Fifth Session, 41st Parliament

(2020) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, July 6, 2020

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 333

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Tributes

Ed Conroy

Hon. M. Farnworth

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Nanaimo high school graduates

S. Malcolmson

Sorrento Centre and community response to COVID-19

G. Kyllo

COVID-19 information and role of local media

R. Singh

Prince George business directory and Support PG program

S. Bond

SOS Children’s Village

J. Sims

B.C. Grain Producers Association

D. Davies

Oral Questions

Strata insurance cost increases

A. Wilkinson

Hon. S. Robinson

J. Thornthwaite

Government support for tourism industry

A. Olsen

Hon. L. Beare

Strata insurance cost increases

T. Stone

Hon. S. Robinson

J. Isaacs

J. Johal

M. Hunt

Tabling Documents

Office of the Auditor General, annual report, 2019-20

Office of the Auditor General, financial statements, 2019-20

Judicial Compensation Commission in respect of Provincial Court judges,

government’s proposed reconsidered response to the 2019 final report,

July 6, 2020

Judicial Compensation Commission in respect of Provincial Court judicial

justices, government’s proposed reconsidered response to the 2019

final report, July 6, 2020

British Columbia Utilities Commission, annual report, 2018-19

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 19 — COVID-19 Related Measures Act

M. Lee

Hon. D. Eby

A. Olsen

A. Weaver

Tabling Documents

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, annual report, 2019-20

MONDAY, JULY 6, 2020

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

ED CONROY

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’d like to take a moment on some sad news to acknowledge the

passing of Ed Conroy, the husband of the MLA for Kootenay West, who

passed away on Friday at the age of 73.

I had the privilege of being elected to this House back in 1991,

along with Ed, who at that time represented the riding of

Rossland-Trail. Ed served from 1991 to 2001. We sat next to each other

down at that front bench, where the member for Saanich North and the

Islands is sitting now. He was a wonderful individual.

Ed served as Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries and the

Minister Responsible for Rural Development from 2000 to 2001. But he

wasn’t just a member of this House. He was a father, a grandfather, a

towboat operator, a school board trustee, a cattle rancher, and he

helped to create what I think is his greatest legacy which was the

Columbia River Basin trust.

[1:35 p.m.]

Ed was a remarkable individual for all of us on both sides of this

House who knew him. He had many, many health challenges, including a

liver transplant while he was a member. Those of us who were here at

that time — some members in the opposition and those of us in government

— remember the difficulty and how he faced those challenges with courage

and determination that all of us will never forget.

On behalf of the members of this House, I would like to express my

sincere thanks for all of the work that Ed did for his community and

this province.

I would ask this House to extend and express their deepest

condolences to Ed’s family and to Katrine, the member for Kootenay

West.

Introductions by Members

J. Sims: It’s my pleasure today to stand up and introduce to the House Sohan

Singh Walia, who came to Canada over three decades ago from Ranipur village

in Phagwara, Punjab — surprisingly, a village very close to where I was

born.

He is a proud great-great-great-grandfather. He has been involved in

seva , or service, in various gurdwaras in the Lower Mainland,

and today is the oldest volunteer at Gurdwara Dukh Nivaran, where he works

side by side with his son, Narinder Singh. Although he has to be more

careful during COVID-19, he insists on being picked up and brought to the

gurdwara every single day. He stops by the gurdwara, where he can share his

stories and encourage volunteers and occasionally help as well. Much to his

disappointment, he had to give up cycling two years ago.

On July 1, he turned 100 years old. He was honoured at the opening of

the Guru Nanak food bank, which was a fitting celebration for his years and

years of service.

Please help me celebrate and mark the 100th birthday for Sohan Singh

Walia.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

NANAIMO HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES

S. Malcolmson: I rise to congratulate Nanaimo high school graduates.

COVID-19 has presented new challenges to our prov­ince that

we could never have seen coming. Students here have risen to this

challenge and met it with great heart. So congratulations, Nanaimo high

school students, who graduated in a global pandemic. Who else has ever

done that?

You overcame a lot this year. We are proud of you, proud of grads

from NDSS, from Career Technical Centre, from Island ConnectEd,

Wellington Secondary, Nanaimo Christian School, Tsawalk Learning Centre,

and Learning Alternatives, which celebrated the most alternate student

graduates in school district 68 history this year. Of all years, this is

the year they had a record.

Learning Alternatives had a two-day event to space out the

students for physical distancing. Their principal, Chad Jobe, who some

of you might remember as an award winner…. He and some of his fellow

teachers were recognized by the Premier for teaching excellence. This

was his take.

He said: “Students came out in their regalia and were honoured.

They really got their moment on stage. All of the staff was cheering. We

needed lozenges after all of that, but our hearts were full. Our

valedictorians were amazing. Shyla Athey from Heiltsuk Nation gave a

moving tribute to her peers and her ancestors.” That’s just a testament

to how proud Nanaimo teachers are of their students, always, but

especially what they’ve overcome this year.

Our government has been working really hard to keep people safe

and protect health and homes and livelihoods during the pandemic, and as

we recover as a province from COVID-19, students finished an

extraordinary year.

Special thanks to the parents, the school staff — all of them. The

volunteers worked especially hard to make grad and prom very special in

an extraordinary year. We’re thankful to all of you and proud of all of

you.

SORRENTO CENTRE AND

COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO

COVID-19

G. Kyllo: Today it gives me great pleasure to rise and share with the House

some extraordinary work being done by some of my constituents, who have

found a way to give back to the community, even while experiencing the

challenges of COVID-19. The Sorrento Centre, located along the banks of

Shuswap Lake in Sorrento, is a popular destination that is used for

retreats, conferences and other events, as well as camping and

dining.

[1:40 p.m.]

Like many spaces of this nature, it quickly found itself unable to

operate as normal, due to COVID restrictions. Though facing a sharp

decline in revenue, they shifted their focus to giving back to their

community. The executive director of the Sorrento Centre, Michael

Shapcott, and his team saw an opportunity to support a community that

was facing food bank shortages, a severe reduction in tourism revenue

and a worsening situation for those already facing

difficulties.

Soon after the onset of the pandemic, the Sorrento Centre helped

convene an emergency coalition of more than 50 groups — including public

health officials, local governments, social agencies, women’s shelters,

homeless shelters and community organizations such as the Salvation Army

— to collaborate on how to meet the needs of the community, which

included increasing, growing food insecurity.

Since the last week of March, the Sorrento Centre has prepared

more than 6,000 quality, nutritious meals for those in need, at an

average of 140 a day. The team works with its partners to distribute

meals throughout the Shuswap area, including the city of Salmon

Arm.

The Sorrento Centre had two key goals at the start of the meal

program: to act quickly in order to respond to the urgency of the

situation and to make sure that food distributed to the community would

be healthy and nutritious. I’d like to thank Michael Shapcott and his

team at the Sorrento Centre for their dedication to the people of the

region and for focusing their efforts on helping those in

need.

COVID-19 INFORMATION

AND ROLE OF LOCAL

MEDIA

R. Singh: This spring, as COVID-19 took hold in B.C., the world changed

before our eyes. The amount of new information shared with us during the

early days of the pandemic was, at times, overwhelming. We began to be

asked to social distance, stay at home and wash our hands often. New

announcements came every day about how communities, governments and

everyone else was working to slow the spread of COVID-19.

In order to start addressing the pandemic, we needed to begin to

understand it. In my home city of Surrey, understanding the pandemic is

something we could not have done without the tireless work of our local

media.

Surrey is one of the most diverse cities in all of Canada. Our

local media reflects that great diversity, whether it’s the vibrant

network of local Punjabi radio stations, our local people that publish

in a multitude of languages or our dedicated multicultural TV stations.

Since the pandemic began, these media outlets, big and small, have been

working tirelessly to share public health information to

audiences.

In Surrey, as we tried to make sense of how to keep our families,

our communities and ourselves safe, our local radio stations, newspapers

and TV stations worked around the clock to bring important information

to our communities. These outlets became yet another group of essential

workers, delivering important information to the community in multiple

languages.

I want to recognize Surrey’s media hosts, journalists, producers

and staff for the incredible contributions they have made to Surrey

during this pandemic. To every local station and paper in Surrey that

has stepped up, thank you for everything you have done and for

everything you continue to do to help our communities stay informed and

stay safe during these challenging times.

PRINCE GEORGE BUSINESS DIRECTORY

AND SUPPORT PG

PROGRAM

S. Bond: The impacts of COVID-19 have been felt by all of us. While our

primary focus has been on the health crisis that the pandemic caused, we

all recognize that the economy has also changed dramatically and that

small businesses in particular have struggled to survive. Sadly, some

have already been forced to close their doors, lay off employees and

deal with uncertain cash flow.

Support PG started as a directory of local businesses that were

listed on the Prince George chamber of commerce website to inform

residents about which businesses were still operating. It has since

grown into a much larger initiative.

The Support PG directory has become a centralized access point for

resources that have been announced by all levels of government. It is

home to the “open now” listings, where our community can find out what

businesses are operating and how they can support them by shopping

local. Businesses can easily add their information and highlight some of

the creative ways they are providing services during these unprecedented

times, including takeout, curbside and online shopping

options.

[1:45 p.m.]

But there is more. Residents are encouraged to take the Support PG

pledge to show their commitment to Prince George businesses. There is

also a

section that highlights local heroes, sharing heartwarming and

inspiring stories about people who have stepped up and made a

significant difference during these challenging days. You can also learn

about Takeout Wednesday and Thankful Thursday. While the initiative was

started by Todd Corrigall and the team at the PG Chamber of Commerce, 11

community organizations partnered to create the centralized Support PG

website.

I want to say thank you for the vision and hard work that led to

the Support PG program. Now more than ever, we need to shop local, and

Support PG is an excellent resource for those of us who call Prince

George home.

SOS CHILDREN’S VILLAGE

J. Sims: Today I want to talk about a little, well-hidden gem in

Surrey-Panorama. Many of us have heard of SOS Children’s Village, which,

as we know, exists in 136 nations, and they have 559 villages with a

seat at the UN to be the voice for the rights of children. Well, nestled

in the heart of my riding, in a really suburban area, is the only SOS

Children’s Village in Canada.

The village in Surrey is comprised of five foster families living

side by side, with 27 children, 18 caregivers, five youth-in-transition

suites and a village community centre on two and a half acres of wooded

land. It is a welcoming community of belonging, where everyone is part

of a family, a family that is focused on providing care, consistency and

healing.

From the outside, it looks like any other street in our community.

It’s only when you walk through those doors and you enter the

2 1/2 acres that you realize that you have truly

entered an oasis. With a three-year organizational commitment to

reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, so proud that this village has

committed part of their budget for Indigenous reconciliation to make

sure that their staff gets the sensitivity training they need. This

takes courage, but it also takes trust and accountability.

The village has developed amazing supports and partnerships in the

community, many of which are on hold during the pandemic, like many

other things. The music lessons, the experiential outdoor education

centre and academic clubs.

I know that I’m going to be running out of time, so let me get to

the most important thing I wanted to say today, which is a huge

shout-out to the young people who stay at this place. I would like to

say thank you to them and also to the amazing staff. I know these last

few months have been challenging, and the next few months will be as

well. But their resiliency is amazing and awe-inspiring.

Thank you for making a difference in so many lives.

