amendment, says anticipated emergency. Can the minister

explain why the word “anticipated” is being used? How are we defining

the word “anticipated”?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I think it’s always interesting to listen in to the lawyers and

the legislative drafters as they put together legislation. I see one of

our colleagues across the way smiling at the discussion around lawyers —

around “anticipated” versus “imminent” and what the terminology

is.

Certainly, “imminent” is a very narrow time frame, according to

legal discussion. “Anticipated” is we know it’s coming, and we have an

opportunity to prepare — again, a short time frame but not as crunched

as imminent would be.

The example would be…. We know that a second wave is coming. We’ve

started seeing the signals. We need to make sure that we have enough

PPE, or we need to make sure we anticipate that there’s some cost that

needs to occur.

This gives us the ability to be able to address that. Perhaps it’s

as we have seen, where the shift was made in the hospitals, for example,

to be able to provide enough support, emergency support, in case you saw

that occur. Those kinds of things provide the word “anticipate.” It

gives us the ability to be able to do that, still, within a limited

frame.

S. Cadieux: I appreciate that. I guess I’m questioning why, though, we would

use a new term rather than a term that’s already defined in the

Emergency Program Act, like “imminent,” especially when we’re talking

about circumstances, again, as the minister referenced, that are,

perhaps, things like an earthquake, which clearly couldn’t have been

anticipated.

Can the minister square that circle for me?

Hon. C. James: Just to expand, I guess, a little bit on the discussion that

occurred with the drafters around this….

The member is quite right. “Imminent” is in the emergency act,

which often is…. An emergency is imminent, very close, and is

coming.

“Anticipated” gives that, yes, narrow time but provides us an

opportunity to do the planning for something like a pandemic. I think

the pandemic is a good example of that. You see your numbers. You know

that there are challenges coming. You know, perhaps, that an outbreak in

a particular area might be coming.

[4:15 p.m.]

It’s not imminent. It may not be happening tomorrow, but you

anticipate that it’s coming. Therefore, you need to make sure that

you’re putting in place the supports for isolation or for those kinds of

costs. If you haven’t had the ability to be able to come together, this

ensures that that’s recognized. So that’s really the purpose.

S. Cadieux: Then, in that case, what about weather-induced incidents like

blizzards or forest fires? We anticipate forest fires quite readily

every year. How do we know that that kind of a situation isn’t going to

be now brought into this special warrant circumstance as an opportunity

for government?

I am not trying to cast aspersions on the motives of the minister

or the government. I am just trying to be a responsible legislator and

ask why. If we have operated without this for the many, many years that

we have operated, why now, all of a sudden, do we decide that this is

necessary? Frankly, it gives a significant amount of power and authority

on spending to a government. I think that realistically, in an emergency

and in a circumstance that was unforeseen, like an earthquake, as the

minister used as an example….

Frankly, in this example, with the pandemic, we found a way to

come together and provide the authority to the minister that was

necessary and did so responsibly for the people of British Columbia.

There are other ways we could prepare the Legislature to be available in

all sorts of circumstances.

The earthquake example is one because of the circumstances of the

Legislature being located in Victoria. However, given that everybody now

has the ability to work virtually, we could be proactively setting up

circumstances whereby, in an emergency, we would operate the Legislature

differently. We could be looking at a piece of legislation that says

that in an emergency, we will operate differently, and this is how the

standing orders will work or what have you.

I guess this is one way to approach the circumstance and the one

that is being proposed by government. I still see a great deal of

ambiguity around how this will be used and how it will be argued that it

was appropriate. Bringing it back to the Legislature after the fact for

approval provides transparency, but it doesn’t provide the Legislature

an opportunity to argue against or to not approve, essentially, the

funding that, in this sense, would already have been spent. So I am

struggling, still, with this expansion of power.

Can the minister explain why the expansion extends after the state

of emergency?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I think there are a couple of pieces just to remember about this

section. I think the first one is…. And I appreciate the member’s

questions. I think that’s exactly why we’re having this conversation —

to make sure that we’re looking at providing the support for the people

of this province during an emergency but doing it in a way that is

responsible. I think that’s critical.

