Orders of the Day

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

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 6 — MINES AMENDMENT ACT, 2020

(continued)

Deputy Speaker: The minister to close debate.

Hon. B. Ralston: I had believed that the member from West Vancouver had reserved his right to continue, but if he’s not going to take that opportunity, then I certainly wanted to respect that choice of his, but I am prepared to make some closing comments.

I want to thank the members for their participation in the debate. A number of themes emerged, which I think bear some comment. I appreciate that we will expect some questioning in the course of the further proceedings of the bill at the committee stage. But I do want to make a few comments in closing in response to some of the comments that have been made by members.

I was pretty excited when the Premier asked me to take on this new file at the end of January, particularly the mining part of the file. I was born and grew up in British Columbia, and mining has always been an important part of the B.C. economy and something that I think that everyone who lives in British Columbia is very aware of. Indeed, mining permeates much of our economy and even the local economy.

Last year, when I was in the previous file, I was asked by the B.C. Mining Association to express my thoughts about Surrey as a mining town. Actually, I did a very short video recognizing that Surrey has 180 companies that depend on the mining industry for their livelihoods and the livelihoods of those who work for them. The member for Langley East pointed out in his comments that his town, too — Langley and Surrey, particularly in the Port Kells region of our respective ridings — houses many of the companies that I was referring to.

[3:00 p.m.]

So it’s not simply an activity that takes place in rural or remote locations. It’s an activity that’s intrinsically linked to towns and cities throughout British Columbia. I had some fun doing the video. I think it’s still out there, if anyone has got an idle moment and they want to look at it.

When I took on the job, I also wanted to go out and tour all the operating mines in British Columbia. I got started on that, although COVID interrupted that process.

I should add that Tyson Craiggs of the Stone, Sand and Gravel Association also pointed out to me that I should include in my ambition the opportunity to visit some aggregate operations throughout the province. I promised him that I would do that, although I didn’t get started on that.

I did set out to tour those operating mines. I just want to talk a little bit about it, because I think it gives a little bit of a flavour of what mining is about in this province.

I visited the New Afton mine just outside the municipal boundaries of Kamloops. It’s not in Kamloops. There’s a story there about a wish to extend the boundaries of Kamloops to include New Afton, but we’ll leave that for another day.

I did speak to the people at New Afton about their mining plan, their effort to expand production, and they have some very ambitious plans. I think it’s significant, because there have been some comments about a lack of investment in B.C. mining. I’ll give a number of examples. Unfortunately, I appreciate that the members opposite live sometimes in ideological boxes, but it just doesn’t accord with the facts of what has taken place in the mining sector in recent years.

The Ontario teachers pension fund, which is one of the largest pension funds in the country, recently invested $300 million — that’s U.S. $300 million — buying 46 percent of the free cash flow from the New Afton mine just outside Kamloops. That deal extends for four years, at which point they have the option to buy a 46 percent interest in the mine, or it could revert back to New Gold. That’s $300 million U.S. invested in a B.C. mine. I think that’s significant, and that’s just this year.

I toured Highland Valley Copper, which is just south of Kamloops. Highland Valley is a long-standing mine owned by Teck. It’s also interesting in the technological innovations.

In my previous job as minister responsible for technology, I came to know a Vancouver company called MineSense, which has devised a computer system that fits inside the shovel of a loader so that each load that’s taken out of the ground is immediately assayed. In other words, the mineral content of that shovelful is determined, and a stream of data is sent to a central point, where it’s analyzed. Then operational decisions are made of where to dig as they go along.

MineSense is a very successful company. They’re on mark 2 or mark 3 of their technology. Mitsubishi Corp. has bought an interest in the company, and they’re introducing that in their mines in Australia. Mining sometimes is perceived as being a bit stodgy and uninnovative, but in fact, this particular company, in association with Teck at Highland Valley, is a global leader in mining technology.

The other interesting thing at this particular mine is the autonomous vehicles. Autonomous vehicle is a fancy word for a self-driving truck. It’s a little eerie when you go there, but there are these massive trucks, which would probably be, I guess, as high as up to where the Hansard people are sitting. They’re huge trucks, and they are operating without a driver. They are controlled remotely. They lumber up and down the slopes, are loaded with ore that has been extracted and then take it to a central dump.

Teck, with those two projects, really shows, in a very competitive global market — a deposit which is not on the high end of grade; it’s a fairly low-grade deposit — that it’s necessary to have every advantage that one can in order to make it competitive. Certainly, that’s a very strong illustration of that principle.

[3:05 p.m.]

I also toured Gibraltar mine, which is north of Williams Lake near McLeese Lake, about 26 kilometres north of Williams Lake. That mine employs 650 employees, the biggest employer in the Cariboo. It’s a copper-molybdenum mine — very successful, long-standing and continues to operate.

From there, I went north to Wells, which is west of Quesnel. People will know Wells better as the town that is a short distance from historic Barkerville. We toured there Barkerville Gold. Barkerville Gold has amalgamated a number of the historic gold properties that were explored and mined in the 19th century during the legendary Cariboo gold rush. Williams Creek, Grouse Creek, the Bonanza mine — there are a number there.

It’s recently been acquired, and again, this is another investment in British Columbia and in the mining sector. Osisko Gold Royalties completed the purchase of Barkerville gold mine for a total of $338 million. That is another investment in a gold mine — again, a recently concluded transaction.

Those tours were ended because of COVID. I couldn’t do that anymore, but I’ve continued to meet with the people in the sector, as part of the COVID response.

We met either weekly or biweekly, on some occasions, with the Mining Association of British Columbia represented by Michael Goehring and Lindsay Kislock. We met also with, in one meeting, the Association for Mineral Exploration, Kendra Johnston and Rob Stevens; the Mining Suppliers Association of British Columbia, Alec Morrison; and the B.C. Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, which I talked to earlier — Tyson Craiggs, the president, and Derek Holmes, the executive director.

Part of that was to respond to COVID. We have taken their suggestions. For example, for the mining sector specifically, in order to protect jobs throughout British Columbia and to support a return to normal operations, B.C. Hydro agreed to allow eligible industrial customers to continue to defer a portion of their bill payments for another three months. That’s been extended to the end of August 2020. That’s a six-month deferral.

These industries use large amounts of energy and represent about 25 percent of Hydro’s domestic electric load. That is the amount of the electricity that’s sold in British Columbia. This deferral helps retain loads and revenues which, if lost, would have a significant negative impact for all B.C. Hydro ratepayers. To date, 26 B.C. Hydro industrial customers have taken advantage of the new bill deferral — including mines but also pulp mills, sawmills and pellet plants — deferring more than $25 million in electricity payments from March through May.

In the mining sector alone, the opportunity to defer a portion of electricity bills has helped to keep more than 1,600 workers on the job.

Let me just quote from Michael Goehring, who is the president and CEO of the Mining Association of British Columbia: “Mining supports more than 35,000 jobs in Metro Vancouver, Vancouver Island, the Interior, southeast and northern B.C. Extending the opportunity to defer electricity payments for another three months” — that’s the second tranche to the end of August — “will help to keep the mining sector operating and British Columbians working through a time of volatile commodity prices and economic uncertainty.”

[3:10 p.m.]

Kendra Johnston, or representatives of AME, yesterday, upon introduction of the bill, tweeted the following comments: “We are pleased to see updated Mines Act legislation introduced to make permitting more efficient and effective.” That’s AME BC, one of the groups that we’ve been meeting with. So there is support for government action that’s been responsive to the concerns of the mining sector.

Let me also talk about, since the suggestion was, I think…. Let me just quote. There was one member who said yesterday:

“We have not seen a new mine come on line in the three years of this government. There are not even rumours of them. Major projects that are lined up on the books to start were lined up on the books under the previous government. Those projects are either proceeding now or they’re not proceeding at all. There are no new major projects being proposed in this province on the investment docket for government to work with to try and move forward. That should say something. That says everything you need to know about capital dollars and investment dollars in view of what’s going on in British Columbia.”

That’s a quotation from a member of the opposition, and sadly, it is just completely misinformed. I’m not going to accuse the member of misleading the House. I think it’s really just living in an ideological box and saying what pleases or matches their political narrative but is completely out of step with the business reality of investment in mining in British Columbia.

I mentioned the investment by the Ontario teachers fund in New Afton. Last March the Australian miner Newcrest acquired a 70 percent interest in the Red Chris mine in northwest British Columbia — $806.5 million U.S. dollars. Newcrest is one of the biggest mining companies in the world, based in Australia. They’ve indicated that they consider British Columbia to be a premier mining destination. They’re very bullish on British Columbia.

I think that the biggest news recently is the Artemis Gold project. That’s a project in the Blackwater country. They announced…. This Artemis Gold is a new, relatively unknown company, but I’ll talk a little bit about the track record. I met with the chair of Artemis Gold, Steven Dean, just on Friday. They purchased this project for $200 million — Canadian dollars, in this case.