B.C. GRAIN PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION

D. Davies: I’d like to take a minute to recognize the B.C. Grain Producers

Association. The B.C. Grain Producers are comprised of grain and oil

seed producers from throughout British Columbia. The association

represents farmers from all over the province, with the majority of its

members located in the Peace region.

The Peace region is typically associated with the oil and gas,

mining and forest industry, which is no doubt very important to the

families that I represent. But we also have the largest agricultural

region in the province. Our 1,800 farms produce $100 million annually,

including 90 percent of B.C.’s grain and 95 percent of B.C.’s

canola.

The purpose of the B.C. Grain Producers is to improve the

viability of the grains and oil seed industry. In addition to

representing the interests of B.C. producers on local, provincial and

federal levels, the association also has a research department, where

grains and oil seeds are grown on a research farm located in Fort St.

John, which our agriculture critic had the pleasure to visit last year.

This research allows new crop varieties to be strategically tested in a

northern climate to allow for successful adaptation to a short growing

season.

Peace region farmers are still, though, reeling from the

disastrous 2019 fall harvest. Due to cold temperatures, heavy rains and

an early snowfall, many crops remained on the farmers’ fields and still

do today. The crops that did come off were wet and needed to be dried,

presenting challenges to farmers that do not have the facilitates to dry

the grain, and it added significant costs.

[1:50 p.m.]

As farmers struggle to salvage crops this spring, they face

quantity and quality losses as well as lost time to plant this year’s

crops. On top of all this, commodity prices are low, and farmers are

worried. They need help. As we look across the province today, rain,

rain and more rain is in the forecast, leading to some significant

challenges to farmers in the Peace country.

Now more than ever it’s time to recognize our B.C. grain

producers. Would the House please join me in thanking the board

president, Rick Kantz; directors Malcolm Odermatt, Barry Follensbee,

Walter Fritsche, Robert Vander Linden, Ernest Wiebe, Ed Hadland and

Jennifer Critcher; and the B.C. Grain Producers for the incredible work

that they do in representing our B.C. grain farmers.

Oral Questions

STRATA INSURANCE COST INCREASES

A. Wilkinson: More than one million people live in strata condominiums and

townhomes in the Lower Mainland. Hundreds of thousands of others live in

strata facilities in British Columbia. Under this government, these more

than one million British Columbians are facing a very serious insurance

crisis.

Last week I heard directly from more than 100 people on a

telephone town hall who were worried sick. They’re frustrated by this

government’s lack of action on the issue of strata insurance. They’re

looking for solutions. This is what one of them, Marilyn, told me: “Our

owners are seniors on fixed incomes, young families with their first

mortgages, and they’re facing financial ruin right now.”

Can the Premier please explain to Marilyn and the other 100 people

on that call why his government has done nothing that will actually

reduce their costs on strata insurance as they face financial

ruin?

Hon. S. Robinson: I know that members on all sides of this House recognize the

challenges and the urgency of addressing these concerns. Our bill that

we have tabled in the Legislature includes many suggestions — in fact,

many measures — that we heard from the opposition. They mentioned that a

good bill would include clarifying what should be covered by insurance,

notifying owners of changes to their coverage, as well as strengthening

depreciation reports. All of that is in the bill that we proposed. We’re

continuing to engage with others around this very particular

issue.

I must, of course, emphasize what we heard from the B.C. Financial

Services Authority. They were very clear. They said that there are no

quick fixes and that everyone has a role to play. I’m eager for the

debate around our bill that we’ve proposed. I know that that will bring

relief to many who are looking for some relief.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: That answer typifies the response of this government, in that it

makes no difference whatsoever to Marilyn and those 100 people on that

telephone town hall, because the bill does nothing to reduce their

costs, nothing at all.

The minister refers to suggestions we have made. We’ve made a

dozen suggestions — things like taking off the 4.4 percent tax that is

suddenly a massive revenue windfall for this government because of the

rapid increase in strata insurance fees. Why can’t that be taken off

these strata owners, who are facing financial ruin? Instead, they’re

being gouged for a revenue windfall for this government.

Real steps can be taken, like a water damage prevention program

that we suggested. None of this has been taken up by this government in

the midst of this crisis affecting more than one million households in

this province.

Will the Premier, who sits opposite me here, admit that his plan

will not help Marilyn at all? Does this Premier intend to continue to

extract a windfall 4.4 percent tax on this massive increase in strata

insurance fees?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, we have heard from experts in the area that do speak to the

introduction of our bill and about how critical it is to address these

concerns. Chuck Byrne, the executive director of the Insurance Brokers

Association of B.C., said that our changes will be critical foundational

pieces, that these are first steps necessary to stabilize the strata

insurance market in the province.

[1:55 p.m.]

Tony Gioventu, the executive director of the Condominium Home

Owners Association of British Columbia, says that this is a great start.

He says: “I definitely want to resound a high level of support to the

government for introducing these amendments.” We are taking significant

steps that will make a difference to people in strata insurance

situations.

J. Thornthwaite: In that same Zoom conference call, we also heard from Jack, who

lives in Ladner. On New Year’s Eve, he was told there was no insurance

company willing to insure his strata. When he finally did get the

coverage, it was a 310 percent increase on his strata insurance

premiums.

To the Minister of Housing, what action is she taking right now

that will help provide financial relief to Jack and his fellow property

owners?

Hon. S. Robinson: Like I said before, we have tabled a bill. We have worked very

quickly. Hearing the concerns that were raised towards the end of 2019,

we moved very quickly to bring in legislation to address some of these

concerns. I want to point out that Tony Gioventu, again, said on CKNW,

just on June 23, that the initiatives that they’ve taken in this bill

are going to have a positive effect for consumers.

I look forward to debating the bill in the House. I look forward

to it passing so that we can take some significant steps to make a

difference for these strata property owners.

Mr. Speaker: North Vancouver–Seymour on a supplemental.

J. Thornthwaite: Minister, we don’t want any more studies. These people that were

on this Zoom call are really suffering. They can’t afford these

increases, and they want help now.

Jack went on to say that it is very distressing this year not to

get insurance and then to get insurance that was 310 percent higher. But

now he’s worried about next year. What is the minister going to do about

next year? This is not an isolated case. Families to seniors all across

this province are suffering with this strata stress.

Again to the Minister of Housing, what steps is she doing now to

provide immediate assistance to the thousands of distressed condo and

townhouse owners?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, we tabled legislation, and I’m very proud of the fact that

we tabled legislation and that we did it quickly because we’ve heard

these concerns. This legislation will address some of the underlying

factors behind these increases.

We’re taking action to end referral fees paid to property

managers. We’re closing loopholes around depreciation reports that, I

have to say, were left by the old government. We’re bringing more

transparency to the industry, and we’re giving strata owners the tools

that they need to do their part. We are taking significant steps with

this piece of legislation, and I look forward to it passing here in the

House.

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR

TOURISM

INDUSTRY

A. Olsen: The cruise season is cancelled. The borders remain closed, and

international travel will be limited for the foreseeable future. The

B.C. government is encouraging summer staycations to support the tourism

sector devastated by COVID-19. People should get out and explore our

beautiful province, as long as they follow the provincial health

guidelines and restrictions and restrictions posted by First

Nations.

However, the situation is bleak. One in five tourism businesses

faces bankruptcy. A report from Destination B.C. titled Value of

Tourism 2007 to 2017, shows that as of 2017, British Columbians

made up 53 percent of the visitors but only just about 29 percent of the

spending in the tourism sector. Even if we double the number of British

Columbians touring locally, we would only be at just above half the

regular spending.

My question is to the Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture. We

know that a large increase in local tourism will not make up for lost

revenue, yet Destination B.C. is set to spend record numbers on

marketing local tourism this summer. As this will not close the gap,

what other measures are coming that will ensure tourism operators have

the lifeline they need to not close their doors forever?

Hon. L. Beare: I want to thank the leader of the Green Party for this question.

Our government knows and understands that the tourism sector has been

particularly hard hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. The tourism industry

understands and knows that a public health response and us keeping the

curve flat is key to our recovery here so that we can continue to

explore every corner of our province. We have been working very closely

with the tourism industry to hear what supports they need as we all work

together on B.C.’s recovery plan.

[2:00 p.m.]

For example, in May, we provided $10 million to 59 community

destination marketing organizations to help them welcome guests across

B.C. once again. We’ve worked with the federal government and encouraged

and advocated for programs from their government as well, including the

$1.5 million to support B.C.’s tourism resiliency programs and

Indigenous tourism businesses.

It’s really important to note for the member that British

Columbians have worked so hard to follow Dr. Henry’s advice. That has

allowed us to be in phase 3 so that people can travel again across the

province. We know that’s not a silver bullet — having British Columbians

be able to travel — but we are working with the tourism sector to

address their needs and to have those conversations on what they need as

we move towards recovery.

Mr. Speaker: Leader, Third Party, on a supplemental.

A. Olsen: For many tourism businesses, the 2020 year is already lost.

Butchart Gardens, for example, in my riding — their revenue has

plummeted. And they estimate that the B.C. source market would only add

a few percentage points to help them out.

For the tourism sector, this is a marathon that they’re facing,

and they need more help than they’re getting. Industry leaders have been

crystal-clear. They need liquidity rescue and payroll support to retain

staff and stay afloat. Otherwise, we are likely to see many tourism

businesses in our province fail. COVID-19 has decimated the ministry’s

strategic framework and Destination B.C.’s strategic plan. For tourism

operators to keep their doors open, they need a plan that gives them

certainty over the next 18 months and into the future.

My question is, again, for the Minister of Tourism, Arts and

Culture. The summer season is over for most operators. Advertising is

too little, too late. When will we see updated plans from the provincial

government and Crown corp. that will address the supply-side issues and

put a sector-specific plan in place that will help tourism operators

stay in business over the next few years?

Hon. L. Beare: Our government has been listening. And we have been working very,

very closely and working regularly with groups like the Tourism Industry

Association of B.C., the regional destination marketing organizations,

sector associations and businesses directly, who’ve asked us for a range

of supports.

We’ve provided a number of these supports, such as…. The sector

asked for a program encouraging workers who’ve lost their jobs as a

result of the pandemic to help them find work. So we partnered with go2

HR to help match workers with other sectors, including the

agritourism.

The sector asked if we could help provide support and extend a

one-time grant to sector associations. We know how important these

organizations are for the tourism industry’s recovery, and Destination

B.C. provided $400,000 to 15 sector organizations.

We’re going to continue working very closely with them. We have

ongoing dialogue as part of our recovery plan that the Premier and the

Deputy Premier laid out in the past weeks. We’re going to keep working

closely with the sector. We’ve been taking actions to provide the right

supports for this important sector. We’re going to take action to make

sure that we provide the supports they need moving forward towards

recovery.

Thank you to the member for asking such great questions for such

an important sector here in B.C.

STRATA INSURANCE COST INCREASES

T. Stone: The financial impact of skyrocketing strata insurance costs on

British Columbians is, frankly, massive. Some have seen their monthly

fees go up by a couple hundred dollars per month, some more. Others are

facing one-time assessments of often thousands of dollars.

Leanne in Penticton is facing an 800 percent increase in her

strata’s insurance premium — 800 percent. She had this to say: “With

this shocking amount that we’re being offered, we’re being advised by

our lawyers that we really don’t have an option but to take

it.”

My question is this. To the Premier, why will the Premier not

offer Leanne and the thousands of British Columbians just like her the

financial relief that they so desperately need?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I certainly have heard from folks like Leanne and others around

how challenging it is. And it is very difficult. It’s an issue that we

started to see very late in 2019. We certainly heard from the B.C.