I think we need to remember that this special warrant

section only

applies when the House isn’t in session. That’s the first piece that I

think is really important. It also provides…. The member asked: “Why

this, when we have emergency acts?” Well, in fact, this is a stopgap

where other acts don’t address pieces.

The member used the example of forest fires. The Forest Act

provides support, covers the fire, covers the state of emergency while

the fires are going. It doesn’t consider the pieces afterwards. There

may be a circumstance — again, in a rare case — where there are supports

that are critically needed.

If we look at COVID, it is a good example. Each time we look at

the state of emergency, we consider the state of emergency and whether

it needs to be extended. But there are also things that we need to

continue to provide support for. If we were in an emergency where

technology wasn’t working, where we weren’t able to bring people

together, whether it was on the Island or whether it was somewhere else,

this provides that support.

So in a very limited way, when the House isn’t sitting, when

there’s a state of emergency, when it has been recognized by the LG that

this fits, then that piece will move forward.

I appreciate the member’s issues. I appreciate her concerns about

this, because I couldn’t agree more. I don’t think there is a

government, regardless of what government is in place, that would take a

look and say, “Let’s just use the special warrant for this disaster,” if

it wasn’t critically needed, if you weren’t in the position of having to

provide this kind of support.

This isn’t something that I expect…. I hope it will never be used

in our province. But I think COVID has shown us — the waves of COVID,

the challenges of COVID — the supports that are needed to be put in

place before a state of emergency is put in place, after a state of

emergency is there. I think to ensure that we have that flexibility in

case something does occur in our province is the responsible thing to do

within the limitations that we’ve put in place for this

section of the

bill.

S. Cadieux: Well, I guess the minister’s own response is providing me with

greater discomfort here — suggesting that it’s only when we’re not

sitting. Well, we’re not in session for at least two-thirds of the year.

We are out of session more than we are in session. So this is providing

authority for, theoretically, more time than it’s not. That, again,

provides me with a level of discomfort, even though I understand and

appreciate what I believe drafters and staff are intending to provide

here in a level of flexibility for government. Just as a legislator, I

can’t feel overly confident that it is necessary, given that we have

found a way to manage this time.

This comes on the heels of a special warrant expansion in Bill 4

that relates to government’s decision to move the election date. So

there are concerns that I’m not sure the minister can adequately put

aside for me here.

At this moment in time, at the state we are in…. We’re still in a

state of emergency. We are in session. There is a fall sitting of the

Legislature scheduled. We know today that if we can’t sit all together

in the Legislature, we can sit virtually. Does the minister expect or

anticipate that a special warrant will be required when the COVID state

of emergency is lifted?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: No. In fact, as I’ve said, when the member asked about the March

getting together of the Legislature…. Did I imagine that that would be

utilized? Yes, I did, because that is your first direction — to look at:

can you bring the House back? Can we get the House together? Can we

provide the opportunity for the House to come back together?

If there was a massive outbreak of COVID and it was not possible

to bring us together or technology was down and it was not possible to

bring us together…. But certainly, we have proven that there are

opportunities for us to be able to have a legislative session in a safe

way. That could shift, depending on the kind of disaster.

So no, I do not expect that this will be used. I hope it will

never be used, as I said. It is not intended to be utilized. It is

intended to be there as a backstop in an emergency where supports are

needed. That’s the critical piece. This is not about giving government

authority to spend money. This is about making sure that critical

supports can be in place and that they can be there quickly for people

to be able to help during an emergency. That’s the critical piece of all

of this.

S. Furstenau: This conversation is of great interest to me. I think that, as

somebody who has studied the origins of western parliamentary democracy

and now participates in it, it’s a very important conversation for us to

be having. I appreciate both the minister’s comments and the questions

from the member of the opposition.

I have a couple of clarification questions based on that

conversation, and then a few more. The minister cited both examples of

if we’ve had a catastrophic earthquake and the power was out or if there

was, for example, a massive outbreak of COVID and we weren’t able to

bring the House back. My expectation is that, in both of those kinds of

cases, we would be in a state of emergency, which would therefore not

necessitate any need for special warrants, as we are currently in a

state of emergency.