The chairman has a really extensive record of mining development. He was previously the founder of Atlantic Gold Corp. He’s a former president of Teck Mining here in British Columbia. He’s lived in British Columbia for the last 20 years. Atlantic Gold focused on gold exploration, development and production in British Columbia. Took the company from, I think, purchased for a very modest amount and sold it for $802 million after building a mine on time and on budget and operating at the lowest cost profile in the gold sector.

This initial purchase is backstopped by Ryan Beedie, who an Artemis director. He’s well known in the real estate sector, and many will know him, also, for his charitable work. He has invested over $100 million in this mine. In addition to the purchase, the backstop by Mr. Beedie, the mine also did another round of financing last week and raised, I am told, close to $200 million.

Everyone in the sector is really buoyed up by this announcement and the fact that it’s going forward. The location is 160 kilometres southwest of Prince George. You go in south of Vanderhoof. It will require the construction of a power line. Most of the road network would be forestry roads, but it will require the construction of a road from the forestry road network into the mine site.

Steven Dean told me he considers the Blackwater mine to be a world-class asset. They expect, ultimately, to spend $2 billion for the complete project. It would employ 1,200 to 1,500 people over a two-year construction phase and 500 over the mine life. Most, 90 percent, of the workforce would be hired from the Prince George to Burns Lake area.

[3:15 p.m.]

They also have an agreement — a very significant and important and, actually, condition precedent to development — with the Lhoosk’uz Dené Nation, the Ulkatcho First Nation, regarding an economic and community development agreement that would enable sharing 35 percent of the mineral tax revenue.

Far from no new mine, far from not even rumours, this project is a go — a very strong, capable team, well financed, and it’s going forward. Sadly, I guess — or maybe mistakenly — the opposition doesn’t seem to be aware of this or are not prepared to make an acknowledgement that steps like this are taking place in British Columbia and in the mining sector. It’s a great sector with a lot of action.

Let me just say a couple more comments about the premise of the bill. There seems to be a resort to some of the usual, I suppose, ideological clichés about the premise of the bill.

One of the many accomplishments of the previous minister in this sector was the Mining Jobs Task Force. That was chaired by the assistant deputy minister of the department, and there were a number of members — a very representative group.

Let me just read some of the names; I won’t read them all. Keith Bertrand, the mayor of Tumbler Ridge; Bryan Cox, president and CEO of the mining association prior to Michael Goehring; Earl Graham, staff representative of the United Steelworkers; Mark Podlasly, a senior adviser at First Nations Energy and Mining Council; Regina Saimoto, associate dean, Coast Mountain College, eastern region; Tom Syer, head of government affairs, Teck Resources; Edie Thome, president and CEO of the Association for Mineral Exploration; Richard Tremblay, vice-president and general manager, Taseko Gibraltar mine; and Alan Young, director of Materials Efficiency Research Group.

That task force set out a number of recommendations, and most of those have been adopted. Many of the steps that have been taken flow from that broad Mining Jobs Task Force report, and almost all of them have been implemented.

The government, the department, has funded and initiated, in addition, a number of other steps.

A standing code review with the participation of industry, organized labour and First Nations.

Allocated $1 million in year-end funding to work with industry and all levels of government to establish a mining innovation roadmap. The example that I gave, MineSense, is something that can be generalized and really hold up British Columbia mining as a global centre for mining innovation.

Allocated $1 million for the continuation and expansion of the Regional Mining Alliance. This is a group that works with Indigenous nations and takes out the message of the openness of British Columbia to investment to global mining gatherings.

Unlike the previous government, we made the mineral exploration tax credit permanent. We made the mining flow-through shares tax credit permanent. We allocated $5 million to Geoscience B.C. for bridge funding. We extended the new mine allowance for five years. We exempted PST on the purchase of machinery and equipment used for pollution control and waste management, regardless of where it will be used.

Among the recommendations of the task force were recommendations…. Let me just read them.

[3:20 p.m.]

“Ensure clearer division of responsibility and resources between permitting functions and compliance and enforcement within EMPR.” The Mining Jobs Task Force — this broadly based group including industry, unions, First Nations and the broader public sector — recommended that, and that’s one of the recommendations that’s coming forward in this bill.

It also stated and recommended: “Improve health and safety capacity and effectiveness, and establish compliance, auditing and establish compliance auditing and effectiveness monitoring function.” Certainly, that’s another recommendation that comes from the task force, and that’s what this bill will work on. That’s what the essence of the bill is.

The ministry has restructured its mining responsibilities into two divisions with separate assistant deputy minister accountabilities. Budget 2019 invested in both divisions. This legislation separates decision-makers for permitting and health, safety and enforcement, and creates a chief auditor to direct a new auditing function.

All of these flow from the concerns and recommendations of the Mining Jobs Task Force. These are important steps to take, although I sense a certain dismissiveness from the opposition about the importance of these considerations.

PwC just issued a report about the mining industry in British Columbia just last week and talked about ESG — that is, environment, social and governance criteria. That’s what investors are looking for in order to make their decisions to invest.

Mining safety, for example, is paramount. The member for West Vancouver–Capilano will tell you that he had an experience back many years ago as a director for Curragh Resources. There was a major mining disaster in Nova Scotia, the Westray mining disaster, where a number of men were killed in a mine. It was a national issue. Ultimately, the criminal law was changed — it wasn’t the case at the time — to make the directors accountable for corporate criminal responsibility.

So I think there are many on the other side, and particularly that member, who are well acquainted with the importance of safety as a first consideration for the mining that takes place in any jurisdiction. We want to have, here in British Columbia, the highest standard on safety. I don’t think that anyone here would disagree with that.

Part of the reason for these divisions of functions is to make sure that that safety function is audited and brought to the attention of the company, of the operator and of the people who work there in order that changes can be made. That’s not just some frill. That’s not just some red tape. That is also a consideration that investors look at, the ESG considerations, in deciding whether or not to make the kinds of investments — I cited a number of them — that companies, finance, pension funds are looking to make in mining in the future. It’s a live concern for those investors who want to make investments in a mine. That’s partly what motivates these particular changes.

Now, there were a number of other questions. I know that the member for Langley East raised some questions, interesting questions, about professionals employed in one aspect of the new division of labour. Would they be in conflict of interest and not able to work in another part of the legislative scheme? We’ll get those answers for him. Those are good questions, and I’m sure that those will be pursued at the committee stage of this particular bill. I know there are other questions that have been raised. I look forward to that debate.

These steps are to increase our efforts to raise the standards of mining here in British Columbia so that it is definitely one of the best places in the world to invest in mining, to create jobs and the kind of prosperity that we wish for the province of British Columbia now and in the future.

With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I would end my remarks.

Deputy Speaker: Minister, move second reading, please.

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: I should move second reading, which I do.

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Ralston: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 6, Mines Amendment Act, 2020, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 19, COVID-19 Related Measures Act.

BILL 19 — COVID-19 RELATED
MEASURES ACT

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be now read a second time.

The COVID-19 Related Measures Act, which includes targeted amendments to the Emergency Program Act, addresses both legal and practical issues related to supporting B.C.’s Restart Plan for the COVID-19 pandemic.

On March 18, a provincial state of emergency was declared due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Since then, a number of ministerial orders have been made by the Solicitor General under the Emergency Program Act. These orders are due to expire as soon as the provincial state of emergency ends.

The COVID-19 Related Measures Act provides a temporary legal framework to allow for flexibility for when the ministerial orders expire. It is important to ensure that when we are able to come out of the provincial state of emergency, British Columbians are not faced with unintended practical and legal consequences due to the abrupt end of orders all at once on a single day. Many of the ministerial orders were made to ensure people’s legal rights and obligations would not be negatively affected by the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, including the economic impacts.

Public health officer guidelines on physical distancing and restrictions on mass gatherings have been critical to our ability to contain the spread of the virus and keep British Columbians safe. But they also meant that business as usual was not an option. Many British Columbians also faced unexpected negative changes to their economic circumstances or new expectations of how their jobs or businesses should run.

Many of the ministerial orders were made to assist people who were unable to comply with the law at the same time as complying with public health officer guidelines. For example, Ministerial Order M162 allows remote witnessing of representation agreements while long-term-care facilities are locked down to outsiders. If this order expires before it is safe for residents to have in-person visitors, residents will not be able to exercise their legal right to advanced planning, which could have significant legal, practical and emotional impacts on people.

Many of the ministerial orders have been made to protect people in the province. However, there is still a need to protect people beyond the end of the provincial state of emergency if the effects of the pandemic are still being felt. Protecting British Columbians is at the heart of all of the ministerial orders made during the state of emergency.

The state of emergency continues for the time being, but government must ensure that it has the tools to keep protecting British Columbians after the state of emergency is lifted. As an example, if the prohibition on unconscionable pricing in Ministerial Order M115 is not extended, consumers are vulnerable to the actions of unscrupulous actors.