Financial Services Authority that this is not just limited to here in

British Columbia. We’re seeing it elsewhere, although it is a

significant challenge here in British Columbia because of some

additional risks.

I want to say that we have recognized — I think everybody has

recognized — that this is not an issue where there is an easy fix.

Certainly, the B.C. Financial Services Authority has said that. In fact,

the member for Kamloops–South Thompson himself said: “There is no silver

bullet.” That was back in February of this year on CKNW. He even points

out that their own proposals are “not going to solve the problem in and

of itself.”

We recognize that we have some work to do. We have brought forward

some legislation. I look forward to debating that legislation and having

it pass in the House so that we can do the work that people need us to

do. That is to help mitigate some of the challenges they are seeing so

that people can rest assured that there is a government that has their

interests at heart and in mind and in effort and so that we can start to

tackle this challenge.

Mr. Speaker: Kamloops–South Thompson on a supplemental.

T. Stone: For months now, strata owners all across British Columbia have

been pleading with this government to provide them with some financial

relief. Instead, the government’s plan, which they announced recently,

promises more studies and engagements and consultations and changes that

will take a significant amount of time to actually make any kind of a

difference for people who are facing this financial distress.

The last thing that people need is another study. People don’t

have time to waste. They need financial support, and they need that

support now. Leanne wants to know how are we going to help strata owners

get back on their feet.

Again, my question is this. Why is the Premier leaving strata

owners in significant financial distress by not providing them with any

financial support whatsoever?

Hon. S. Robinson: We have a bill, which is on the table, that is going to bring some

significant relief. It is going to end the practice of referral fees

between insurers and property managers. We know that that drives up

premiums.

It sets up clear guidelines for what should be covered by

insurance to help strata councils make informed decisions when they

choose their policies. It requires greater transparency for condo owners

on their strata’s insurance coverage, including notice of any policy

changes and increasing deductibles, so that they can plan

appropriately.

It allows stratas to use their contingency reserve fund to pay for

any unexpected premium increases. We know that this has been very, very

difficult for them. It also protects strata unit owners against large

lawsuits from strata corporations if the owner was legally responsible

for a loss or damage.

We have a bill that’s before the House. I look forward to the

debate and to passing it so that we can bring the relief that these

strata owners desperately need.

J. Isaacs: Jack is a senior living in Coquitlam. He’s upset, and he’s

worried. His insurance went up 200 percent, increasing his maintenance

fee by an additional $115 per month just due to the insurance. He cannot

see one good reason for such a year-over-year increase in his building,

and he wonders why they even bother with insurance, except that it is in

the Strata Act. Jack wants to know how he is supposed to enjoy his

retirement without any money.

To the Minister of Housing, will she take immediate steps to help

seniors like Jack with rising insurance premiums?

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate Jack’s challenges around how to manage these

unexpected costs. This is a challenge for many right across our

province, which is why we took very significant steps and brought in

legislation.

It’s before the House. I look forward to the debate. I look

forward to it passing so that we can implement these changes and bring

relief to people living in stratas in this province.

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

supplemental.

[2:10 p.m.]

J. Isaacs: Not only is Jack dealing with high premium costs. His deductibles

also increased. The water damage deductible went up tenfold, from

$15,000 to $150,000, making the suite insurance also more

expensive.

Jack is asking for help. He can’t afford these

deductibles.

To the Minister of Housing, what steps will she take to provide

seniors and residents assurance that they won’t lose their homes due to

the high cost of premiums and deductibles?

Hon. S. Robinson: I again want to reiterate how important it is that we bring in

this legislation and that we pass it in this House, because it is going

to help make a difference to people like Jack and the others that the

other members opposite have presented to us. These are real concerns,

and they’re valid concerns.

We are committed to working together with the insurance industry,

with the condo strata folks, Tony Gioventu and others to make sure that

we can tackle what is a challenging issue, not just here in British

Columbia but in the insurance industry itself.

In fact, we heard from Aaron Sutherland, who is with the Insurance

Bureau of Canada. This is what he had to say: “Today’s reforms” — he’s

speaking to the introduction of our bill — “are an important first step

to help improve strata risk and the affordability and availability of

strata insurance over the long term.”

We’re committed to continuing to deliver for the people living

with very difficult strata insurance challenges.

J. Johal: I was listening to the minister here. What she seems to forget is

that people need help now, today. Yet all the government has done is

make minor changes with promises to talk some more. Here’s what Marilyn,

who lives in Richmond, had to say about all of this talk: “Our owners

can’t renew their mortgages. They can’t renegotiate them, and worst of

all, we can’t even sell a unit anymore, so their own home equity is

vanishing, and our owners are terrified.”

To the Minister of Housing, why won’t she help people like Marilyn

right now?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I want to remind everybody about the fact that strata

corporations can use their reserve funds for unexpected increases. That

is something that is in this bill. We are being responsive with this

bill. Again, there is a range of issues that we have identified. We have

put them in this bill here. I look forward to members opposite working

with us to make sure that this bill passes quickly so that we can make

sure that those who need relief can get the relief that they are seeking

from all of us.

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

supplemental.

J. Johal: There is no relief in that bill that has been introduced by this

minister.

The minister also said that strata owners can use their reserve

fund. My response to that would be: what would you do in year 2? That’s

the problem here. There’s an urgency to this. She keeps talking about

this bill. It doesn’t answer the core question.

At the end of the day, there are 900,000 condo units in British

Columbia — 600,000 in Vancouver alone. That’s a significant amount of

B.C. taxpayers who are now on the verge of having their life savings

wiped out. We’ve offered up dozens of ideas on our side, and strata

owners have offered up ideas that could be implemented right now. But

this government does nothing while strata owners anguish.

To the Minister of Housing once again, why won’t she provide

strata owners real assistance now?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I want to point out that there is a range of detail in this

bill that we have proposed that will bring relief in the long term. I

know that strata owners are living there for the long term, and they’re

looking for long-term relief. So clarifying what should be covered by

insurance is really critical, making sure that we can strengthen the

depreciation reports.

I have to say that the previous government didn’t address that. It

left a loophole. We are fixing that so that we can mitigate the risks,

so that we can make sure that people can get the insurance that they

need. This is a step towards a long-term fix to a situation that is very

challenging right now. There is no doubt about that. No one is

suggesting otherwise.

[2:15 p.m.]

We’re taking significant steps. Again, I want to leave this

chamber with the fact that even the member for Kamloops–South Thompson

said — I’m going to reiterate this — on CKNW, on February 25 just this

year, that there’s no silver bullet. He said that even their own

proposals that they were putting forward are “not going to solve the

problem in and of itself.”

So I know that the opposition recognizes that there’s a long-term

challenge here that we need to address. We are taking immediate steps.

We are eliminating the ability for referral fees to happen between

insurers and property managers, because that drives up premiums. We’re

setting out clear guidelines for what should be covered by

insurance.

We’re allowing strata corporations to use contingency reserve

funds to pay for unexpected premium increases, because we know that

that’s urgent and that needs to happen. They need some help. We’re

protecting strata unit owners against large lawsuits from strata

corporations if the owner was legally responsible for loss and

damage.

We’re also outlining when stratas are not required to get full

coverage. We’re strengthening depreciation requirements. We’re changing

the minimum required contributions made by strata unit owners and

developers to the contingency reserve fund.

We are working diligently, and we’re working closely with the

insurance sector. We’re working with the B.C. Financial Services

Authority. We’re working with the Condominium Home Owners Association.

Everybody has a role to play.

I look forward to the debate in the House, and I look forward to

the bill passing quickly.

M. Hunt: Diana notes that her strata faced a 280 percent increase in their

strata insurance premiums and that they did, in fact, dip into their

capital reserve funds to pay for it. But that’s not any kind of a

solution. As Diana says: “We can’t do that every year. We’ll run out of

our funds.”

To the Minister of Housing, a simple question: does she want the

strata owners to go bankrupt?

Hon. S. Robinson: What I want is for people to have access to the appropriate

insurance that they need. This bill helps us to get there. It’s about

clarifying what needs to be covered. It’s about making sure that people

have depreciation reports. It’s about making sure that the appropriate

risk is mitigated so that the insurance sector has some comfort in

knowing that they, too, can make money in the private sector.

This is a challenge — absolutely. It’s a challenge for all the

strata owners in the province. No one is denying that. We need to be

working together in order to deliver the kind of resolution that people

need.

A resolution means fixing the loophole, for example, around the

depreciation reports. Really, it’s been a loophole, I would say, left by

the previous government, when strata owners could opt out of putting

together a depreciation report. What we’re saying is: why should you be

able to opt out? If you don’t know what you’re going to have to do to

maintain your property, then it creates a significant risk. The risk

profile, then, is a real challenge for the insurance company.

What we’re saying is that we need to mitigate those risks, and

we’re putting rules in place that will help mitigate those risks. That’s

what we need. We need a robust insurance framework here in the province

of British Columbia so that we have the competition that is so

needed.

I know that the members opposite value competition. They recognize

what that means for people. We don’t have that right now. So making sure

that we have a more robust insurance product available here in British

Columbia will be better for consumers. The legislation that we have

proposed will help us get there, will help us reduce those

risks.

The other thing it’s going to do is, it’s going to bring

transparency. Right now…. I have to say, I was quite shocked when I

learned that there was the opportunity to get a referral fee between

insurers and property managers. We’re putting an end to that practice.

It’s unacceptable.

[2:20 p.m.]

There’s a lot of work for us to do here. I look forward to the

debate from all the members on the opposite side, making sure that they

support this bill, to get it moving forward, so that strata owners can

have the relief that they’re looking for and can have the long-term

knowledge that they are going to have insurance products that they can

purchase at a reasonable fee.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey-Cloverdale on a supplemental.

M. Hunt: Well, nearly 15,000 people have signed a petition asking the

government for immediate help. These are people who are now facing

paying more in strata fees than they actually pay in their mortgages. As

one signee said: “This is not fair or right for people that have put

their life savings into their homes.”

Again to the Minister of Housing, will she take immediate steps to

help these thousands of strata owners that need the help now?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I want to…. I guess I’m going to finish off by reiterating

what I started with. The B.C. Financial Services Authority was very

clear. There are no quick fixes, and I know that that is hard. It’s hard

for all of us — I think everyone in this House. I certainly feel for

those who are challenged now with these incredible insurance

costs.

But they also said that everyone has a role to play. As a

government, we have a role to play, and that is about bringing in

legislation to help mitigate these challenges, reducing risks so that

the insurance industry recognizes that there’s reasonable opportunity,

reasonable return for insuring these properties.

Again, even the member for Kamloops–South Thompson…. I’m going to

say it one more time. Even he said that there’s no silver bullet. He

said that even their own proposals are “not going to solve the problem

in and of itself.”

I look forward to continuing to work with the opposition, making

sure that we can deliver on legislation that starts to get at these

challenges, starts to mitigate the risk, so that the insurance industry

sees that there is a viable industry here for them, and that people will

have choice — that consumers will have choice and be able to purchase

product that best meets their needs.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

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

the Office of the Auditor General of British Columbia, the first being the

Annual Report 2019-20 ; secondly, Financial Statements

2019-20 .