Can the minister just clarify on that? In those cases of very

extreme disasters or very significant impacts from a pandemic, would we

not be in a state of emergency, which would not necessitate the use of

special warrants as proposed by this?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I think the first piece I just want to remind all of us, in

looking at the special warrant section, is that this

section only

applies when other sources of revenue aren’t available. If you have a

voted appropriation in health, for example, and you’ve utilized the

voted appropriation and there aren’t other sources of revenue available,

then you could look at the special warrants — again, with all the

parameters in place.

The member of the Third Party asked about the state of emergency.

Could you be in a state of emergency? Yes, then that would cover a

portion of requirements as per that law around the state of emergency. I

mentioned earlier the example of the Forest Act that covers the fire and

the time of the fire but doesn’t necessarily cover some of the aftermath

that might be there in a state of emergency.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

There may be a lead-in to the state of emergency, where the state

of emergency has not been put in place yet, but PPEs, for example — I

guess coming back to the pandemic — might be critically needed. Or you

might need the ability to be able to move beds in a hospital to be able

to deal with an outbreak, for example, and the state of emergency might

not be in place.

Those are the kinds of extreme examples that I think are important

to recognize through this section.

S. Furstenau: I think that one of the things that we have to really consider

here…. I appreciate that the minister is very clear in reinforcing that

this would be very exceptional circumstances, in very limited

circumstances. However, what we have to be considering in any kind of

decision-making we’re doing is that we’re not only talking about this

government and this administration and this set of public servants;

we’re talking about the next government and the government after that

and the government after that and after that.

I recognize that we can change the legislation as we go. However,

one of the foundations of democratic systems is that there is this

wrestling with the decision-making and there is this oversight that

exists in this building and by the people who are elected. While this

minister…. I fully accept that she sees this in exactly the way she’s

identifying it — that it would be a highly unusual circumstance. I don’t

know what a future government might say. I don’t know what governments

five, ten or 15 years from now might feel about this.

One of the things that I’ve been so proud of, in terms of how this

Legislature has worked through COVID, is that sense of urgency — not

only to get back here on March 23 to approve the $5 billion in funding

to deal with the emergency we were in but the urgency that we felt as

members of this place, along with our incredible staff, to make our

Legislature work almost exactly the same as it would work if we were all

here. That urgency comes from a recognition that this is how we’re

supposed to be doing things. This is how our government is supposed to

be working.

I fear that with the introduction of the capacity for special

warrants after a state of emergency — and again, we remain in a state of

emergency right now — it would relieve some of that sense of urgency

amongst government and legislators to say that we have to get here and

do our job. We have to get here. Not just government, but everybody in

the Legislature has to get here to do their job.

I guess the other worry that I have with this is that we are going

to see more and more emergencies. We’ve had several states of emergency

even in the course of the three years of this government, some of those

driven by climate change — the wildfire seasons that we had in 2017 and

We can fully anticipate that there will be more climate

change–driven emergencies. According to experts in zoonotic diseases, we

are going to see more pandemics coming. I think that we need to feel a

proactive urgency right now to say: how do we ensure that government

does continue to work, that democracy does continue to work through all

of this?

[4:35 p.m.]

Sharing the anxiety as expressed by the member opposite, the

question that I have at this point is…. Initially, this bill would have

the special warrant period be six months after a state of emergency. The

minister has brought an amendment to three months. Can she give us some

insight into the decision to go from six months to three

months?

I know that the opposition had put in a proposed amendment as

well. But if it was from six months to three months, what was the

original reason for six months? If it can be reduced to three months

like that, is there really the necessity to have this? Can we accept

that if we are in a state of emergency we have the capacity for

government to do what it needs to do within that state of

emergency?

Hon. C. James: Appreciate the conversation. As I said, this was a conversation

that we had, prior to committee stage starting, with the opposition and

the Third Party, around where that balance is. That’s really what this

is about. Where is that balance within a structure — within the special

warrants structure — which, again, requires the fact that there aren’t

any other opportunities for dollars to be able to be found through voted

appropriations within the fixed requirement of the state of emergency

and the timelines and the requirements around that.

We looked at six months. We looked at COVID and the structure of

COVID of six months. We heard the discussions from the two parties to

recognize that they felt that that wasn’t striking a balance, that there

was a better balance to be found, which is why it was reduced down to

three months. But it’s providing that protection and assuring that

protection is there for the people of British Columbia. We felt that

that was a critical piece that was needed.