Similarly, Ministerial Order M084 was ordered to allow the minister to make sure that essential goods and supplies could be distributed fairly if shortages arose. By extending the effect of this order, government keeps a tool in place to help ensure personal protective equipment is available for front-line workers.

Bill 19 will extend some of the ministerial orders for 45 days and others for 90 days to provide a reasonable transition period. As well, Bill 19 will establish the authority for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations to provide for a different expiry date for some ministerial orders. Some will expire immediately, because they are spent, and some will expire at the end of the provincial state of emergency.

Some, such as the orders allowing for electronic meetings, needed to be extended for a longer duration so that the local governments, credit unions and the Union of B.C. Municipalities are not bound by the statutory requirements for in-person meetings while there are continued physical distancing and mass gathering guidelines in public health orders.

[3:30 p.m.]

The COVID-19 Related Measures Act and any regulations made under it are temporary, transitional legislation, limiting all extensions up to a maximum of one year after the act comes into force. The act and regulations are automatically repealed on this date. In addition, a key condition on extending the effect of the orders is that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council must be satisfied that extending the ministerial order is necessary to respond to or alleviate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

The COVID-19 Related Measures Act also enables government to make regulations that provide targeted protections from civil liability for COVID-19-related damages. The purpose is to ensure that, where appropriate, fears of civil liability will not unduly discourage activity that promotes the province’s response to and recovery from the pandemic.

During the current state of emergency, the Solicitor General made Ministerial Orders M094 and M120, which provide essential service providers with protections from civil liability for damages associated with exposure to or transmission of COVID-19. This was done to support the provision of daily services essential to preserving life, health, public safety and basic social functioning.

Similarly, the Solicitor General has made Ministerial Order M183, which provides another targeted protection from civil liability for COVID-19-related damages to support the provision of amateur organized sport activities, as those play an important role in the psychological, physical and emotional well-being of people in British Columbia.

The protections from civil liability that have been extended during the state of emergency are only available if the essential service provider or sport organization is not grossly negligent and is acting in accordance with all relevant emergency and public health guidance. This guidance includes orders and instructions of the provincial health officer, Dr. Bonnie Henry, as well as guidance from health authorities and other regulatory authorities. This requirement encourages, and in fact requires, that essential service providers and sport organizations operate in compliance with extremely high standards that serve to protect the health and safety of British Columbians.

This bill will ensure that government can continue to provide targeted protections from civil liability outside of a state of emergency, if circumstances warrant, throughout the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic. Enabling cabinet to prescribe targeted protections from civil liability by regulation, rather than setting out the specific details of these protections in statute, allows cabinet to create precisely tailored immunity to litigation as concerns arise in real life.

This is preferable to attempting to anticipate now all of the potential areas of liability that may be identified as problematic during the pandemic and creating a potentially over-broad protection in legislation. The flexibility to create targeted regulations reduces the likelihood of over-breadth and inadvertent protection of activities or behaviours that do not warrant protection.

Protections from civil liability are not unlimited. The act does not allow for protection to be provided for gross negligence and can only provide protection from damages that are related to COVID-19. As with other elements of the proposed legislation, this regulation-making authority and any regulations made under it are automatically repealed one year after the act is brought into force.

Cabinet can specify limits and conditions that must be met for protection from civil liability to be available to a person, as was done in Ministerial Orders M094, M120 and M183. This would allow cabinet to require, for example, that a person comply with the orders of the provincial health officer before receiving protection from civil liability associated with exposure to or transmission of COVID-19.

Bill 19 also contains two targeted, related amendments to the Emergency Program Act to clarify that the power of the minister to make orders under section 10(1) is not limited to only the actions listed in that section and to provide new restrictions and process for modifying or altering the application of enactments in the province. These amendments will apply to all emergencies, not just the COVID-19 pandemic.

Under the existing act, the Solicitor General may do any act or establish any process during a state of emergency under section 10. But best practice in other jurisdictions is that cabinet, Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, instead of the minister responsible for emergencies, has the job of establishing processes or doing acts that may modify or alter provisions of enactments. That’s why we are proposing a change that changes the process and restricts the significant power under the existing act.

Under the modifications, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will now make these changes, not the minister alone. In addition, cabinet may only temporarily modify or alter provisions of enactments by regulation if certain conditions are met, if the benefit of making the regulation is proportionate to the benefit of the continued application of the enactment and if the regulation will prevent, respond to or alleviate the effects of the emergency itself. This means that courts will have oversight of the exercise of this power to determine whether these important tests are met before cabinet moves to modify or alter provisions of enactments.

[3:35 p.m.]

This power does not extend to modifying statutes with express priority provisions, such as the Financial Administration Act. This modification has the added benefit of responding to the concerns of the Ombudsperson that the EPA be more specific about these important statutory powers in a state of emergency.

My colleague will be speaking to these proposed amendments to the Emergency Program Act in more detail. These amendments are not a substitute for the ongoing work to fully modernize that act. Emergency management B.C. continues with that work with a view to using lessons learned from this pandemic to help inform the new act to be introduced in a future legislative sitting.

Before I conclude my remarks on this bill, I wish to recognize and acknowledge the critical role of Indigenous peoples in the management of emergencies in their communities. Nothing in this bill alters that role. Pursuant to our obligations under the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, we are committed to consulting and cooperating with Indigenous peoples in British Columbia to ensure that the laws of the province are consistent with the declaration. As noted, our government is engaged in an ongoing project to modernize the Emergency Program Act, and we will continue to work together with Indigenous peoples and organizations on that process as we look to make permanent changes to the emergency management framework in the province.

Throughout the tight time frame for development of this COVID-19-focused bill, we engaged with treaty First Nations and with the First Nations Leadership Council, and those discussions are still ongoing. We will continue to consult and cooperate with Indigenous peoples in British Columbia as we develop regulations and work to implement this legislation, if it is passed by the Legislative Assembly.

I hope that other members of this House will join me in supporting this legislation that is critically important to British Columbians coping with the pandemic.

M. Lee: I rise to speak to Bill 19 on second reading here — the COVID-19 Related Measures Act, 2020.

We all recognize in this House that COVID-19 has been an unprecedented challenge globally and for all of us here in British Columbia. With these unprecedented times, there has been a need to have certain emergency orders passed to help this province get through this public health emergency. Certainly, the 30-plus emergency orders of various degrees and coverage have been put in place in order to assist in the provincewide response to the pandemic.

As we get through the various phases of COVID-19 and as this session has been called back this week, it is important to consider the appropriate level of response and duration of the emergency powers that are being exercised by this government under the Emergency Program Act. Indeed, what other measures will the government be needing to bring forward under that act in the event of any further waves of COVID-19?

We have learned many lessons from COVID-19, to date, in terms of the state of our province’s institutions — the need to increase the level of technology so that we, even as members of this Legislative Assembly, can continue to meet in a physically safe-distanced way through a combination of video conferencing and more physical space amongst us.

Certainly, as we go forward with some of the emergency orders that the Attorney General highlighted in his second reading speech, there is an opportunity to have legislation considered in this House which would adopt some of the changes that have been done on a temporary basis to date.

For example, Bill 21, which we will be looking at in this House and which was introduced yesterday, is an amendment to the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, which governs wills and estate law in British Columbia. Bill 21 will enable courts to accept electronic wills that are created on a computer and signed electronically and for which there is no printed copy. The bill will also allow the use of technology for the witnessing of wills by people who are in different physical locations.

[3:40 p.m.]

An emergency order was passed by this government on May 19, 2020, to allow for the remote witnessing of wills, and it was retroactive to March 18, 2020, under the authority of the Emergency Program Act. This is one example of an emergency order, which I think we will all find an important change, to enable those who aren’t able to have physical witnessing be able to do that in the course of this COVID pandemic and, also, to make it more efficient and effective for the elderly and others to have their wills compiled, signed and executed.

As was just mentioned, we recognize that the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General embarked, pre COVID-19, on modernizing the Emergency Program Act and that there is more work to be done. On a more immediate basis, this government is proposing changes to the Emergency Program Act under this bill.

I think it’s important to recognize that in the course of the history of this act, particularly since 1993…. The form of this Emergency Program Act has been focused on responding to natural disasters like wildfires and not necessarily on public health emergencies. When you look at the various debates and discussions in this House at the time that the Emergency Program Act was revised and updated in 1993, you’ll see that that is evident in the course and the nature of that discussion.

Of course, in the midst of a global, worldwide pandemic, it’s important to consider what the necessary changes and adjustments are that ought to be made to this Emergency Program Act. Certainly, it’s an emergency which is of a global nature, one that extends well beyond our borders, one that is not localized within only certain regions within our province.

I think it’s important, as we consider this bill at committee stage, to understand from the government what other learnings they have had and looked at from other jurisdictions in the course of adjusting this Emergency Program Act.

When you look at the work that was done in New Zealand following the earthquakes in 2010 and 2011, there was a significant review by an inquiry entitled the Inquiry into Parliament’s Legislative Response to Future National Emergencies. That inquiry took the time to review how the emergency powers in New Zealand should be utilized. In that report, the main themes, which I think are very relevant to consideration of this Bill 19, for us, include the following.