Hon. D. Eby: I rise to table two documents respecting judicial compensation in

British Columbia. They are government’s proposed response to the

Judicial Compensation Commission 2019 Final Report in respect

of Provincial Court judges and government’s proposed response to the

Judicial Compensation Commission 2019 Final Report in respect

of Provincial Court judicial justices.

I also have the honour to present the British Columbia Utilities

Commission annual report for 2018-19.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage on Bill 19.

[2:25 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 19 — COVID-19 RELATED

MEASURES

ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 19;

S. Gibson in the chair.

The committee met at 2:29 p.m.

section 1.

M. Lee: The comments made by the Attorney General and the Minister of

Public Safety and Solicitor General on second reading…. I would like to,

just at the front end of this bill, take the opportunity to walk through

it so we have a common understanding of the nature of why this bill has

come forward.

[2:30 p.m.]

Certainly, we all recognize the importance of our Emergency

Program Act and the emergency orders that this government has put in

place — over 30 emergency orders over the last 11 weeks — and the

importance of ensuring that we have a smooth transition, as we go

forward, through the balance of this pandemic and the aftermath of

it.

But I’d like to just start here in terms of understanding, and

recognizing, as well, that there is the ongoing work done by this

government to modernize the Emergency Program Act. So certainly, I

acknowledge that. In the course of that work, we’ve had COVID-19 occur.

That, as we’ve heard from the government, has led to certain refinements

or adjustments or amendments to the Emergency Program Act to come

forward in this Bill 19.

As we look at this, the Ombudsperson did quite a bit of work to

review the Emergency Program Act and the 30-plus emergency orders that

were put forward by the government. In the comments that the Minister of

Public Safety and Solicitor General indicated…. He said: “The

Ombudsperson thinks that we should have done things differently. I

respect that, but we disagree.”

Could I ask: in what areas did the government disagree with the

Ombudsperson in how they brought forward changes to this act and the

emergency orders themselves?

Hon. D. Eby: I am joined virtually by staff, who include but are not limited to

Alex Stirling, Natalie Barnes, Paul Craven and Heather Fraser, both from

my ministry and Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor

General.

I thank the member for the question. I think the core of the

disagreement with the Ombudsperson is that our…. First of all, I think

it’s important the member understands that this bill was prepared

independently of the Ombudsperson’s report and is not a response to the

report, but it does address some of the issues raised by the

Ombudsperson. The core of our disagreement is that the Ombudsperson is

of the opinion that the authority for, I believe it was, two or three of

the orders just didn’t exist.

Our position is that when the act says that the Public Safety

Minister can do any act or establish any process, that includes the acts

and processes that were established during the emergency. So we have a

difference of opinion on that. But it may be of no moment — that

disagreement — because the proposed amendments here in the bill address

that issue, regardless of your perspective on that legal

issue.

The important thing to underline is that there is the

modernization of the act and that work will continue on that process. I

don’t think that anybody expected — but that is the nature of an

emergency — to have an emergency arise in the period that we were

engaging in the process of reviewing and modernizing the act. The

Ombudsperson’s report, his suggestions, will definitely be included and

considered as part of the broader reform, as will, I know, probably

additional pieces of feedback that the Ombudsperson may have to

share.

So there’s definitely a core disagreement on that one piece. But I

think that, in terms of the bill that’s in front of the House,

regardless of your perspective on that legal issue, the bill should

address it.

[2:35 p.m.]

M. Lee: I appreciate the response and do acknowledge that the

Ombudsperson, in his report, acknowledged the correction, at least to

one order, and the understanding that legislation was coming forward and

then went on, of course, to provide recommendations for the government

to consider as to what adjustments ought to be considered to be made to

the Emergency Program Act. Those recommendations, though, we certainly

will be talking through in the balance of this committee

process.

I wanted to note that in terms of…. Because of the significant

body of work that was done by the Ombudsperson and his office on short

order, in the midst of this emergency, provincially and elsewhere, I

think it’s important that we understand and look at some of the

important points that were considered to understand the government’s

responses.

One of the indications is that…. On page 18 of the Ombudsperson’s

report, he indicates that he and his office proceeded with the

investigation of the government’s emergency orders “despite government’s

objections and without its cooperation.”

To the Attorney General, did the Attorney General in any way

restrict the investigative powers of the Ombudsperson, including under

section 18 of the Ombudsperson Act?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m afraid I don’t understand the member’s question. I don’t

understand how I could restrict the Ombudsperson’s authority to do the

Ombudsperson’s job. It would be helpful for me if he could clarify how

he believed that I might do that.

M. Lee: I’m first referring to a statement that was found on page 18 of

the report. It indicates that when the Ombudsperson and his office

proceeded with the investigation, he did so without…. On the top of the

page: “In proceeding with the investigation despite government’s

objections and without its cooperation….”

I’m just trying to understand — having not spoken directly with

the Ombudsperson, only on the basis of his report, which has now been

made public — the nature of that statement.

I would suggest to the Attorney General that when we look at

section 18 of the Ombudsperson Act, there is an ability of the Attorney

General to make certain certifications under the act, which would

suggest that it would limit the inquiry of the Ombudsperson into certain

matters. For example, where the Attorney General certifies that giving

the information would “result in or involve the disclosure of

proceedings of the Executive Council or a committee of it, relating to

matters of a secret or confidential nature and that the disclosure would

be contrary or prejudicial to the public interest.”

I’m just trying to understand, when I look at a statement in the

Ombudsperson’s report, where it is that the government did not provide

the cooperation to the Ombudsperson’s investigation and, secondly,

whether the Attorney General exercised his authority under

section 18 of

the act to provide for a certification, which would, in effect, limit

the ability of the Ombudsperson to conduct his investigation.

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: You do find something new every day, in terms of the

responsibilities and duties of this office. As Attorney General, I was

not aware that I had the ability to stop the Ombudsperson from

investigating using

section 18 certifications. So I thank the member for

drawing that to my attention. I can advise him that I did not issue any

such certifications.

The Chair: Just a reminder that we are on

section 1.

M. Lee: I am just establishing the underpinnings of this bill and wanting

to understand the nature of the review, where issues that were pertinent

to this bill were raised by the Ombudsperson. So I just have a few more

questions to clarify that point.

In hearing the response from the Attorney General, the question

is: how did the government fail to cooperate with the Ombudsperson’s

investigation?

Hon. D. Eby: It seems to me that that is a question for the

Ombudsperson.

M. Lee: Well, I think that opens up a certain line of inquiry which….

Certainly, if that is an invitation to make that inquiry with the

Ombudsperson, I would expect that members of our caucus will certainly

look for that opportunity.

Let me just say this then: what requests for cooperation were

received by the government from the Ombudsperson that the government did

not comply with?

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and keeping your reminder in mind, I’ll

point out to the member that I was quite clear to him that this bill is

not a response to the Ombudsperson. It was prepared independently of the

Ombudsperson, not out of any kind of malice or spite or ignoring the

advice of the Ombudsperson. It’s just that we knew that the state of

emergency would end at some point and bring with it the end of the

emergency orders that have been made during the emergency, and we needed

some way to wind down those orders in an orderly fashion to address the

core issues and try to minimize the impact on British Columbians who

have been affected by those orders.

That is what this bill is about. So I do appreciate that the

Ombudsperson has issued an important report and has a number of concerns

that he has put on the record about some of the orders — three, I

believe — that were issued during the period as well as about the act

itself. Fortunately, some of those concerns are addressed by this bill.

Happy to canvass them with the member.

I don’t believe that the member’s questions relate to this bill at

all, but to the extent that the Ombudsperson had an exchange with my

office and the Minister for Public Safety, I can certainly refer him to

the report. I believe the Solicitor General’s letter is included in the

report as well as the response from the Ombudsperson over a discussion

on jurisdiction of that office. The member might find that helpful. None

of those issues are addressed in this bill.

M. Lee: I appreciate the opportunity to go through the considerations

raised by the Ombudsperson. As I say, when we are called back into

special session, as we are doing right now, I could think of no more

pressing matter than to spend the time of this House going through what

is a bill, Bill 19, that changes the Emergency Program Act.

[2:45 p.m.]

When this province is in a state of emergency, and this government

is proposing a bill that amends that act, I think we should take all

time, care and attention to review the provisions of what’s being

proposed. So when the independent Ombudsperson comes forward with a

60-page-plus report, with appendices, and takes the time to walk through

the nature of emergency order management in this province, I think

members of this House should take the opportunity to consider that

report.

That’s the reason why I’m raising those issues today. That’s the

reason why I believe all the issues that I’m raising here on

section 1

of this bill are directly pertinent to this bill itself.

The Attorney General just mentioned the letter dated June 12,

2020, which is appendix B of the report, the response from the Minister

of Public Safety and Solicitor General. It does have a statement which I

would like to ask the Attorney General…. If he could please explain the

basis for which the government took the view when the Minister of Public

Safety said that “the government is also of the view that it has no

obligation under the Ombudsperson Act to respond to your draft report or

its recommendations.”

Hon. D. Eby: Now, noting that government was already working on the legislation

before we were aware of the Ombudsperson’s planned report, I will note

that there are some specific areas that the Ombudsperson raised as

concern that the legislation does address. In particular, if this bill

passes, it’ll make it clear that orders were valid from the date they

were issued. That was a concern of the Ombudsperson.

[2:50 p.m.]

The second is that it will amend the Emergency Program Act to

clarify authority to amend or suspend provisions of other statutes,

which was also a concern of the Ombudsperson and is contained in this

bill. And it will amend the Emergency Program Act to require an

assessment of the proportionality of the benefits and impacts of a

regulation which amends or suspends the provisions of another

statute.

Now, this bill is not intended to replace the more comprehensive

modernization of the EPA that’s underway, and further changes can

certainly be considered as part of that process. But I note that the

Ombudsperson did comment to media that when this bill is passed, it will

address any concerns that anyone would have that was relying on these

orders.

The Ombudsperson also expressed an interest in having some

additional oversight of emergency orders, in particular, among two

concerns. One of them was that there be an obligation to report to the

Legislature. I trust that the other member has received notice. My staff

advised him the Third Party, the Green Party, has put forward a proposed

amendment that would require the Minister of Public Safety to report to

the Speaker’s office, which I’ll be moving at the appropriate time in

this process. That will address, hopefully, yet another of the

Ombudsperson’s concerns.

We have the Ombudsperson saying that when this bill is passed,

it’ll address any concerns that anyone would have who relied on these

orders. We have another concern of the Ombudsperson that’s been raised.

The Third Party has put forward in an amendment — and I’ll be actually

putting it forward formally here in the House — around reporting to the

Speaker’s office and, by extension, the Legislature. So a number of

those concerns of the Ombudsperson have been addressed.

We have, obviously, a couple disagreements with the Ombudsperson’s

office. The first is that the Ombudsperson disagrees with our

understanding of jurisdiction under the emergency act — in particular,

that any act and any process does not include the acts and processes

that the Minister of Public Safety put forward in three of the orders.

It’s a disagreement. We also have a disagreement about the

Ombudsperson’s ability to review law and declare it valid or

invalid.

These are exchanges that happen between legislative officers and

governments. I know the member knows that. But at the end of the day, I

think a couple purposes of both offices have been achieved. One is that

the Ombudsperson had a number of concerns, and a number of them are

addressed here and will be addressed through an additional

amendment.

The second is that the government, during the pandemic, the height

of the pandemic emergency, was called upon to alleviate the problems

that resulted from significant and quite dramatic public health orders

that had to be issued. That included things like ensuring that

municipalities were able to conduct their business. I can advise members

of this House, as Attorney General, it’s certainly my opinion that that

was done in a manner within the statute. It was done in a legal manner,

and it was done with best efforts.