S. Furstenau: I also do appreciate the conversation. I think that given that

we’ve been able to navigate this crisis the way we have…. And I’m very

proud of how we’ve navigated this crisis. I think we have demonstrated

that under the current circumstances, we’ve been able to do all that we

needed to do to ensure that the people of British Columbia could be

served as best they could.

I think that we should continue to operate in the same way,

recognizing that there are enormous powers granted to a government when

a state of emergency is declared and that we should be mindful of those

powers and very aware of them.

Also, we want to be as protective and mindful of the role of the

Legislature, even in our most challenging times, which is, in fact, when

democracy really does matter more than ever.

I move a subamendment to the amendment to

section 21 that is in

possession of the Clerk.

SECTION 21, by deleting the text shown as struck

out:

Section 24 of the Financial Administration Act,

R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 138, is amended

(

a) in subsection (1) by adding the following

definition:

“state of emergency” means a state of emergency

declared under

section 9 of the Emergency Program Act .

(

b) in subsection (2) by striking out

“ or ” at the end of paragraph (

a) and

by adding the following paragraph:

(a.1) during a state of emergency , and for the

ensuing period ending 3 months after the expiry of the state of

emergency, a matter arises for which an expenditure is

required, or , and

(

c) by repealing subsection (2) (

b) and substituting the

following:

(

b) a disaster or emergency occurs or is anticipated and a

matter arises for which an expenditure is required , or for the

ensuing period ending 3 months after the occurrence of the disaster

or emergency, a matter arises for which an expenditure is

required,

. ]

The Chair: The House will be in recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:40 p.m. to 4:49 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

On the subamendment.

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I appreciate the member bringing forward the

subamendment.

I certainly continue to be concerned about the risk that stays for

the people, given what we’ve learned from COVID. But I also understand

and, certainly, as I’ve said all along, feel that there is certainly no

intent, nor do I want the bill to read from the public’s perspective or

from the perspective of the members in this House that there would be

any opportunity for a future government or governments to utilize this

section for purposes other than providing support to people during an

emergency.

With that spirit, I would speak in support of the

subamendment.

Subamendment approved.

Amendment as amended approved.

Section 21 as amended approved.

Section 22 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. James: First, huge thank-yous and appreciation to staff. We have gone

through two very complex bills over the last couple of days, and I think

it’s important to recognize the additional support and work that is

required doing this through technology. So I just want to express my

appreciation to the staff for the extraordinary work.

Thank you to the members who have taken

part in this discussion

and debate. I think we’ve had some very good questions, some very good

discussion and a very good opportunity to go through committee

stage.

With that, I move that the committee rise and report the bill

complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:53 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 18 — ECONOMIC STABILIZATION

(COVID-19)

ACT

Bill 18, Economic Stabilization (COVID-19) Act, reported complete

with amendment, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I call committee stage for Bill 23, Workers Compensation Amendment

Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 23 — WORKERS COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 23;

R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 4:56 p.m.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

J. Martin:

Section 4 is the

section on search and seizure. How does this

differ from the portion of the Occupational Health and Safety Act which

was used as an example for this

section in the 2019 Helps

report?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: The provisions are based on recommendations in the recent review

by Lisa Jean Helps and are based on similar provisions in the Ontario

Occupation Health and Safety Act and on the existing non-warrant search

and seizure provisions in the B.C. Workers Compensation Act, or

section

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

J. Martin: On the courts granting injunctions, how does this small change

clarify how the court may grant the injunction as listed in the

section

in the Workers Compensation Act?

Hon. H. Bains: This amendment is designed to ensure that the act reflects the

original intent of this provision, which means that it permits the court

to grant any three types of those injunctions that are mentioned here: a

restraining order, a compliance order, or prohibiting a person from

carrying on an activity for a certain time.

This will clarify and it will actually reflect the original intent

that was in the act: that any one of those three, or all three areas, is

an area where the injunction can be granted.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

J. Martin: Thank you, Minister, for that response. On

section 6, the 2019

Helps report and the more recent Parr report recommended the repeal of

section 214(2) of the Workers Compensation Act.