“Executive powers to override enactments should extend only as far as is necessary to deal with the emergency itself and should only be exercised for that purpose.”

Secondly, “emergency legislation should include safeguards: using primary legislation wherever possible rather than broad powers to make delegated legislation;” consider “including sunset provisions for emergency powers,” as is being done in this bill; retain an external panel led by a retired judge “to review orders-in-council before they are made to ensure they are authorized and to suggest any amendments; preserving rights to seek judicial review of the exercise of emergency powers….”

[3:45 p.m.]

A third theme is that “any legislative response to an…emergency should be designed to ensure that recovery from the emergency begins on day one.” I note, with interest, that there is no mention of waiting until day 90 or day 100 to conduct a survey, for another six weeks, to determine a recovery plan. I’m not sure where the Premier got that approach. Certainly, it wasn’t recommended by the New Zealand Legislative Assembly.

In Europe, a recent report entitled Respect for Democracy, Human Rights and the Rule of Law During States of Emergency: Reflections by the European Commission for Democracy through Law…. That was a report that was recently filed at the end of May 2020. Members of the European Commission for Democracy through Law stated that there were three key principles for the implementation of emergency measures, which are necessity, proportionality and temporariness.

The members of that commission went on to say that for the delegation of legislative powers to the executive, there was a need for the legislative powers to have a clear, legal basis. It identified the risk that the delegation of powers could undermine democratic values. That’s an important consideration to keep in mind as we look at this bill and as we consider how we got to this point.

Certainly, redesigning the Emergency Program Act in the middle of a pandemic is probably not optimal. There needs to be further consideration. I expect that with the work that the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General will be doing with his ministry, in a more comprehensive fashion going forward…. There may be those opportunities with the discussion paper that has been out for review.

In the meantime, we are being asked to consider this bill in front of us, and in doing so…. I think it’s important that we keep in mind that although great power can be utilized under the Emergency Program Act, it needs to be managed well. It needs to be managed by the members of this Legislative Assembly.

We’re being asked to consider this bill. That gives us the opportunity to consider how the exercise and imposition of extraordinary powers by the state — by the province of British Columbia, by its government — must be balanced against civil liberties for all individuals.

So what are the basic principles? In my second reading speech on Bill 11 this past Monday, on the government’s introduction of a no-fault scheme, I remarked about, at the outset, the role that each of us has as a member of this Legislative Assembly to uphold and protect our public institutions. Those public institutions, for a variety of reasons around the world, are under attack, to a large degree.

We need to continue to ensure that the trust and confidence that British Columbians put in ourselves, as their elected representatives, are nurtured and are carried out in the fullest possible way to meet our responsibilities. That role stems from a fundamental understanding that in the midst of this public health emergency, we must protect our free and democratic society here in this province, which is governed by the rule of law.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in its decision, the case Reference re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court (P.E.I.)…. It was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in 1997. It stated that a core principle of the rule of law is the constitutional principle that the exercise of all public power must find its ultimate source in a legal rule.

[3:50 p.m.]

It’s certainly understood that any order by the minister responsible made under the Emergency Program Act cannot exceed the authority granted by that act. That should be a well-understood principle, which I’m sure each of us here in this assembly would respect.

In looking at the rule of law, it’s been said that there are three key elements: firstly, that no one is above the law; secondly, that the rule of law requires the establishment of laws to govern our province. It sounds pretty simple; it’s sometimes forgotten. And lastly, as I mentioned at the outset, all exercises of public power must find their source in a legal rule.

I should have mentioned, at the outset, that I will be the designated speaker on this bill.

When I reviewed the other jurisdictions — what New Zealand is doing and what the European Commission is looking at — you can see that there’s a detailed review about how emergencies ought to be dealt with and how the powers that are to be exercised by a government under an act like this need to be carefully managed. What did this province do? In the midst of this pandemic, what did this government do? Rather than have a review, it pushed ahead. How do we know that? Well, the Ombudsperson of this province raised it. In response, the government tried to push it off.

As members of this Legislative Assembly, I think we should acknowledge the work of Jay Chalke, as Ombudsperson of this province, for the work that he has done with his team in the detailed review of the 30 orders or so that have been put in place by this government.

In a report that was just made public on Monday evening, less than 48 hours before this second reading debate, his special report entitled Extraordinary Times, Extra­ordinary Measures: Two Ministerial Orders Made Under the Emergency Program Act in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic, in about 45 pages or so, focused on two specific ministerial orders of the 30 which went beyond the authority of this government, beyond the authority that’s spelled out in the Emergency Program Act.

Let me just start with the appendix at the back of the document, which is a letter that was included in the report. It’s a copy of a letter dated June 12, from the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General to the Ombudsperson. It does refer to another letter that the Attorney General and the Solicitor General had written on May 29 to the Ombudsperson, which stated: “We are of the view that the Ombudsperson Act does not provide jurisdiction for you to conduct an investigation into the ministerial orders in question.”

It further goes on, at the end of this paragraph in this June 12 letter: “For this reason, please be advised that government is also of the view that it has no obligation under the Ombudsperson Act to respond to your draft report or its recommendations.”

Clearly, the government received a copy, in draft, of the Ombudsperson’s report and chose to ignore it or chose not to respond to it — I’m not sure which — because it does go on to say that, in reading the report, the government wanted to be very clear.

[3:55 p.m.]

There is a third statement, I’d like to read into the record: “The consistency between the action we are already taking on some matters and your recent recommendations should not be construed as acceptance of or agreement with all of your recommendations.” It’s coincidental that this government rushed a briefing to myself and the critic for the Solicitor General, the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, at the end of last week and that we’ve seen this bill come into this House in this form.

Lastly, I would say with regret that when I look at the last sentence in this letter, written by the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General to the Ombudsperson…. I’ll just read this into the record: “Given the need to advance this project as expeditiously as possible and, as previously indicated, our intent to introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity, there was a narrow opportunity for your office to participate in that process. Unfortunately, that window has now closed.”

Well, I think that we have a responsibility to open up that window — that’s what this opportunity is — in order to debate this bill, at second reading and at committee, in the absence of a response to the report, when the Ombudsperson is carrying out his duties under the Ombudsperson Act. I won’t go into detail here, but certainly, it’s in the report itself — in terms of the view of the Ombudsperson as to his duties and responsibilities, his powers to look into matters of administration under section 10 of the Ombudsperson Act. Clearly, this government has a different view.

The Ombudsperson, to his credit, persisted. That report is now public. I think that in the course of the review of this bill, we should ensure that the considerations and concerns which the Ombudsperson has spelled out in his report are more than adequately addressed in this bill. If this government won’t give the opportunity for the Ombudsperson to complete his role, we have that responsibility here in this House.

I think I would say that in the meantime, while we are going through this bill and going through this bill at committee level, there is a flag from the report that we should keep in mind here in this House: certainly, we would have every expectation that the Solicitor General and the Minister of Public Safety won’t be issuing any additional emergency orders that go beyond the scope and the authority that he has under the Emergency Program Act.

Or if there’s a need for that legislation — on an emergency basis, on a pressing nature — we should be dealing with that legislation in this House. This is what this bill has afforded us the opportunity to do. We have a special session that’s been called back this summer. We should be dealing with any legislation that this government is considering — on an emergency basis, to deal with this pandemic — but we should also be dealing with the gaps.

We have heard — in question period, from our Leader of the Official Opposition — concerns addressed, about urgent needs, by this government. We’d like to see those dealt with and addressed. This opportunity presents itself in the course of this bill. I wish to quote the Ombudsperson, just so that others can appreciate the area of concern here.

[4:00 p.m.]

“While the minister wields broad powers under the Emergency Program Act, those powers are not unlimited or absolute. Even in a health emergency, Canada remains a free and democratic society governed by the rule of law. A health emergency does not suspend the fundamental principle that every exercise of public authority, including authority exercised by a minister, must find its source in law.” That encapsulates my remarks to date, the importance of why we’re looking at this.

If I may go into a few points in detail in the report, the Ombudsperson found that two of the emergency orders made under the COVID-19 pandemic did not have the requisite legal authority and were contrary to the law to the extent that they purport to suspend or amend provisions of other statutes. The Ombudsperson goes on to say that even if the minister did have power to issue orders suspending or amending the statutes of the province — even if it did have, even if the minister had that power — the Ministerial Orders M098 and M139 do not demonstrate sufficient consideration of the principles of good administration that should guide the exercise of so profound a power.

M098 suspended limitation periods relating to court proceedings and allowed statutory decision–makers to waive, suspend or extend the mandatory time frame relating to their decision-making powers. In application, this order waived time limits related to any civil or family lawsuits, as well as other situations where deadlines may be involved, including tribunals.