That goal of alleviating the suffering of the pandemic through

emergency orders was achieved. The goal of the Ombudsperson’s office

around raising concerns about areas of the statute that need improvement

— successfully raised, happily addressed and will also be further

addressed in a secondary process that’s coming.

I hope that helps the member understand some of the dynamic of

this very fluid situation that we were in and our work now to make sure

that those emergency orders can be unwound appropriately to continue to

minimize the impact on British Columbians of the pandemic and, by

extension, the end of the state of emergency. Also, the need to clarify

the act so that these disagreements between our office and the

Ombudsperson are not important about what the act actually means,

because it says explicitly what we believe it means right

now….

The Chair: Just a reminder that it would be recommended that the member

ensure that his remarks relate to

section 1. Thank you.

M. Lee: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for that reminder. The exchange that we are

having, I believe, relates to the entire bill.

[2:55 p.m.]

As the Attorney General just summarized, there are a number of

elements, either in the bill or in his response, that address parts of

the Ombudsperson’s report. I am concerned that there are still a number

of other recommendations that are not addressed.

The other aspect that the Attorney General just spoke to was the

oversight function — you might call it transparency, accountability —

which the Ombudsperson spoke to. That’s something that, certainly, we

can consider when my colleague the member for Saanich North and the

Islands tables his amendment through the government in terms of the

reporting function.

I wanted to come back to this one piece in terms of the Attorney

General’s response just now, and that is, in the absence of the

oversight from the Ombudsperson…. The government is also of the view —

in its letter of June 12, 2020 — that the Ombudsperson Act does not

provide jurisdiction for the Ombudsperson to conduct an investigation

into the ministerial orders in question. As the Attorney General

indicated, there is a disagreement between the government and the

Ombudsperson about his office’s jurisdiction. That is summarized, in

effect, in terms of the statement I just read out.

To the Attorney General, if the Ombudsperson does not have

jurisdiction to review the emergency orders, who does?

Hon. D. Eby: The ability to review statutes for orders or regulations for

compliance with enabling statutes, in our opinion, appropriately resides

with the B.C. Supreme Court. The process by which a party can apply for

judicial review, or review by a judge, of whether or not an order was

appropriately made exists outside of the emergency context as well. The

courts have that superintending jurisdiction, in our opinion, in

relation to emergency orders as well as a number of other areas of

government action.

M. Lee: I would note to the Attorney General that in other jurisdictions

of this country when asked through the court system about the purpose of

the Ombudsperson’s office, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, for example,

found that the legislative purpose of the Ombudsman Act in that

jurisdiction is remedial. It’s meant to oversee the workings of

government by providing an independent and impartial review of

provincial and municipal departments.

There is a dispute between the government and the Ombudsperson’s

office about the term “matters of administration” and how that comes

into play under subsection 10(1) of the Ombudsperson Act. We don’t

need to drag through that here in detail at the committee level, but I

do note that the Ombudsperson and his office are charged with the

responsibility to review matters of administration. And in the

Ombudsperson’s view, that includes, clearly, the emergency

orders.

That’s the role and function. In the absence of that, as we go

through this bill, we need to consider what the appropriate checks and

balances and the safeguards are around the extraordinary powers of this

government — or any government, whether it’s this current government or

a future government in this province — that they will have the ability

to exercise under this Bill 19.

Let me just go to an aspect around timing here. From the exchanges

with the Ombudsperson, there was an indication, at one juncture, that

the Ombudsperson would have the opportunity to review this bill. At the

tail end of this June 12 letter, regrettably — at least, from my point

of view — that window was expressed to have closed. Can I ask the

Attorney General why it is that the Ombudsperson was not given this

opportunity to review this bill?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The timelines on drafting and getting through the various cabinet

committees to get it together in order to be able to introduce it in the

House in this session were incredibly tight. Unfortunately, we lost the

window for the Ombudsperson to be able to provide that review. Happily,

as I’ve gone through in some detail a couple of times now, a number of

the concerns of the Ombudsperson have been addressed both in the bill

and also through an amendment, which I’ll be moving soon, brought

forward by the Third Party.

I do understand the member’s questions about jurisdiction and

about oversight. I think these are, without question, important

discussions. However, I’m not sure that they’re related to the bill,

beyond my pointing out that many of the concerns of the Ombudsperson

have been addressed. Those that remain will certainly be incorporated in

the full process of the modernization of the act itself.

I hope that provides the member with some assurance and confidence

that this bill, which has a sunset period of a year…. That was the

Ombudsperson’s other concern — that there be an expiry date on emergency

orders. It can provide him with some confidence. I’m hearing his concern

about oversight, his concern about transparency, and so on.

This is a bill that expires in a year, that addresses many of the

Ombudsperson’s concerns, that provides a necessary unwinding of

emergency orders made during the pandemic in an orderly way to benefit

British Columbians. It clarifies aspects of the act that both the

government and the Ombudsperson agree, at a minimum, need to be

clarified.

I hope that will lead him to support the bill.

A. Olsen: With respect to the new terms that are highlighted in

section 1,

“COVID-19 provision” and, also, an “EPA instrument….” That seems to

suggest that all COVID-19 provisions were either an order or a

regulation, and they are contained within

schedule 1 or 2 of this

act.

Were all the measures taken by this government during this state

of emergency done through an order or a regulation? Were there any other

powers exercised that fall outside the scope of this bill?

Hon. D. Eby: There are a number of questions the member asked. I’ll do my best

to answer them in order, but if I miss anything, I’m sure he’ll

clarify.

The term “EPA instrument” means the order or regulation as it

exists when it’s made during the state of emergency. When there’s an

order made under the EPA, which is the shorthand I’ll use for the act,

as an emergency order…. Under this bill, it’s called an EPA instrument.

This bill has the effect of bringing those emergency orders, or those

EPA instruments, into law. When this bill, if it passes, brings them

into law, they will become a newly defined term, which is a “COVID-19

provision.”

That’s the EPA instrument after it has been enacted through this

act. That’s the distinction between the two terms, and those are the two

novel terms the member asked about. I hope that clarifies. If not, I’m

glad to go over it in more detail.

[3:05 p.m.]

The second is that this act only relates to orders and regulations

made under the EPA. There are many other orders and regulations made

under other statutes, including cancelling by-elections, amending the

bylaws of various professional colleges, and so on, but this act only

relates to orders and regulations made under the EPA.

The third piece is in terms of availability of access to the

information about these orders. Just for the member’s information,

government has a practice of making all of these orders and regulations

available publicly on bclaws.ca.

I apologize to the member. I should say: “To the leader’s

question.” I congratulate him on that.

To the Leader of the Third Party’s questions, government makes

these orders and regulations available publicly on bclaws.ca.

A. Olsen: Do all the orders related to the COVID-19 state of emergency

appear on schedules 1 and 2 of this bill?

Hon. D. Eby: No, not all orders appear on schedules 1 and 2 of the bill. There

are some exceptions, for reasons that I’ll outline now.

Ministerial Order M179 is going to be added by regulation, because

it is dependent in part on a federal program, the Canada emergency

commercial rent assistance program. Now, that program has been extended,

and we didn’t know that at the time this bill was prepared. We had

expected that it would have an end date and that it wouldn’t, therefore,

be in this bill, but it will be added by regulation. It does not appear

on

schedule 1 or 2.

Ministerial Order M195, which relates to residential tenancies —

it’s residential tenancy COVID-19 order No. 2 — is also being added by

regulation because it had not been made when this bill received first

reading. It was ordered on June 24 and narrowed the grounds on which

landlords are prohibited from evicting. It increased the number of

categories where evictions are allowed. It allows landlords to evict for

damage to their property and to occupy the property for their own use,

but they still cannot evict for non-payment of rent — just to give you

some examples about that, of what’s contained in that order No.

Now, the last two are not included in schedules 1 and 2 because

the reasons for them existing have passed or are about to be, hopefully,

made irrelevant.

Ministerial Order M083 is the original local government order,

which was superseded by a more recent local government order. So the

original local government order doesn’t need to be included.

Then Ministerial Order M161, which was the original emergency

order related to the witnessing of wills, is going to be replaced by the

bill that we’ve tabled in the House, modernizing wills and estates

processes in B.C., including allowing distant witnessing, essentially,

of testamentary instruments through electronic means. The order doesn’t

need to be there, because it will be replaced by a new law.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

M. Lee: I just wanted to look at this particular provision — which is the

prevailing provision where there may be conflict — when this is compared

against

section 26 of the Emergency Program Act.

[3:10 p.m.]

Looking at the language there, 26 does not provide that orders

made by the minister under

section 10.1 take precedent over other

legislation. The question is: why is there a difference in this

provision under Bill 19?

Hon. D. Eby: The reason for that — I thank the member for asking the question;

I’m relying on staff for this — is that under the

Interpretation Act,

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

section

refers to regulations.

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

section is

necessary in the short term, given that

section 6 repeals it within a

year of the bill’s passage?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The amount of time that the law will be in place doesn’t change

that we need the COVID-19 provisions, which are, remember, those

emergency EPA act provisions that are brought into law. They have to be

paramount because they modify or suspend — not all of them, but many of

them — the application of other laws. So if they weren’t made paramount,

then they wouldn’t necessarily be interpreted to modify or suspend the

application of other laws.

It doesn’t matter how long the law is in place. If the intention

is — and it is our intention — that these emergency orders continue for

a certain duration, 45 days, 90 days, if they have to be extended, they

need to take precedence over the laws that they modify or suspend. I

hope that addresses the question.

A. Olsen: Just in terms of the conflicts, what conflicts would you imagine

this deals with? And can you maybe provide a couple of conflicts that

this

section would avoid?

Hon. D. Eby: The Power of Attorney Act is a good example of a law that an

emergency order purports to amend. It requires that enduring powers of

attorney need to be signed and witnessed in the presence of another

person. Now, Ministerial Order M162 says the condition is satisfied if

the process in M162 is followed. If not, for the conflict…. If there

wasn’t a conflict provision, it wouldn’t be as clear that Ministerial

Order M162 overrides that part or supersedes the Power of Attorney

Act.

It might not be a perfect example, because, of course, that’s one

of the provisions that’s not actually in the schedule. A better example

might be the Limitation Act. The Limitation Act says that a person has

to start a lawsuit within two years of the events happening that give

rise to the lawsuit — in many cases, but not in all cases. That’s not

legal advice. Talk to a lawyer.

Ministerial Order M098 extends that time for the period that the

ministerial order is in force. So if this conflict provision wasn’t

there, it wouldn’t be necessarily clear that it overrides the Limitation

Act so that the person is still able to go to court about that dispute,

even if it’s more than two years, because, obviously, there was

significant curtailment of access to registries in the province, court

registries in the province, to file those lawsuits, especially for

self-represented litigants.

We could go through different acts — the Residential Tenancy Act,

Commercial Tenancy Act and commercial tenancy provisions of the law —

and the goal is to have these ministerial orders, to have it be clear

for any reviewing court that the ministerial order comes first. Where

there’s conflict between the ministerial order and the underlying law

that it modifies or suspends, the ministerial order takes

precedence.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

M. Lee: I appreciate that we’ve had some discussion regarding the

schedules, but if I could ask the Attorney General: what was the

rationale to divide the existing emergency orders between 90 days and 45

days of extension?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Individual ministries and, in some cases, stakeholders advised

what expiry period was most appropriate. There were various factors

considered, including how much time citizens needed to prepare for the

order to end, how long it would take to make permanent changes if

they’re needed and how long it would take to unwind the effects of the

order after the end of the state of emergency.