The question is: what are the purposes of removing the need for

approval through

section 99(2) instead of the recommended

section?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Actually, we are amending 214, but now it’s called 99. I think

it’s a renumbering, but it’s the same thing.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

J. Martin: The Parr report said, “However, upon consideration of current

provisions in the act on court orders for publication, the proposal

appears to add little benefit,” later suggesting: “No amendments to the

act are recommended.” So what is the purpose including such an amendment

to the act?

Hon. H. Bains: This actually came from recommendations by Lisa Helps, who

concluded that the potential for an order to publish facts related to

the offence would act as a deterrent and publication would help educate

other employers about workplace safety issues. So this one, actually, is

expanding on the sentencing power of the court by adding a power to

direct that the convicted person, not WorkSafeBC, publish the facts

relating to the commission of the offence, at that person’s

expense.

J. Martin: Can the minister please share with the House: where would be an

appropriate place for the publishing of facts related to the commission

of an offence?

Hon. H. Bains: The example, Member, would be that the court may choose to order

that WorkSafeBC publish the facts at the expense of the convicted

person. Alternatively, the court may find it more appropriate to order

publication in a company newsletter or other material produced by the

employer and distributed to the employees.

[5:10 p.m.]

It is something that they could be required, at their own expense,

to publish in the company’s newsletter, or it could be a memo to

employees — that sort of thing.

J. Martin: Can the minister share…? What is the cost of publishing the facts

relating to the commission of an offence, please?

Hon. H. Bains: There’s no prescribed cost attached to this. A court may decide

that a company must publish in a community newspaper, which would be a

little more costly, or they may decide that it’s appropriate for them to

publish within the company newsletter, a leaflet or a memo to the

employees. So it varies. There’s no actual prescribed cost attached to

this particular area.

J. Martin: One more question on this

section from myself. How many cases does

the minister anticipate will be ordered to be published by the

courts?

Hon. H. Bains: I think, Member, it all depends. I think in an ideal world, there

will be none. But things happen. Violations do occur. When there is a

violation and a person is prosecuted, that’s when the court could

require them to publish the facts. I have already suggested in what

different places that can happen.

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

J. Martin: Turning to the subject matter in

section 8 on victim impact

statements. While these statements were widely supported by all the

groups consulted, the Parr report noted: “One representative also

expressed caution that victim impact statements should not outweigh the

hard facts of the case when courts determine penalty levels.”

What does the bill do to ensure that such a balance between hard

facts and victim impact statements will be maintained?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: It is the court’s discretion. As you know, decisions are made

based on the facts, even today, in the court system. The judge weighs

the victim impact statement and the facts of the case and makes a

decision.

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

J. Martin: Thank you, Minister. Can the minister please share the range or

average costs of a charge that has been levied by way of an

assessment?

Hon. H. Bains: This is, I would call it, a housekeeping, technical amendment to

clarify the current practice that exists today. It’s just to provide

explicit authority to WorkSafeBC to change a class or subclass of the

employers — the cost of investigation, inspections and other services —

through the assessment process. That happens today.

This just clarifies the intent of what already exists. I think

this is why it was recommended that we clarify the language.

Section 9 approved.

section 10.

J. Martin: Can the minister please share how this

section will affect

penalties?

Hon. H. Bains: This one, again, is a housekeeping amendment. It further clarifies

the current practice and the original intent of the

provision.

It clarifies that WorkSafeBC may prescribe regulations that meet

the conditions in both paragraphs (

i) and (ii). That’s why it is

replacing “or” and adding “and.” If you look at this, it was the

legislative counsel that advised that the word, “or,” at the end of

subparagraph (

i) may restrict WorkSafeBC to prescribing regulations that

meet the conditions set out in (

i) or (ii) but not both (

i) and (ii). I

think that’s just clarifying, as was the case in the first

section.

J. Martin: Prior to these potential changes, did the board have challenges

with prescribing penalties, especially in the instance of frequent

penalties?

Hon. H. Bains: The answer is no.

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

[5:20 p.m.]

J. Martin: Can the minister please define for us an “obvious error” and

“omission,” as it pertains to this

section of the bill?