M139 exempted local governments from statutory requirements related to the conduct of meetings and public hearings and the passage of bylaws. The order also allowed local government meetings to be held without the public in attendance and allowed municipalities to adopt bylaws more quickly than usual. Just last week, on June 17, order M139 was repealed and replaced with Ministerial Order 192.

It still exempts local governments from statutory requirements relating to the conduct of meetings, public hearings and the passage of bylaws. But this particular order attempted to rectify some of the concern raised by the Ombudsperson by including limits on the applicability of these exemptions and requiring local governments to, for example, provide a public justification if they exclude the public from attending a meeting in person.

As I said, in making ministerial orders that purported to suspend or amend the provisions of various statutes, including M098, and previously M139, the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General has relied on the lead-in language to section 10.1 of the Emergency Program Act. That states that the minister may do all acts and implement all procedures that the minister considers necessary “to prevent, respond to or alleviate the effects of an emergency or a disaster.”

To the Ombudsperson’s point, the Emergency Program Act does not expressly authorize the minister to suspend, amend or override otherwise valid statutes or regulations when acting in accordance with section 10.1. This raises an important question for this House, and that is this: what are the boundaries around the minister’s powers under the Emergency Program Act? What are the powers that the legislator intended to grant?

[4:05 p.m.]

It is commented by the Ombudsperson, just to give some colour to the concern, that if a minister is able to suspend or amend the laws of the province in an emergency, you can have some very unintended consequences, at least for this Legislative Assembly. For example, if limitation periods could be suspended by ministerial order, what would prevent a future minister in a different emergency from abolishing the rights of civil action or rights of appeal?

In his report, the Ombudsperson made five recommendations that would need to be contemplated by legislation to deal with these concerns. At least two of those recommendations have been addressed by this bill. There are a few others, though, that we certainly will want to review at committee stage, because on its face, other than by way of regulation, these recommendations of the Ombudsperson don’t appear to have been addressed by this legislation.

For example, a recommendation is that the appropriate conditions on the exercise of emergency powers be placed on sub-delegates. For example, where the minister is authorized to sub-delegate his or her power to suspend or amend legislation, that sub-delegation must also be limited by appropriate conditions.

A second set of recommendations includes requiring that the minister make public all such emergency orders. To date we’ve been seeing that. But, more importantly, it requires the minister to report to the House to respond to the rationale for such orders and provide that those orders expire after a fixed number of sitting days of the Legislative Assembly following making that order. It will be important to review at committee stage how indeed those recommendations are being addressed and to consider other learnings and best practices and standards that other jurisdictions have put into place.

Just dealing with the bill itself in terms of what’s been presented…. I know that certainly my colleague the member for Prince George–Mackenzie and myself, when we had the benefit of a confidential briefing, were informed — and looking at the act, it’s plain on its face as well — that in terms of what’s listed on the back of the bill itself, although it deals with the 30-plus ministerial orders that have been enacted pursuant to the Emergency Program Act, it’s missing one.

It’s missing Ministerial Order No. M179. Well, what is that order? It’s the commercial tenancy COVID-19 order, under which landlords that would otherwise be eligible under the federal CECRA program, had they entered into a rent reduction agreement, are prohibited from doing the following if an impacted tenant fails to pay the rent.

That would include terminating the lease with that commercial tenant. Every other emergency order has been extended under this bill by this government, including the residential tenancy eviction…. But in terms of providing relief and support to commercial tenants, in many cases the small businesses that are really hurting in this COVID-19 pandemic, those that have no source of revenue because they’ve either had to shut down or they’re reopening on a very limited basis….

[4:10 p.m.]

With no source of revenue, they are suffering as much as any other British Columbian in order to maintain and have their business survive, yet this government seeks to bring forward a bill that would preclude the extension of that order. Now, they will say that it’s tied to the federal program, but the substance of that order is providing relief for commercial tenants. This is an example of the kind of gap that we need to address in this House with this bill. If this government is going to go forward to extend by 45 or 90 days the other emergency orders, where is the relief for those small businesses and commercial tenants?

As the Attorney General mentioned in his comments on second reading, this bill also includes limitation of liability provisions. To date, we’ve seen that for essential services and amateur sports teams and leagues. Certainly, I know that I’ve heard from many of my colleagues about the level of consideration around limitation of liability for municipal organizations, community organizations, those that are serving the public. And even more recently, I continue to hear from members in our caucus around volunteers — volunteers who are serving the public.

For example, volunteer fire departments, whether it’s in the Cariboo region or the Kamloops region, are providing a service to the public. Unfortunately, we’re seeing decisions being made in the time of this COVID-19 pandemic where responsibility is being shirked. Those volunteer firefighters are not being supported and protected in their service. This is an issue which we will canvass more at committee, but certainly, it will be important to understand from the government what other sectors of our province, volunteer or otherwise, the government is looking at to consider liability protection under these difficult times.

As I mentioned, in terms of the permanent amendments, so to speak, of the Emergency Program Act, it will be important to consider the framings of other legislation in other provinces, like Manitoba, under their Emergency Measures Act; Alberta, which has equivalent versions under its Public Health Act, for example; and, in Ontario, the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act.

At committee, we would expect to hear from the government, as they have framed the provisions dealing with the guidance and limitations around the minister’s powers and responsibilities that we should be looking at — what other approaches and framings they have looked at in comparison. Certainly, we see the language to ensure that the minister’s power to be exercised under the Emergency Program Act is to do all acts and implement all procedures that the minister considers necessary to prevent, respond to or alleviate the effects of an emergency or a disaster.

The necessary component is certainly met, as is language around proportionality. We will want to examine that test around proportionality as to when the Lieutenant-Governor is to be determining that it is 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. That test will be important to review at the committee stage as well.

[4:15 p.m.]

I appreciate that we’ve been given this opportunity to consider how the emergency orders have been enacted under the Emergency Program Act to date. It’s going to be important for this House to consider how this government and how the minister can be acting going forward. This emergency may have a life that goes longer than we want it to, but we need to ensure that there are proper limitations and conditions around the authority that the minister and the cabinet have under the Emergency Program Act.

I look forward to the committee stage and to further reviewing the details of this bill.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure to rise in debate on this important piece of legislation. I appreciate the comments from the member for Vancouver-Langara, some of which I will address. This is an important piece of legislation, and my colleague the Attorney General has already spoken about this bill in some detail. My comments will focus on the provisions associated with ensuring an orderly transition out of the provincial state of emergency and the proposed amendments to the Emergency Program Act, which is an act that I’m responsible for.

As we all know, on March 17, British Columbia’s provincial health officer declared a public health emergency due to COVID-19. The following day a provincial state of emergency was declared due to the pandemic. Since then, the provincial health officer has issued a number of orders, using her authority under the Public Health Act, and I, as Solicitor General, have issued a number of ministerial orders under the Emergency Program Act.

The nature and extent of this pandemic is unprecedented in our lifetimes. It marks the first time that the authority to make ministerial orders under the EPA has been used in such a significant and necessary way. Ministerial orders made under the EPA ordinarily expire as soon as the provincial state of emergency ends. The COVID-19 Related Measures Act provides a temporary legal framework to enable some of those ministerial orders, where needed, to continue beyond the end of the current state of emergency.

This will ensure that British Columbians are not faced with unintended practical and legal consequences and that organizations can continue to comply with the provincial health officer’s orders and guidelines, especially those that relate to physical distancing and mass gatherings. Bill 19 will extend some of the ministerial orders for 45 days, and others for 90 days, to provide a reasonable transition period.

As well, Bill 19 will enable the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations to provide for a different expiry date for some ministerial orders. Some will expire immediately because they are no longer needed, such as the ministerial orders related to the homeless encampments in Vancouver and Victoria, and some will expire at the end of the provincial state of emergency. Ministerial orders may only be extended if the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is satisfied that an extension is necessary to respond to or alleviate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. These authorities are temporary and transitional. Extensions may be made for a maximum of one year after the act comes into force. The act and regulations will then be automatically repealed.

Bill 19 also includes two targeted, related amendments to the EPA which apply to all emergencies, not just the COVID-19 pandemic. One amendment is to clarify that the minister’s authority to make orders under section 10(1) is not limited to the specific actions listed in that section. Section 10(1) states that “the minister may do all acts and implement all procedures…necessary to prevent, respond to or alleviate the effects of an emergency or a disaster, including…the following.” This bill proposes to add the words “without limitation” to ensure that it is clear that the list of specific authorities enumerated in section 10(1) is not exhaustive.

[4:20 p.m.]

The second amendment is to provide the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council with some limited authority to make regulations, during a state of emergency, to modify or to alter the application of enactments. Because of the unprecedented impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, as the minister I made a number of ministerial orders that temporarily modify the application of a number of statutes.

These orders were necessary to facilitate compliance with the provincial health office’s orders and guidelines and to alleviate the impacts of the pandemic. Every one of those orders was brought to cabinet for consideration before being issued. The proposed amendment will codify that practice and put the formal decision-making authority in the hands of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — cabinet.