There’s obviously a goal here, which is ensuring that there’s

sufficient time to facilitate a smooth transition. We might not get it

perfect. Some orders might need to be in effect longer than others after

the end of the state of emergency.

An example of that is that the ministerial orders that allow

meetings to be held electronically needed to be extended for at least 90

days, because the orders were made in response to the public health

order in relation to gatherings of more than 50 people and guidelines on

physical distancing. Now, depending on how long those orders persist for

in British Columbia — how long we need them — they may need to be

extended again beyond 90 days.

Another example. The Prohibition on Unconscionable Prices for

Essential Goods and Supplies order — that’s Ministerial Order M115 — is

also continued for 90 days. Again, we and many provinces remain….

Although we have access to significant personal protective equipment for

hospitals and first responders and so on, it remains prudent for us to

be able to manage supply chain issues and prevent excessive prices in

the event that shortages do manifest in some area as a result of the

state of emergency. The need is expected to last beyond 45 days, but

that’s where it is on the schedule.

Those EPA instruments that could be ended immediately, at the end

of the state of emergency, were given 45 days to ensure that we didn’t

have any unanticipated consequences that caused grief or distress for

British Columbians. Really, enacting them all allows for us to extend

them if necessary, if, at the end of the state of emergency, it turns

out that some people…. If people don’t need for them to be extended,

they won’t be extended, obviously.

Examples of orders that government plans to repeal at the end of

the state of emergency are Ministerial Order M094, the Protection

Against Liability Order, which was replaced by Ministerial Order M120.

Ministerial Orders M128, M150, M152 and M166 dealt with encampments in

Victoria and Vancouver.

M. Lee: I would also like to ask why the period of one year was selected

in terms of length of time for the outside date for any of the EPA

instruments.

Hon. D. Eby: I think that there are a number of knowledgeable people who

indicate that the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic may, in fact, endure

beyond one year, depending on when a vaccine or effective treatment is

developed. However, this one-year period was set as the maximum expiry

date for a couple of reasons, even though we reasonably anticipate there

may be orders or restrictions that last beyond one year.

[3:25 p.m.]

The sunset clause is really meant to balance the breadth of

authority given to the executive committee with the need to ensure that

the Legislature works as intended. We believe that a year provides more

than enough time to identify transitional issues and identify whether

permanent changes are needed to different acts.

It’s quite difficult in this period to understand all the effects

of the pandemic, in terms of public policy, and the impacts of unwinding

some of these emergency orders. When we extended limitation periods, for

example, there was an unintended impact on builder’s liens processes

that we didn’t anticipate. We had feedback from people affected by that

and had to change the order.

As we unwind, we expect there will be some unanticipated

consequences that need to be addressed. But we think that a year gives

enough time to be able to extend as needed, but also for the Legislature

and Legislative Assembly to consider and potentially pass, if necessary,

more permanent measures around, for example, electronic meetings for

more than 50 people in areas like societies and for other groups that

need to have large annual general meetings and these kinds of

things.

These are permanent changes that could be brought in, similar to

the manner which we did around wills witnessing, which is in front of

the House right now in a separate bill. The reason why that one was able

to come forward so quickly is a lot of work had already been done on

that — not anticipating COVID, but just because the act needed to be

modernized. We don’t have that for all of the other areas that have been

affected by the orders.

So a year felt like a good balance between the need to extend, as

necessary, given the distinct possibility of a second wave, as we’re

advised by Dr. Henry, but also to understand that if, in fact, something

needs to be extended beyond a year, the Legislature should be the one to

pass a permanent amendment to address that, rather than to do it through

an extension of an emergency order.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the Attorney General for his responses. I think his

responses to the member’s previous questions generally captured the

question I had around the difference between

schedule 1 and 2 and how

one order ends up on one

schedule and how other orders end up on the

other schedules.

I think, maybe to dig in a little bit deep on the difference

between the 45 days and the 90 days expiry, maybe the minister can

clarify a little bit. Is there a policy test that’s been developed to

inform these choices — recognizing, of course, that other items could be

added, at least in the extreme short term, to this as well? What is the

policy test that’s being used to develop where an order may land on

these two schedules?

Hon. D. Eby: I do want to clarify one of my earlier responses, just around

schedule 1 and 2. I thank the member for the opportunity to do

this.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The orders that are contained in

schedule 1 are there because they

are retroactive to the date the emergency started, in terms of their

effect. The orders that are in

schedule 2 are effective from the date

the order was made.

[3:30 p.m.]

Whether or not an order is in

schedule 1 or

schedule 2 doesn’t

affect whether it’s 45 or 90 days. I think I garbled those two. I just

wanted to be clear about why they’re in

schedule 1 and

schedule

The policy test the member asks about was quite a straightforward

test. It was the advice that we received from individual ministries and

from some stakeholders around which expiry period was most appropriate,

given factors like how much time citizens needed to prepare for the

order to end — in some cases, for court registries, the understanding of

the courts about how much time was needed to unwind and to ramp up the

services that they needed to provide as people showed up back in

registries to file lawsuits and so on and other actions and matters that

they might have held off on during the pandemic.

We did that outreach work with some stakeholders and, certainly,

with ministries about their understanding of what was needed. It is not

a perfect science or a perfect test, which is why there is that ability

to extend orders as necessary.

As for orders that may be made at a later date under the state of

emergency that aren’t already made, they are not automatically assigned

either a 45- or 90-day period. The length of time that it continues

after the state of emergency would be determined, again, with engagement

of stakeholders and affected ministries.

A. Olsen: Just following up on the question with respect to the one-year

maximum expiry date that was asked by the member opposite, I appreciate

the previous response. I think that in the context of the House here

extending emergency powers beyond the actual state of emergency, just

hearing the Attorney General on the fact that we have a fall legislative

session currently on the books for the legislative calendar this year….

We’ve also got a spring legislative session in 2021 that falls within

this one-year period.

Just maybe a little bit of clarity on why the government has

chosen to extend that one-year period, especially in the light that the

minister has noted that this House and this chamber is the place where

those extended policy decisions can be debated and discussed and then

voted on.

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The concern that the one-year period is meant to address is

relatively straightforward. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or

cabinet can make orders much more quickly than calling the Legislature

together, getting all the members here and introducing and passing

legislation. The understanding that we have of this emergency is that

conditions can change relatively quickly and that the need to modify or

change orders to respond to evolving situations on the ground might come

on quite urgently. So the goal of this is to allow government to respond

to the emergency.

The obvious question that flows from that is: well of course it’s

faster, but does that mean it’s better? What about the importance of

oversight of the Legislature? I agree. It is critically important that

the Legislature has oversight of government and, in the absence of that,

that there be some other form of oversight established.

Section 3(9) in

this proposed bill creates authority for the courts to oversee any

action taken by cabinet — among other areas of the bill.

In particular,

section 3(9) says that cabinet can only make the

order if it’s “satisfied it is necessary to do so to respond to or

alleviate the effects of the pandemic.” This is a significant

restriction overseen by courts.

Beyond that, certainly, with the member’s amendment that

government has endorsed and will be tabling as a government amendment to

require the reporting to the Speaker of all orders, to the Legislature

of all orders, that will also enable…. We’re in a minority parliament.

It will also enable the Legislature to, at the next sitting, repeal or

change the law that enabled the provision to be passed.

There are significant…. In this situation, I would say there are

more safeguards in a minority parliament. But there are significant

safeguards, recognizing that not all parliaments are a minority

parliament, including judicial oversight of government’s conduct in

ensuring that the orders must be related to and government has to be

able to show that the order is related to alleviating the effects of the

COVID-19 pandemic.

Simultaneously, another safeguard is the sunset period that we’ve

spent some time discussing.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the Attorney General for the answer. He almost

answered the next questions that I had. So that was fantastic

foresight.

Just in the context of that necessity test. That might be the

correct or incorrect language, but where sub (9) says, “only if

satisfied it is necessary,” I think the minister’s response was that it

can be deemed necessary if it’s in response to COVID-19. Is that

correct? Are there any other conditions around “only if satisfied it is

necessary”? Is that just in the context of COVID, or are there other

aspects of that?

Hon. D. Eby: This is limited to COVID-19 only. It’s limited to responding to or

alleviating the effects of the pandemic. “Effects” has its common

meaning, the practical and legal consequences of the pandemic. It’s

important to note the word that was chosen is “necessary,” not just

“preferable.” The words “necessity test” are right. The word in the

statute, though, is “necessary.” It’s necessary to alleviate. It’s not

just preferable.

[3:40 p.m.]

So it is a more strict test than “it seems better to do it this

way.” When you read the test as a whole, it’s limited to COVID-19.

Government has to show that it’s necessary. And “the effects” mean,

obviously, the practical and legal consequences of the pandemic.

Examples would include requirements for physical distancing, inability

to meet in person, restrictions on visitors to facilities, reduced

services at businesses, and so on.

A. Weaver: My question is to the Attorney General on this section. I’m hoping

to get some clarification as to how he sees these enhanced powers

playing out. My concern in hearing some of the aforementioned somewhat

confusing statements was that I got the sense that people were concerned

about potential government overreach — that perhaps, somehow, government

may take steps to do things that, in a majority government, might be

more common than perhaps in a minority government, where there are more

checks and balances.

My worry, at the same time, is that when we are in crises, we need

to empower governments to act on the turn of a dime. I look at many of

the world crises out there. Government has done a truly exceptional job

dealing with COVID to date. I recognize that there’s a difference of

opinion with some of the Ombudsperson’s remarks as well as government

remarks. Those are a matter of legal difference of opinion. I suspect

they could, you know, take this all the way to the Supreme Court of

Canada, arguing who is right and who is not.

My worry about putting in too many checks and balances —

certainly, we need some — is that government will no longer have the

power to do what it needs to do in a timely fashion if, not when, COVID

returns. And it will return with a vengeance, sooner than we

think.

My question to the minister is this. Right now the minister is

armed with a number of tools, one of which is declaring a state of

emergency, obviously — bring back the Legislature and start, you know,

passing laws or issuing some orders-in-council. How would the minister

see a situation like this playing out given the legislation before us

and given any potential concerns that have been raised?

Let’s suppose, hypothetically, the state of emergency is not on

provincially. But let’s suppose, hypothetically, a plane arrives in

Kelowna, and somebody goes to an old age person’s home in Kelowna, and

suddenly there’s an outbreak there. And then suddenly it starts to go in

a few other places. To what extent can the government act —

specifically, locally, regionally — to deal with something on the turn

of a dime that it needs to do, instead of actually calling back the

Legislature to hum and haw? And to what extent does this legislation, as

it’s put forward, allow government to continue to be able to respond in

a very timely fashion?

I can’t overestimate how important it is for government to be able

to respond in a very timely fashion to the issues as they play out with

this pandemic. We just have to look south of the border as to what’s

happening there. All it takes is one big celebration of 10,000 people in

Stanley Park, and government is going to have chaos on its hands. So to

what extent does the government have the tools available to it, right

now, in the legislation, in the form it is presented to us, without

actually having to bring back the Legislature, call a state of emergency

and so forth?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for the

question.