Hon. H. Bains: The intent is to permit WorkSafeBC to correct an obvious error

that is not supported by the law, policy or facts. Examples of obvious

errors and omissions that could be corrected under this provision

include: assigning an employer to an incorrect classification group,

which could require the employer to pay a higher premium than they

should be paying; using an incorrect wage rate for a workers

compensation benefit, which could result in a lower benefit for the

worker than they should be receiving; or relying on a policy that is not

applicable to a case.

Then, I think I would finish by saying that the intent is not to

address situations where workers, employers or different WorkSafeBC

officers disagree with the decision-maker’s judgment or weighing of the

evidence in a decision order. The review and the appeal process will

remain as the process for the workers and employers who disagree with

the judgment exercised in a decision or order.

J. Martin: So will the power to reconsider a decision apply to only

administrative types of errors and omissions?

Hon. H. Bains: The Ombudsperson has been requesting these legislative changes for

over a decade now and contacted the ministry as recently as 2018, asking

about the status. The Ombudsperson considers it important to allow

WorkSafeBC to correct obvious errors and omissions, even if the 75-day

reconsideration time limit has passed.

If you look any further, WorkSafeBC already has authority to

correct administrative errors, such as clerical, typographical or

computational errors or errors in agreed statements of facts at any time

and makes these types of corrections when necessary. As such, an

amendment for correcting an administrative error is not necessary. The

correcting of clerical, typographical or computational errors is not a

reconsideration, because such corrections do not change the intent of

the decision or the order.

Therefore, putting an explicit provision for the administrative

corrections does not properly belong in

section 123, which deals with

the reconsiderations. The purpose of this amendment is to streamline the

process for correcting obvious errors and omissions that are more than

simple administrative errors. This requires permitting WorkSafeBC to

consider a decision for this purpose after 75 days.

[5:25 p.m.]

J. Martin: Could this

section also extend substantive decisional errors or

omissions?

Hon. H. Bains: I think the intent here is to permit WorkSafeBC to correct an

obvious error that is not supported by the law, policy or the

facts.

J. Martin: Thank you. So why then are errors and omissions not defined as

they are in regard to WCAT’s powers?

Hon. H. Bains: I think the reason is that there could be so many different

scenarios. You cannot contemplate every one of them. So we are allowing,

with the language here, WorkSafeBC to come up through policy to

determine what or how they would deal with such a situation.

Again, I want to restate to the member, the intent is not to

address a situation where a worker or employer or a different WorkSafeBC

office disagrees with the decision-maker’s judgment or weighing of

evidence in a decision or order. The review and appeal process will

remain as the process for workers and employees who disagree with the

judgment exercised in a decision. I think it is very clear. We are

allowing WorkSafeBC discretion to come up with a policy to deal with the

errors and omissions. Again, what I have just restated is the real

intent of this change.

J. Martin: So what is the minister’s view of the previous purposes of the

review and appeal process, which was previously used to adjudicate such

errors?

[5:30 p.m.]

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister of Labour.

Hon. H. Bains: Thank you, hon. Chair, and welcome to the chair.

Member, let me give you a scenario. When an obvious error is

discovered, say, after 90 days, even if WorkSafeBC discovers it, the

time period to request a formal review of the decision has passed.

That’s 90 days.

This means that the affected person must first spend time and

resources to apply for an extension to the 90-day period for the filing

deadline for the formal review. Then the person, as well as WorkSafeBC,

must spend time and resources to review the decision through the formal

review process.

The proposed amendment provides a more streamlined process to

permit WorkSafeBC to correct an obvious error directly at any time. The

provincial Ombudsperson has recommended this streamlined change, as I

said before, for correcting obvious errors and omissions.

It just cuts a lot of red tape and also saves WorkSafeBC, the

worker and employer the resources and the research to get the extension

— first, the application, then to go through the appeal process — when

there is an obvious error made that can be corrected by WorkSafeBC and

save so many people so much red tape, time and resources.

J. Martin: So if this

section is passed, just to clarify, can it be used to

correct decisions that have been previously made?

Hon. H. Bains: At WCB’s discretion, if they feel that an obvious error or

omission has been noticed, they can correct that.