This proposed authority would allow the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to temporarily modify or alter provisions of enactments by regulation only if certain conditions are met: if the benefit of making the regulation is proportionate to the benefit of the continued application of the enactment and if the regulation would prevent, respond to or alleviate the effects of the emergency. This power does not extend to modifying statutes with express priority provisions such as the Financial Administration Act; nor can it raise fees.

My colleague the Attorney General provided several examples of ministerial orders made under the EPA and the importance of continuing those orders beyond the end of the provincial state of emergency while the public health emergency continues. I would like to reinforce his comments about Ministerial Order Nos. M084 and M115. Both of these orders deal with essential goods and supplies, including personal protective equipment and medical supplies.

It is abundantly clear that the global nature of this pandemic has disrupted supply chains and that those disruptions will likely continue for months to come. Keeping these measures in place beyond the end of the provincial state of emergency will protect British Columbians from unscrupulous actors who may engage in unconscionable pricing or resales. It will ensure that essential goods and supplies can be distributed appropriately if there are shortages and help to ensure personal protective equipment is available for front-line workers.

All of the government’s actions during this provincial state of emergency have been about protecting people. We need to ensure that that protection can continue, even after the state of emergency ends, as long as the impacts of the pandemic are still being felt.

Finally, as this House will be aware, last year emergency management B.C. embarked on an initiative to modernize the Emergency Program Act. These targeted amendments to the EPA are obviously not a substitute for that work. There are important lessons to be learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, and I just want to talk about this for a moment and address a couple of the comments that my colleague from Vancouver-Langara has made.

It has been no secret that this government has embarked on a significant, major rewrite of the Emergency Program Act, an act that has been in place since 1993. It was based on the War Measures Act. The act, as the member correctly states, has primarily been used to deal with what we have dealt with in this province in terms of forest fires and in terms of floods. We also know that this province is prone to earthquakes, and again, that kind of natural disaster is what the rewrite was looking at.

It became critically clear during this pandemic that the act needs to take into account what is happening and how we have had to deal with this unprecedented event that I don’t think any of us thought would occur. It’s certainly unprecedented in our lifetimes.

I want to assure the member from Langara that, absolutely, these amendments being brought today that will allow us to deal with the issue of COVID that could have been part of a future act are not the be-all and end-all. They will work right now, but that work in terms of reforming the Emergency Program Act is very much going to take into account the lessons and the experience that not just government but both the public and the private sector and the public in general have had to deal with in terms of how we have coped with this pandemic.

These last few months will very much help shape the new Emergency Program Act when it is brought forward to this House. I want to make that clear.

[4:25 p.m.]

The other thing I want to make clear, because I’ve also seen the member’s comments about the Ombudsperson’s report and my correspondence to him, is that I respect the Ombudsperson’s report and opinions. However, like on many things, there is a difference of opinion.

We made the changes, under the act, legally, with the approval of cabinet and have done so in a proper and appropriate way. The Ombudsperson thinks that we should have done things differently. I respect that, but we disagree.

One thing I want to make clear, though, is that this report did not just appear because of a report from the Ombudsperson. This act, this legislation, was already in the works. The Ombudsperson was informed of this. We understood and recognized those issues. That’s why I said — I made it clear — that the timing in terms of the window of opportunity is closing to comment on it.

It’s because we understood that in order to ensure that this House knows what’s taking place and that the orders are done in a way that ensures that everything is appropriate, this legislation was a priority. The work on this legislation has been underway for quite some time, from almost the start of the pandemic. It was to be tabled at the earliest possible convenience, which it was this Monday.

I just want to assure members of this House that we take the issues raised by the Ombudsperson very seriously. I look forward to the discussion and the debate. My colleague the Attorney General, whose bill this is, will also be able to elaborate further on issues of concerns to the opposition.

But let’s be clear. The government, in terms of a pandemic, is doing everything that it can to ensure the protection of British Columbians, to allow our institutions to function in particular relation to the two orders in question. One on the court system is of crucial importance to British Columbians. The second in terms of local government being able to function, again, is of critical importance.

This government came to this House at the earliest opportunity to ensure that the appropriate legislation is in place, not just to deal with an act that has been in place for over 30 years and needs to be rewritten. We weren’t going to wait until next spring or later to bring it forward, because we do understand and respect this institution and the role of the members in this House when it comes to the extraordinary powers that this act confers upon myself as minister but also government.

With that, hon. Speaker, I want to close my remarks. I look forward to continued debate in this House by the members, and then I look forward to committee stage where questions from the members opposite can be answered in a way that I’m sure they will go: “Ah, that deals with our concerns.”

S. Furstenau: I want to start…. As I speak about Bill 19, the COVID-19 Related Measures Act, I’m actually very much appreciating the debate and the discussion that’s happening in the chamber today.

I think that, as the member for Vancouver-Langara pointed out, there is a very significant role that we as elected representatives have to uphold and protect our public institutions. And the discussion around today’s bill has centred, to some degree, on that role and that expectation. I think it’s very important at times like this when we talk about delegating powers — about where powers are going to end up, about the legislative versus the executive decision-making powers — that we need to ensure that we are engaged in very effective debate and discussion about this.

[4:30 p.m.]

The Minister of Public Safety also talked about how the Emergency Program Act has been underway in a rewriting that’s been ongoing for some time now and that today’s bill is not, in any way, a final say on where the Emergency Program Act will end up.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I think that it’s important to step back a little bit, at this point, to talk about the rewriting of the Emergency Program Act, which, as the Public Safety Minister pointed out, is an old act out of the emergency War Measures Act, because we are in a time in history where we are actually going to see increasing numbers of emergencies, not just the natural disasters that the Minister for Public Safety spoke to — earthquakes and things like that, which we have no control over. But we are going to see increasing numbers of emergencies because of our actions as humans on this planet.

We’ve seen historic fire seasons in British Columbia, several in the last number of years. We are seeing flooding events that are unprecedented. We know that these disasters are very much related to climate change and the impacts of climate change.

Right now we are in the midst of a global pandemic, COVID-19, which is yet another zoonotic disease that has emerged in our global community, along with SARS and MERS and Ebola, all of which are zoonotic diseases — diseases which have transferred from animals to humans. The epidemiologists have been, for many years, identifying that we’ve indeed created conditions that make these diseases more prevalent.

I think that in the midst of this pandemic, yes, we have to focus on the very serious issues that we are facing today as a result of the pandemic. We also have to ask ourselves: what are we going to do to avoid what has become an increasingly sped up process of seeing the emergence of these diseases, which are very serious and could become more serious? There is also an intersection between these pandemics — these zoonotic diseases — and climate change. So we are actually looking at conditions that humans have created that are making our world and our societies more frail and challenging.

So of course, we need to be looking at our Emergency Program Act here in British Columbia, and we have to constantly be asking ourselves: how do we balance our capacity to deal with emergencies with our absolute commitment to ensuring that our institutions and democracy are in no way eroded in the course of these emergencies and our responses to them?

Bill 19, the COVID-19 Related Measures Act, is a bill about the nature of emergencies that extend beyond a typical state of emergency, the power a government has or may need to have to address these emergencies and the checks and balances that are placed on these powers.

COVID-19 has tested our province and our institutions in fundamental ways. Under a state of emergency, government has had to draw upon sweeping powers that have profound impacts on our communities, our businesses and the lives of every British Columbian. What’s different this time from other emergencies is that there is no clear end point for a pandemic. This is not a fire season with a predictable end. We don’t yet know how long a vaccine may take to develop and distribute. We don’t know if we will see a second wave necessitating another state of emergency.

For this reason, Bill 19 proposes that orders enacted under a state of emergency be able to be extended beyond the end of that state of emergency. This concept is not fundamentally a problem. And while we do not want to remain in a state of emergency for any longer than we have to, it is clear that certain provisions, whether it is social distancing or regulations on the normal function of business and economic life, may need to, in fact, remain in place. However, if we are going to look at expanding these powers, we need to ensure that there are sufficient checks and balances on them.

[4:35 p.m.]

The Ombudsperson’s report earlier this week, which asked some hard questions about the use of these powers, is one of the factors that seems to help to necessitate this act. There remain some additional recommendations that, so far, seem outstanding in this legislation.

The larger question that our caucus thinks needs answering is: if we are to extend the impact of orders enacted in a state of emergency beyond the end of that state of emergency, what role should the Legislative Assembly play in oversight?

Overall, there’s been too large of a trend away from ensuring an adequate role for the Legislative Assembly in overseeing the powers of government. That doesn’t just relate to states of emergency. Legislation is passed in here that is enabling legislation, and then government has the power to add the regulations, meaning that those of us who are elected provide power to government, but the limitations and scope of that power are not fully defined.

I recognize the need for flexibility and adaptability in a rapidly changing world, but I argue that that flexibility and adaptability must be balanced against transparency and accountability. For this bill, we have a number of questions for the minister about the limitations and oversight of these powers, and we remain uncertain about whether making a permanent change to the Emergency Program Act is warranted at this time.