Obviously, front of mind for everybody is ensuring that the tools

are in place to prevent or mitigate the effects of a second wave of the

pandemic. I know that’s front of mind for the Health Minister, for Dr.

Henry, for everybody working in public health and for most British

Columbians as well.

I definitely appreciate the member’s comments about the efforts of

those folks, including all British Columbians, to get us in the place

that we’re in right now, which is a good place. But it certainly is, as

the member points out, not guaranteed.

I will draw the member’s attention to

section 9(1) of the EPA,

which allows a declaration of a state of emergency — not exclusively

provincewide, but it includes a local or regional state of emergency. It

is possible that government could declare a local or regional state of

emergency for an affected area, if there was an outbreak and it was

necessary to do so. That’s one possible mechanism, other than recalling

the Legislature.

The second possible mechanism. This act does not affect, at all,

public health orders. They can be issued by public health, in relation

to individuals or facilities, to mitigate the risk of the transmission

of an infectious disease, including COVID. That is another set of powers

that exist.

The third is, obviously, the powers that exist under this law to

extend existing emergency orders and to respond if the events the member

sketches for us took place within the next year. Those are three of the

mechanisms.

The member is right. This bill could have included provisions that

allow government to create new COVID-related orders outside of the

Legislature. It doesn’t do that.

It is a balance. It’s our belief, in putting this in front of the

House, that with the ability to declare local or regional states of

emergency, if necessary, with the public health orders that are in place

and with the ability to extend these provisions, we have the tools

necessary to ensure that British Columbians are safe, and, not just

that, that the effects of the pandemic are mitigated as much as

possible.

The Chair: Member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, do you have any further

questions?

A. Weaver: I do. I’d just like to put another example. Let us suppose…. I’m

sure what’s going to happen is more and more examples are going to come

forward that people haven’t thought of — the unknown unknowns, so to

speak.

For example, we know there is a requirement for annual meetings,

AGMs, to be held under the Strata Property Act. The government did a

ministerial order, and did so on the turn of a dime, to address that.

Good for them. I don’t know how…. There would be problems there in terms

of strata property meetings and people having to meet the legislative

requirement for an AGM at the same time as you’ve got COVID going on.

What government did is it stepped in and created the ministerial order.

Good.

There will be other examples like this. My worry about this, of

course, is that we don’t know what they are right now because they

haven’t been brought to our attention. If government does not have the

powers to be able to do this without declaring a state of emergency….

You wouldn’t declare a state of emergency, for example, in the case of

electronic attendance at strata property meetings. You could do public

health, but you may not have to do it everywhere.

There are so many examples. You might find that…. I’m going to be

making something up. Never mind.

I’m worried again. Let us suppose something like the strata

property issue came to government now. To what extent could government

immediately respond, on the turn of a dime, to put out an order to

ensure that strata properties did not have to meet face to

face?

[3:50 p.m.]

Let’s say, for example, a by-election in a local government were

to happen. Could they do that? If a local government by-election were to

occur, could they, on the turn of a dime, switch and make it so that

could be done through, say, electronic voting or something like

that?

That’s the question, then, please, to the Attorney

General.

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the questions. If the situation is urgent

enough, obviously a state of emergency would be appropriate. The member

is kind of sketching out for us a scenario that’s just below that sort

of state-of-emergency justification, but where there’s a need for urgent

action. Obviously, statutory amendment is potentially available. You can

call the Legislature together, and you could pass a statutory

amendment.

It’s important to note that there are a significant number of

regulations and policies in place within government that can be changed

to respond to an evolving situation without needing to change the

empowering statute. An example of that actually works quite nicely with

the member’s scenario around by-elections — municipal

by-elections.

There was actually Ministerial Order M082 that was issued during

the pandemic. This was not an emergency act order that was made. It was

actually made under the Local Government Act. There is a

section of the

act that allows the province to issue these kinds of regulations, and it

was used in this particular situation to cancel by-elections in Victoria

and Lytton. It’s an example of a power that exists within an existing

statute that was used to respond to the emergency.

Now, I accept the member’s point, which is: maybe there won’t be a

provision like that Local Government Act provision that allows you to

alleviate the effects of the pandemic. It is really about the balance

between respect for the Legislature and the processes of the Legislature

and the need of the public for urgent response in a state of emergency.

We think that this strikes an appropriate balance, and hopefully — here

we are, four months into the pandemic — most of the major issues have

surfaced and we’ve been able to address them. But I do take the member’s

point.

[3:55 p.m.]

A. Weaver: I’ll just conclude and thank the minister and say that, in my

view, it would be the height of irresponsible behaviour to call the

Legislature back to pass a small statute change in the fall or some

other time in the midst of a resurgence of a pandemic. That is why I’ve

raised these issues, because I think that we can assure and ensure

accountability, particularly in a minority government.

We can ensure transparency. We can ensure that government is

enabled, in

an act, of the ability to turn on a dime to continue to do

what it has done, which is deal with this pandemic in an unparalleled

fashion compared to anywhere else in North America. I would hope that we

continue to do that, recognizing that there will be, almost certainly,

things emerging that we are not aware of, where government will put

forward a change through an order-in-council, and an Ombudsperson may or

may not say: “We have a difference of opinion here.”

Again, I think we just have to reflect upon what it would mean to

bring all of us back to the Legislature, zooming around B.C. with staff,

etc., when we have the resurgence of the pandemic that is almost

certainly going to occur in the fall, if not sooner.

M. Lee: I wanted to come back to the provision that we’ve been reviewing

at length, sub 3(9). The inclusion of the test of necessity or

necessary…. When we look at other jurisdictions that have similar tests,

certainly for a Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, like the Ontario

Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, there is additional

wording in terms of the test. Were other best practices or other

jurisdictions, in terms of legislation for emergency management,

considered when this government brought forward this bill?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is right. The Ontario statute does have more language

in its test. But the

section that the member’s quoting that has more

language is about overriding statutes. The

section that the member is

quoting from our act is not about overriding statutes.

The more appropriate comparison is

section 8 of this bill that’s

in front of the House, which creates a new section, 10.1. In that new

section 10.1, it’s sub (3). It’s a proportionality test, and that, in

our statute, is about overriding other laws or enactments. It has that

proportionality test which was certainly inspired by what we feel is

best practice in Ontario.

[4:00 p.m.]

In particular…. We’ll get there. It says that cabinet can only

make a regulation if satisfied that the benefit of making the regulation

is proportionate to the benefit of the continued application of the

enactment as it is before the making of the regulation. It has to be

proportionate to the impact.

We did look at the Ontario statute, and we did draw from that

statute the practice of a proportionality test in relation to modifying

or overriding another statute.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response. I think it does touch on a number of

elements in this bill which we’re going to need to walk through,

including the nature of the proportionality test, which we’ll get to in

subsection 10.1(3).

Coming back to sub 3(9) then, the Attorney General’s response does

raise a question as to…. This use of the term “necessary,” then, does

not qualify in any way the use of the power of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council under subsection 10.1(1). Is that

correct?

Hon. D. Eby: The regulation would have to already be made under

section 10.1.

So it would have to meet that test to make it. Then if you wanted to

extend it, it would have to meet the test under sub 3(9). It would need

to meet both of those tests.

M. Lee: I understand the response from the Attorney General to mean that

the test that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council needs to meet in order

to bring forward a regulation pursuant to sub 10.1(1) is the test set

out in sub 10.1(3), which is the proportionality test, and that in order

to add that regulation, once made, it needs to make the further test

under sub 3(9).

I think the short answer, then, is that the test of necessity and

the use of the word “necessary” here does not apply to the making of the

regulation in the first place, under sub 10.1(1).

When we look at subsection 7.02(1) of the Ontario act, when we’re

talking about orders that they may put in place, there is criteria for

those emergency orders, which I would expect would be the equivalent of

a new regulation passed by the Lieutenant-Governor here in this

province, under this bill, if it passes in this form.

[4:05 p.m.]

That test deploys the test of “necessary and essential.” We will

come to sub 10.1(1) — which, from what our discussion is, doesn’t have a

test of necessity. That’s one point.

The second point, in terms of sub 3(9), is: when this government

put forward this bill in this form, did it consider the term “necessary

and essential”? Is there any difference, from this government’s point of

view, in the meaning of this term “necessary”? Does it also mean

“essential” as well?

Hon. D. Eby: In

section 8 of this bill, which introduces

section 10.1, the

member is right; it doesn’t say “necessary.” But it’s there in sub

(1) to “make regulations…to prevent, respond to or alleviate the effects of

an emergency or a disaster.” It’s for the purpose of…. It’s necessary to

do these things in order to “prevent, respond to or alleviate the

effects of an emergency or disaster,” so it certainly is part of that

provision. Then you also have to meet the proportionality test in sub

10.1(3).

Now, the member asked about “necessary and essential.” My

understanding is that the drafting decision is that “necessary”

sufficiently covers what we intended it to cover — namely, that it is

necessary to respond to or alleviate the effects of the COVID-19

pandemic. It’s not obvious to me what “essential” would also add to the

word “necessary.”

I’ll just note that the member continually uses the words

“necessity test.” I’m not sure. He may have an understanding of that as

a term of art, or maybe he’s just using a shorthand. I don’t know which.

I’m not adopting his necessity testing, because I don’t fully understand

what it means in law. But what I’ve put forward here is that the

plain-language understanding of the word “necessary” — that it’s

necessary to do this to respond — would include “necessary and

essential.” It is not meant to be…. The word “essential” wouldn’t

necessarily add — no pun intended — anything to this.

[4:10 p.m.]

M. Lee: I certainly appreciate, as we said at the outset of this committee

process, that there will be the continuation of the efforts of the

Minister of Public Safety and his ministry to modernize the Emergency

Program Act. Some of this discussion that we’re having, perhaps, can be

part of that process as we go forward to more rigorously look at the

Emergency Program Act.

I would say that under the existing provision of the Emergency

Program Act, which, after all, this bill is amending, it does have the

word “necessary.” And as we will talk about as we get to sub 10.1(1),

I’m curious as to why the government is suggesting that it doesn’t need

that word. This is a little more than beyond drafting. Given the rushed

nature in which this bill has come to this House, by necessity, I

understand that. But I think that we need the clarity, of course, in

terms of how the bill will function.

I have the Attorney General’s answer on this provision of 3(9),

and we will certainly talk about sub 10.1(1), as I mentioned. But just

to come back to what I understand to be, with the input of the Third

Party, an amendment that will be coming forward as a government

amendment, I certainly do recognize the importance of the reporting

function, as did the Ombudsperson in his report.

Back to the notion or the requirement of one year. I ask: is there

any amendment further necessary to this provision, with the one-year

sunset, recognizing that there’s a further amendment that the government

is proposing to this bill?

What I mean by that is…. I heard the Attorney General say in

response to a few other questions back ago that it’s his expectation

that when there’s a report tabled to the Speaker of this House on,

presumably, the emergency orders, this Legislative Assembly will have

the opportunity to review those orders. And then what — is what I’m

asking — in terms of how will that process work? And if there is a

change on that process of accountability, is there a need to change this

section of the bill as well in terms of the one-year time

frame?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: We had a bit of a discussion. It’s hard to tell. Normally, there

are staff around me, and we turn around and have a nice conversation.

It’s a bit more…. Well, it’s different.