J. Martin: How will the minister balance the ability to exercise or to not

exercise discretionary authority with the stability and consistency in

WorkSafeBC that workers and the employers rely on?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: WorkSafeBC strives, as the member will know, for quality decisions

and orders in the first instance but, on occasion, acknowledges that

obvious errors do occur. We anticipate that the change will not create a

flood of new reconsiderations. There’s no intent to expand WorkSafeBC’s

current reconsideration powers in any broad way.

The expansion is limited to correcting obvious errors and

omissions discovered after the existing 75-day reconsideration limit has

passed, which is intended to capture aspects of the decisions or orders

that are not supported by law, policy or facts, as I’ve stated before.

So it’s not intended to address situations where a worker or employer or

a different WCB officer disagrees with the judgment made in a decision

or order.

M. Lee: Could I ask…? He mentioned that under the act, there is

jurisdiction for correction for a clerical or typographical error,

accidental or inadvertent error, omission or similar mistake or

arithmetical error made in a computation. That is the wording that’s set

out in

section 307.

What other provisions of the act have provided similar

jurisdiction to the board?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: There is no other

section that has similar language, except

section 307. That applies to WCAT. That does not apply here.

M. Lee: Just to clarify what the minister was indicating earlier, there is

no other ability of the board to do what is provided under

section 307

for WCAT. So the consideration then is to provide some ability for the

board to do that.

The minister spoke in response to questions from my colleague, the

member for Chilliwack — that this provision,

section 11 of this bill,

will provide and enable WorkSafe to develop a policy in respect of the

application of this section. Could the minister just elaborate further

on what the minister’s expectation is for that policy?

Hon. H. Bains: If this will help, Member, the discretion will be left with the

board to determine through a policy. But let me restate what I have been

saying earlier on a similar question.

The board currently can’t correct administrative errors after the

expiry of 75 days, such as clerical, typographical or mathematical

errors. This change will allow the board to correct an error that is

more substantial than an administrative error.

Examples I have mentioned before — I could read them again — could

include where the board applies a wrong wage rate in calculating a

worker’s compensation benefit, assigns an employer a wrong

classification in determining the premium to pay or applies a policy

that was not applicable to the case.

This change will enable the board to correct obvious errors in a

streamlined manner if identified after the 75-day reconsideration time

limit, while not undermining the general purpose of the 75-day

limit.

[5:45 p.m.]

M. Lee: Just to have the minister bring us back to

section 123 of the act,

which is what this

section of the bill is amending, of course. If we

could go back to that, then. Under subsection 123(1) or even (2), what

limitations, if any, are there in terms of the types of reconsideration

that the board can do under this section?

Hon. H. Bains: The board has the authority to address obvious errors,

typographical and otherwise, now, within 75 days. This will expand their

authority past 75 days. The purpose, again, is explicitly to give

discretion for WorkSafeBC to change the decision for an obvious error at

the board’s initiative. This, therefore, required WorkSafeBC to

recognize and acknowledge that there is an obvious error.

[5:50 p.m.]

The provision does not give the parties a formal right to apply

for such correction. If the parties disagree with the decision, they

must continue to go through the review and appeal process. The existing

restrictions, that WorkSafeBC cannot consider a decision once formal

review has been requested or a notice of appeal filed, will continue. As

such, WorkSafeBC will not be correcting obvious errors if a decision is

already in the review or appeal process. In this situation, errors will

continue to be addressed through the review and appeal

process.

M. Lee: I would suggest that this provision, between

section 123 of the

act and

section 307…. They are balanced, in terms of the process that’s

available. There are reasons for which, presumably, under the current

act, the board has a limit around its jurisdiction of 75

days.

Obviously, the government would expect, like any other member of

this House, that the board would operate in a way that it doesn’t make

obvious errors and omissions. If it does, the board would discover that

on its own initiative, as per

section 123, within 75 days. If that’s not

the case, there is certainly the framework that’s set out over several

provisions in this act for a very comprehensive, balanced review and

appeal process, including what’s set out in

section 307.

To the minister, how many times did WCAT — say, in the last year,

2019-2020; April 1 to March 31, 2020 — have to exercise its authority

under

section 307(1) of the act, as a point of reference, in terms of

clerical, accidental or arithmetical error?