While we will be supporting this bill at second reading, given the unprecedented nature of the emergency that we are in, we do have a number of questions about this legislation that we need to understand before we will be able to support it beyond that point.

R. Coleman: I’m pleased to rise and put my two cents’ worth in with regards to Bill 19, the COVID-19 Related Measures Act, 2020. The bill appears to codify some things that came through emergency measures that were put in place in the state of emergency and extend it beyond a state of emergency, should it expire.

I think the first thing I’d like to talk about, though, is how daunting it is for a minister to be advised that they’re needed or required or recommended to actually invoke a state of emergency at whatever level. Because you are at that point making a decision that can impact on people’s personal lives — sometimes on their personal or family finances; or sometimes, in general, just their mental health.

I came across this the first time when I got elected in 2001 and was appointed as Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General. Now, I’d only been a minister for a short period of time when 9/11 happened in New York. I used to carry a pager. Well, not many people listening will know what that is. But my pager went off very early in the morning. The page was from the director at police services and, as it turned out, not just from him but the director of emergency management B.C.

The conversation went something like this: “Minister, we need you, if you could possibly get to the office to sign a state of emergency order — not provincial but on one for a certain issue — with regard to the towers, the Twin Towers in New York.” I should say that before he said that to me, he said, “Turn your TV on,” and I saw the second plane hit the towers.

He continued to advise me that I had the powers, which I didn’t know how extensive they were. I didn’t know I actually had them. I’d only been a minister for a short period of time, and emergency management was really more about fires and floods and that sort of stuff.

But he advised me that there were over 6,000 people on airplanes that were going to land in Vancouver in the next few hours with nowhere to go, that they were from countries from all over the world because U.S. airspace had been closed, that we needed to find accommodations and set up a triage so we could actually manage the immigration issues and the stuff with passports and everything else of 6,000 people. We needed to do it in a few hours.

So that meant that you needed to mobilize. You mobilize your urban search and rescue team, if they’re available; firefighters; police; and people like that.

[4:40 p.m.]

The second thing I was told I needed to do as I did this order was to ensure that what they had put in place was actually covered under the emergency act. That was to send a police officer to every home of every single person that worked in the U.S. consulate in Vancouver, to guard the consulate itself and to be there. So that happened.

Now, in 2003, I happened to be…. In the summer of 2003, there had been some forest fires in the interior of B.C. What it was is that I happened to be in Edmonton on holidays. I got this call: “Minister, you need to declare a provincewide state of emergency.” The first time it had been done ever, if not in decades. So I went to the RCMP headquarters in Edmonton — for K division. I did the document and sent it back. The advice I got was that it’d be a good thing if the minister was back in B.C. if he’s going to be declaring a provincewide state of emergency.

What I learned through that process was that as you move with an emergency, the power and the strength under the emergency order given by a minister, like the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General did on COVID, is pretty sweeping. At one point in time, in the fires of 2003, we made an order that basically allowed the government to take over every single employee and every single piece of fire equipment in the entire province of British Columbia. It gave us the power to have a fire truck from Saanich go to Surrey so that we could send two from Surrey to the Interior to be able to help to fight the fires.

As you go through this, you find out that in actual fact, you are trampling on a lot of feet with regards to local government and their firefighters and their community protection and with regards to people and evacuations. In Kelowna, we had to evacuate 30,000 people, and it really is that when the order is given, you have to go.

As we went through that whole thing, I was stunned at one point during the fires before we lost the number of homes we lost in Kelowna on that one fateful day. The fire was basically making its own weather. What I was struck with was the power that I was asked to do…. In order to try to stop that fire, it was: “Minister, we need your approval under the emergency powers to go bulldoze — take down ten $300,000 to $500,000 houses in Kelowna.” I actually said yes.

Unfortunately, all the lookie-loos and the people that were on the road going up into the area where the fire was made it impossible for us to get the equipment in to be able to do that — to get, basically, the firewall that we wanted, or the fire stop set up to save the rest of the subdivision — and the fire took over.

I also had to deal with emergency issues with regards to avian flu and flooding. Sometimes those were more localized, but every time you did it, it was certainly a significant challenge to really understand and be aware of that significant responsibility that you were handed and the powers that come with it to make sure you manage it for the best of the citizens of British Columbia, and fairly. Failure to do that really takes away the notion that those powers should exist in the first place.

This legislation, Bill 19, will allow for provisions created in response to the COVID-19 pandemic to be formalized and unwound as appropriate after the provincial state of emergency, and that is there anyway. However, because it allows for some of these things that were done during the state of emergency to be put into legislation, it is effectively codifying the actions taken during the state of emergency.

That makes me nervous. It makes me nervous because the powers that are there are for a reason. They’re there for a state of emergency, not to be enhanced or used for other uses after the state of emergency, going forward.

[4:45 p.m.]

It puts into law the current ministerial orders under section 10 and section 10(1) of the Emergency Program Act in relation to the COVID pandemic. It makes it so the ministerial orders which would have become law under royal assent of Bill 19 are automatically repealed 45 to 90 days after the state of emergency expires or is cancelled. Without these provisions, all the ministerial orders made by the Solicitor General under the Emergency Program Act would end immediately at the conclusion of the provincial state of emergency.

This is supposed to help these orders to phase out. But some of them will go on for as long as a year after the end of the state of emergency. I would submit to the House that some of those orders are actually affecting people’s right to be able to participate in the public process. I don’t disagree that we could go virtual with regards to things like municipal laws being made and public hearings and those sorts of things. But let’s remember that at some point in time, people need to be allowed to actually appear before the people they want to deal with.

The orders-in-council may also provide the things which separate some of this from other things. So this act authorizes the creation of regulations respecting actions for damages related to the pandemic, to provide protection from civil liability. That’s what the emergency act is for during the period of the emergency.

To take it further out, for example, to emergency orders to protect essential workers and providers such as child care operators and amateur sports organizations from liability, is something that certainly needs to be discussed in this piece of legislation. It is allowed for under the emergency act. Codifying it is the question you want to ask yourself with regards to how it should be done in this particular of piece of legislation or by regulation.

There is one thing in this act. It builds on a sunset clause of one year. So one year after this bill is enacted, all of these provisions would automatically be repealed. However, it also proposes permanent amendments to the Emergency Program Act. Those provisions need a great deal more discussion than arriving on the floor of this Legislature at this time, because they have a long-term effect and impact on how we will deal with emergencies in the future and how we will manage that significant power.

I have no doubt that the Minister of the Attorney General and the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, who have the power to create the provincewide emergency, have thought about this a great deal — all of the powers they had under the Emergency Program Act to do the things they needed to do to protect the citizens of British Columbia.

In so doing, some of the things that were done actually had an impact on people directly. It affected them economically. It affects them personally. They would like some certainty as to when their lives could come back to normal, or, more importantly, they would like to know when some of these regulations that are proposed or some of these protections or continuations that are in this act will no longer be there, because they have some planning to do for their own families and for their lives.

Now, the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General mentioned the Ombudsman piece because he had had a conversation with the Ombudsman. In fact, he would be making some changes of some criticisms that he had of when they were in the emergency period. Basically, he criticized in a report he gave to government. Now, we should recognize that in a state of emergency, decisions are often made very quickly, on the fly. I believe they are made for the benefit of British Columbians and their public safety. I know that as you go through this, sometimes you might step over an interpretation of a law or a piece of legislation.

Well, the Ombudsman’s report, made known to the government last week and released publicly on Monday night, said two of the government’s emergency orders made during the COVID-19 pandemic were, in fact, illegal, because the government did not have the requisite legal authority. I think it’s a bit strong language, because decisions have to be made, as I say, in public safety, and they have to be done, sometimes, very quickly.

Of the two orders in question, one suspends litigation periods and allows statutory decision–makers to waive, suspend or extend the mandatory time frame relating to their decision-making powers. An application is ordered to waive time limits related to any civil or family lawsuits as well as other situations where deadlines may be involved, including tribunals.

[4:50 p.m.]

It exempted local government from statutory requirements related to the conduct of meetings, public hearings and passages of bylaws. The order also allowed local government meetings to be held without the public in attendance and allowed municipalities to adopt laws more quickly than usual. This order was repealed and replaced to include safeguards against arbitrary, inconsistent decision-making, but that still violated the law, according to the Ombudsman.

However, I don’t think anybody would argue that those weren’t things that probably needed to happen. The function of the daily operations of governments in British Columbia needed to take place. The Ombudsman also said: “In a provincial emergency, the Solicitor General has additional extraordinary powers….We investigated whether those extra powers include the ability…to temporarily amend B.C. statutes, and we concluded the minister does not have the authority, even in an emergency.”