I’m not totally sure, but I think that maybe the member’s question

might best be answered when we’re discussing the proposed amendment,

which I had proposed to move once

section 3 is passed. I do understand

that might frustrate his ability to get at what he wants to get at in

terms of

section 3. I’m not totally clear on the connection.

I just wanted to make sure that the member had received a copy of

the text for the proposed amendment. No? Okay. So I’ll send over a copy

of the text. I apologize to the member. It was my understanding that

he’d been provided with that. This is not an official tabling of it. The

member for the Third Party has seen it.

I might just take a moment for the member to review that and see

if he wants to ask another question in relation to

section 3 and how the

two might be related, which I understand was the nature of his original

question.

M. Lee: I certainly appreciate this and the proposed amendment tabled by

the government to this bill, which will be a new 3.1. So it’s coming

up.

I appreciate the Attorney General noting my concern about

frustration. That is meant not in an emotional way but more in terms of

an ability to work through the provision of the bill here.

Let me just say that the point that I am trying to convey to the

government here is that now, seeing this proposed amendment, the first

question…. I appreciate that we’re not speaking to the amendment yet.

But for the benefit of clarity at this point, can I ask the question…?

To restate it. Under the proposed amendment, there is some understanding

that there would be a report filed and that the Speaker would lay the

report before the Legislative Assembly as soon as possible. What is the

expectation from the Attorney General as to what would happen

next?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that what would happen next is,

potentially, debate in the Legislature or question period. In addition,

there is superintending jurisdiction oversight by the courts, so the

orders could potentially be challenged in court.

I can also tell the member that it’s my understanding that this

has its origins in relation to a commission. I have to admit that I

don’t have a great deal of background on this, but I’ll provide the

member with, hopefully, enough clues that if he’s interested, he could

dig into it if he wished.

The Ombudsperson’s interest in having a provision like this comes

from a commission in Christchurch following the earthquake there and a

process which is more detailed than this, whereby the Legislature has

oversight of emergency orders in that jurisdiction. The goal of this is

to provide transparency and opportunity for accountability to the

Legislature as quickly as possible and also to provide members with

notice of emergency orders so that they could take actions that they

felt necessary, as opposition and third parties will do. The tools are

there if necessary, up to and including legal action.

It is a piece of what the Ombudsperson, I think, is looking for.

It’s coming from a separate jurisdiction, but there may be more

discussion to be had around the modernization of the act, about other

lessons, more feedback from the Ombudsperson, from the Third Party or

from the opposition about additional pieces. I think, though, that the

best approach might be to engage in this discussion about the amendment

once the amendment has been tabled. But again, I don’t want to foreclose

the possibility that the member may have questions related to

section 3

that are informed, then, by the new 3.1.

The Chair: Members, given that other members haven’t seen the proposed

amendment 3.1, including the Chair, maybe we should wait all of the

questions around the proposed amendment 3.1 after we’ve passed

section 3.

M. Lee: I certainly acknowledge your guidance. If I could just express my

concern, that is in consideration of the amendment that will be tabled

forthcoming after we get through

section 3 here. I certainly would, in

the debate on that amendment, be raising questions — including with my

colleague the member from Saanich North and the Islands — about the

consideration around timing.

To lay the report in front of the assembly, through the Speaker,

as we have seen many reports laid in front of the assembly, like today —

the judicial compensation report, the BCUC report…. Those reports are

certainly tabled and laid before the House. As the Attorney General

says, there certainly is the opportunity in question period to raise

issues relating to the report or other reports that are tabled with this

House.

As it is now, we have the opportunity, of course, in question

period to raise concerns around the individual 30 emergency orders.

Those opportunities are there when the House is sitting. We have that

opportunity now, for the next five weeks to come.

I would suggest, as we go back to the comments that the Attorney

General has made a few times now, in terms of judicial oversight…. There

is judicial oversight and judicial review. But when I asked the Attorney

General the question at the outset of who, other than the Ombudsperson,

provides that oversight, I expected, actually, for the Attorney General

to say: “This Legislative Assembly.” He did not.

[4:25 p.m.]

I think that’s telling. Really, even as we look at the amendment

to come, and this one-year time horizon under

section 3(7)…. When we

consider the report that comes from government about emergency orders

and gives this Legislative Assembly the opportunity to review, with

government, whether the orders in the first place were necessary and

were proportional…. These are the two tests that this government is

putting forward in this bill to date. This Legislative Assembly needs to

have the opportunity to review that, and if it’s not satisfied, those

regulations or orders should not continue.

That should be the answer here, Mr. Chair, and as a result, the

reason why I raised that concern around 3(7) is that regardless of that

report, regardless of whether this Legislative Assembly is satisfied

with that report, regardless of the answers that government might give

in response to concerns about that report in question period, as the

Attorney General suggested, those orders and regulations will still

continue for a year after this bill.

There is no connection between this time provision in 3(7) and

this report around accountability. It may be the first step around

transparency that this government is following now in view of the

recommendation from the Ombudsperson. When the Attorney General

mentioned the review, it was an inquiry by the New Zealand government in

the aftermath of those horrific earthquakes in 2010 and 2011. It was an

inquiry.

We don’t have the opportunity of time here to be having an

inquiry, to be calling witnesses and having experts come in and review

legislation. That is going to be part of the next step on modernization,

I expect. But that accountability that came out of the recommendations

there that the Ombudsperson cited is what this government now is

proposing. I think that in order to have any effect, we need to be

looking at that provision, to provide it with some opportunity for these

orders and regulations not to continue regardless of whether this

Legislative Assembly has any issue with that report.

That’s where I believe…. And I would suggest again that the

government ought to consider whether it’s prepared to make any further

amendment to 3(7) such that it would be tied, in terms of timing, to a

number of sitting days after the report is filed. This is actually a

recommendation that comes from the Ombudsperson in his fifth

recommendation, which says: “…that the orders expire after a fixed

number of sitting days of the Legislative Assembly following the making

of the order.” This is after the report has also been tabled. So for the

government to come forward with half of the recommendation, I believe,

in my view, is not effective. It doesn’t give the same level of

accountability to this House.

Again to the Attorney General, would this government consider an

amendment to 3(7) to adjust the timing such that the length of these

orders and regulations be tied to a fixed number of sitting days after

the report has been tabled?

Hon. D. Eby: The obvious reason for not tying it to a fixed number of sitting

days…. As I’m sure the member will remember, when we went down for the

session break before mid-March, I don’t think any of us expected that we

would not be back in the Legislature for a period of more than three

months.

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

If we tied the timelines to the number of sitting dates, the

unpredictable nature of this emergency, in particular if we see a

significant second wave — when we see a significant second wave, as Dr.

Henry advises us — and the wisdom of reassembling the Legislative

Assembly during that period…. I think what he is proposing could

potentially….

[4:30 p.m.]

It’s unpredictable about how long this act would be in place, how

long these orders would be in place. It was our feeling that it was much

better to provide a time-speci­fic….

One thing that I can say to the member’s amendment that would

recommend it is, you know, if we’re in the middle of a significant

second wave of the pandemic, to have this expire in the middle of that

one year, may be worth considering. But I do understand his suggestion

to be limiting, proposing a shorter period than a year.

Anyway, it’s not totally clear to me that the proposed amendment

would achieve his goals of shortening the period of time to make it less

than a year. But I might misunderstand.

I do want to…. Before I spend a lot more time on this amendment, I

do want to recognize that I have not yet tabled the amendment. Maybe we

should pass

section 3 and get on to the amendment.

M. Lee: I will just try this one more time. Just to clarify what my

intention and my question was around sub 3(7), in view of an amendment

that’s coming. The amendment that is coming proposes that there would be

a report tabled to this Legislative Assembly.

I’m just looking as to…. Presumably, the question is…. It’s

actually not clear from the amendment. I know that in other legislation

that we’ve looked at — including UNDRIP, for example — that there is

language that talks about when a report is tabled, when the House is

sitting or when the House is not sitting.

So let me just ask. I’m assuming that this proposed amendment to

3.1 would be on the basis that the report would be provided to the House

when it is sitting. If that is the case, then what I am suggesting to

the government to consider under subsection 3(7) is that rather than

having a one-year time period that is not tied to this report, we

actually tie the time period to a fixed number of days of this House

sitting after the report has been received when the House is

sitting.

Hon. D. Eby: So the goal is really to provide some certainty to British

Columbians who are affected by emergency orders, or who could

potentially be affected. It is really difficult to plan your corporate

AGM or your society AGM if all of the information that you have is that

the order is going to expire, you know, three legislature sitting days

into the next legislative session, whenever that might be.

So the goal of the one-year period is that people have certainty

that this is going to expire. At the longest, it will be expired within

a year. To provide as much certainty as we can around our intentions,

which is that some will go 45 days, some will go 90 days, and there may

be some that need to be extended beyond that. But no matter what the

extensions, that they won’t be going beyond a one-year period. It is a

tool to provide some level of certainty for British

Columbians.

Section 3 approved.

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I rise to propose an amendment to Bill 19.

The Chair: Hon. Members, we’ll recess the House momentarily and return

shortly.

The committee recessed from 4:36 p.m. to 4:44 p.m.

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

The Chair: The Attorney General has an amendment, and I’ll call on him

now to speak to it.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment to add

section 3.1 that is in the possession

of the Clerk.

SECTION 3.1, by adding

section 3.1 to Part

Reports

3.1

(1) The minister responsible for

the administration of the Emergency Program Act must report to

the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly on the following made under that

Act respecting the COVID-19 pandemic:

(

a) an order made under

section 10;

(

b) a regulation made under

section 10.1.

(2) The minister responsible for the administration of this

Act must report to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly on a

regulation made under this Act.

(3) A report under this

section must

(

a) include a copy of the relevant order or regulation,

and

(

b) be made within 5 days from the date the order or

regulation was made.

(4) On receipt of a report under this section, the Speaker

must lay the report before the Legislative Assembly as soon as

possible.]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: This amendment will, as I said, add a new

section 3.1 to Bill

The new

section adds a requirement for the minister responsible

for the Emergency Program Act, which I’ll refer to as the EPA, to report

to this House with respect to any order made under

section 10 of the EPA

or regulation made under the new proposed

section 10.1 of the EPA, if

those orders or regulations are with respect to the COVID-19

pandemic.

[4:45 p.m.]

It also adds a requirement for the minister responsible for the

proposed COVID-19 Related Measures Act to report to this House on any

regulations made under that act, such as to provide protections from

civil liability or to extend the effects of an order or regulation made

under the EPA.

Such reports would include copies of the relevant orders and

regulations. These reports must be provided to the Speaker of the

Legislative Assembly within five days of the relevant orders or

regulations being made. The Speaker must lay the report before the

Legislative Assembly as soon as possible after receipt.

Now, it’s important to note that these reporting provisions will

be automatically repealed along with sections 1 to 4 of the CRMA — the

bill in front of the House right now — one year after the CRMA is

brought into force. The automatic repeal of those sections of the CRMA,

including this proposed

section 3.1, recognizes that these portions of

the act are transitional in nature and are designed to provide

mechanisms for responding to the specific challenges of the COVID-19

pandemic but not all future emergencies.

There is a separate process. The issue of permanent reporting

provisions in relation to emergency management in B.C. is an important

discussion that will be considered as part of the broader modernization

of the EPA that is being led by my colleague, the Solicitor General.

Considering permanent changes of that nature as part of a more

comprehensive modernization process is more likely to lead to

consistency and coherence in the new emergency management legislation

and also allows more time for policy and legal analysis as well as