Hon. H. Bains:

Section 307 applies to WCAT, which works totally independent of

WorkSafeBC. Through 307, they can correct their own decisions, but they

cannot correct the decisions made by WorkSafeBC and the review system

that existed in WorkSafeBC.

What this does, Member, is…. Let’s think about this. WorkSafeBC

can correct those obvious errors on the 74th day, but not on the 76th

day. Now you have to go through the appeal process. I think it’s just to

streamline the process.

[5:55 p.m.]

If there is an obvious error which could hurt the employer when

they’re assessed in a wrong class — it clearly shows that they’re in the

wrong class — once they acknowledge that that was the decision that was

made, that there was an error made, they could correct it. But under the

current system, after 75 days have passed, you have to go through the

appeal process. That’s very expensive for everyone.

I think this is something that is to streamline the process, save

a lot of money and resources for many people and correct the decision

that they have made, which they acknowledge — obviously, they made some

errors in calculating the wages for the worker or placed the employer in

a wrong class.

M. Lee: Just to understand the way that an obvious error or omission….

Obviously, this is an important term, which is a new threshold to give

authority to the board without a time limit beyond the 75 days. Just as

the minister is suggesting that it might be favourable to all parties to

be able to correct an error, it is also important for all parties to

have certainty, finality. To suggest that without the appeal and review

process that’s in place under the other provisions of the act…. This

open-ended definition that is being set out in the act is something that

is important to understand here on this particular section.

Coming back to this, perhaps I can ask this question in another

way. Under

section 123 of the act, the minister has referred to the

jurisdiction of the board to reconsider its decisions or orders within

75 days. So to the minister: in the last year, between April 1 and March

31, 2020, how many instances or occasions has the board had to

reconsider its decision based on, in the first case, a clerical,

accidental or arithmetical error, versus what is termed, under this

section, an obvious error or omission?

Hon. H. Bains: We don’t have the exact numbers, but I can tell you this, as I’ve

said before. WorkSafeBC always strives to have quality decisions and

orders in the first instance, but on occasion has acknowledged that

obvious errors do occur. These cases have ended up before the

Ombudsperson as well. The Ombudsperson, for almost a decade, has been

asking and reaching out to the ministry and to WorkSafe to fix this

problem, and as late as 2018 has asked the ministry again — requested

legislative changes.

We could get you the numbers, Member. I think they’re not in the

dozens, but there could be a handful.

Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress

and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

granted leave to sit again.

Schedule of Estimates

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure to table the

schedule for Committee of Supply, the

budget estimates for Thursday, July 30 and Friday, July 31.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we have a deferred division now on Bill 4, third

reading.

This House stands recessed until 6:10.

The House recessed from 6:02 p.m. to 6:10 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, I call the House back to order.

[6:15 p.m.]

Members, we will now proceed with the deferred division. The question

is third reading of Bill 4, Budget Measures Implementation Act,

[6:20 p.m.]

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 4 — BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2020

(continued)

Bill 4, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2020, read a third

time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 44

Bains

Beare

Begg

Brar

Chandra Herbert

Chen

Chouhan

Chow

Conroy

Darcy

Dean

D’Eith

Dix

Donaldson

Eby

Elmore

Farnworth

Fleming

Fraser

Furstenau

Glumac

Heyman

Horgan

James

Kahlon

Kang

Leonard

Malcolmson

Mark

Mungall

Olsen

Popham

Ralston

Rice

Robinson

Routledge

Routley

Simons

Simpson

Sims

Singh

Trevena

Weaver

NAYS — 39

Barnett

Bernier

Bond

Cadieux

Clovechok

Coleman

Davies

de Jong

Foster

Gibson

Hunt

Isaacs

Johal

Kyllo

Lee

Letnick

Martin

Milobar

Morris

Oakes

Paton

Polak

Redies

Reid

Ross

Rustad

Shypitka

Stewart

Stilwell

Stone

Sturdy

Sullivan

Sultan

Tegart

Thomson

Throness

Wat

Wilkinson

Yap

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow

afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:24 p.m.

Copyright © 2020 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

chamber proceedings are available at www.leg.bc.ca .

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.