It’s a legal argument, legitimate and probably correct, but the reality is that in the report, the Ombudsman made five recommendations to the government that should be included in the legislation. The government has the two that I just addressed included in this legislation to fix the concerns of the Ombudsman. The other three don’t appear to be completely addressed in Bill 19 — the concerns of the Ombudsman — and we will certainly discuss those three during the committee stage of the debate. The bill also enacts into law the current ministerial orders, like I said earlier, and those are important to have a discussion around, because they have a significant impact on people.

Now, as I went through the legislation, concerns started to flag for me in some areas. There are a couple of schedules in the legislation which allow for things that would be done under the state of emergency that has been done to continue on if, in fact, they go the whole year. I just want to give one example of what that means and the nervousness there is about the one piece of schedule 2 where it says that they could continue to do the residential tenancy changes for up to a year. Now, today the government removed some of the clauses, like issues with regards to landlord and tenancy relationships — by press conference — but they did not remove the one of evictions or the non-payment of rent.

This is a big issue — bigger than we think. In the market of residential tenancy, there are rights between the property owner and the tenant. The relationship is: “I am going to give you a piece of my property to live in, and you will pay me rent to live there.” It’s governed under the Residential Tenancy Act by an actual landlord-tenant agreement that’s online and can be modified in agreement between the parties. That’s a given.

There are a number of types of businesses in residential tenancy. There are large companies that actually manage huge portfolios of residential tenancy, usually apartment buildings, en bloc. They operate those, and they have professional management with regards to their tenants. There are also real estate investment trusts, which are actually public companies that invest the money and manage it on behalf of stockholders and shareholders and, oftentimes, many times, in RRSP portfolios and others.

There’s also the secondary investment, the investment of the people that are presently being hurt in my riding and in ridings across the entire province of B.C. The prospect of this thing being extended for up to a year, with regards to no evictions and no ability to deal with the non-payment of rent, is very troubling. I have ten files alone, in my office, of people whose tenants have told them, as soon as the government put the order in place: “You can’t evict me, and I’m not paying my rent.” Those people, every month between them, are losing, somewhere in total of the ten files, over $15,000 a month.

At the back end of each one of those is a mortgage on a house, where they live in the rest of the home. They’re providing, in a time when housing is short, residential tenancies for tenants. But they’re not getting paid.

[4:55 p.m.]

Six of the ten tenants have also refused to fill out the form to even get the government piece of the subsidy to help to pay the landlord for their rent, because I think the government made a fundamental mistake in saying that we’d leave that up to the tenant and not deal directly with the people who actually own the properties. So that’s six of the ten.

Now, you imagine what’s happening at the back end. One young couple who bought their home with the notion of a mortgage-helper have been told by their bank that they need to find more cash for more equity in their home, because they will not recognize the revenue they would normally get from their suite as part of their income for mortgage purposes.

What does that mean? If they can’t get the capital, they’re into a higher-interest second mortgage, or they’d have to sell their house. But they can’t sell their house because they can’t give vacant possession of the house if the tenant is still in the house. Yet, that particular couple are out $6,000 to date on money they would have had as income from their tenant.

When you think about this, you’ve got to think down the road and say: what does this mean? A couple of financial institutions said: “It’s okay. We’ll forgive some of your mortgage, and we’ll defer it.” Well, that’s just more debt at the back end. That’s more interest to be paid at the back end and money you were expecting to pay out as you had your relationship with your tenants.

The other sad part about these ten, which is the one that bothers me the most, is that seven of the tenants of the ten have not been unemployed during COVID. They’ve actually had their jobs and said: “We’re just not paying rent. We don’t have to, because you can’t kick us out.” Things will come home to roost at a point in time in the next few months where a whole bunch of vacancies is going to start to take place in the marketplace because of evictions once you find out that these people, sooner or later, have to pay their rent.

To the credit of the Premier, at the time this was done, he said to people in B.C.: “You still have a responsibility to pay your rent. We’re prepared to help, but you can’t walk away from that responsibility.”

The challenge of this is that we’re not talking about some big institutional investor. I thought I’d let people know, after talking to my ten people, what these folks did for a living. Three of them are health care workers that own these homes with a suite, and they’re not getting paid. They’re people that are out there worried about their finances but taking care of the people in our hospitals and our care homes while COVID is going on.

Two of them are police officers out there doing their shift, doing their job and having the stress back home that the rent isn’t being paid on the suite that helps to pay the mortgage on the house. Five other ones are construction workers, and the rest of them are people that work within the community, three of them with non-profits. A couple of them are people who are staying at home with their children. It’s a lot of stress.

We need to recognize that we can’t afford to codify for another year the fact that people don’t have to pay their rent because they can’t be evicted for failure to pay, yet that’s what we’ve done during COVID. We have to recognize going forward that this is very important.

Now, a number of these tenants actually receive rent assistance, if you can imagine — a rent assistance program from the province. In some cases, a portion of the rent is paid to the landlord. But they’re being subsidized by us, the taxpayers, to put people at financial risk who actually are providing the housing in B.C. So I think it’s important that we make sure we’re very, very aware of this situation as we come forward.

I have one constituent who cannot settle the estate of their parents. They need to sell the house to settle the estate with their siblings — one of them needs it for very personal reasons — but are unable to do so because they cannot provide vacant possession of the home with a rental tenant in it, where their parents had to move from when they got sick and then passed away.

[5:00 p.m.]

So what about these people? An emergency measure isn’t meant to hurt them. It’s not meant to go to the grassroots of our communities and take away people’s lives and financial positions. It’s meant to strike a balance, and that balance needed to be struck at the very beginning of the program. In fact, if you’re going to have a program to help tenants and landlords, make sure there’s a relationship that you can directly deal with the persons that are actually carrying the weight, depth and cost of the unit that’s being rented.

Can you imagine if you have the situation where somebody says: “I’m not paying my rent, because you can’t evict me. Oh, and by the way, I’m not filling out the paperwork for you to get the money from government to help even with a small portion of my rent”? There are too many files in my office and too many who called me from around the province on that particular issue. That’s why I’m concerned about the bill, because of the length of time it allows for things like residential tenancy under section 2 to continue. It’s important that we’re aware of that as we go through this.

Now, if you look at it, there are 21 ministerial order titles under schedule 2 of this bill. They’re there because of a state of emergency, and now somebody wants to codify them. So during the period of time of debate and particularly…. I know the critic will be canvassing these things, because they’re very important to understand and very important that we recognize we can’t use the state of emergency to put into legislation and codify things that are there for the people to protect the people of B.C. during a state of emergency — not to put those orders in place continuously after one has expired. I think that’s important.

As we go through with our state of emergency, get this thing done and go through this legislation, let’s keep in mind the people that we affect. I know when I had to deal with a state of emergency, the most telling, most difficult thing was: if we put this in place provincewide and we take these extraordinary measures in order to protect the public — and actually, in some cases, displace the public — are we keeping the public in mind? Are we keeping in mind those that we’re affecting and that we’re hurting?

You can imagine those 30,000 people that got evacuated in Kelowna. What did they come back to? What was it, and what decisions had to be made — and subsequent ones over the years that have had to be done?

It’s always difficult, no matter whether you’re in government or not. But every member of this House needs to know that this state of emergency stuff is there for a reason. It has extraordinary powers. But it’s supposed to be used for the period of time that it’s needed, and when it expires, expires. It doesn’t come with long-term damage to citizens going forward when the state of emergency is over. It’s really, really important.

Without it — without that importance in mind and the caring for our people — we basically make the notion that there’s a time when government has to step up and use extraordinary powers on behalf of all citizens irrelevant, if we abuse it after the fact. So as we debate this bill, the important piece will be: is any of that being done after the fact? Is anything that’s in this bill — in both schedule 1 and schedule 2 — going to actually take what should only be done during a state of emergency and codify it into a piece of legislation to continue it forward?

If some of the things that needed to be changed — for instance, changes to how we might do public hearings and things, but maybe that should be in the Municipal Act for future changes so we can do those and actually debate them on behalf of our citizens and not in isolation in an emergency like this.

I think the people of British Columbia should be proud about how everybody — all political parties, but everybody else — have actually handled this thing to date by working together. Now as we come through it, let’s keep in mind that we work together because we want to save lives, protect people and have a strong province coming out the other end.

Let’s not use this the wrong way as we finish this state of emergency. Let’s use it the right way. The right way is keeping in mind the very people that have been negatively affected by decisions that have been made during this period of time because they were done on behalf of all citizens, knowing that they might have an effect on people. Maybe we need to learn some lessons in how we can adjust for those folks that are facing some of these challenges today.

[5:05 p.m.]

I must say I congratulate everybody that’s worked on this, and I thank my health care workers. The saddest conversation I had, though, was the health care worker who told me: “My husband is a police officer, and I’m working in health care. We’re both considered emergency personnel, and the people that are occupying our basement aren’t paying the bills. This is hard enough with what we have to do with finding certain daycare options for both of us, being there to be able to take care of people and then having, at the same time — when you’re banging your pots and pans at seven o’clock every night, which we appreciate — knowing that while this is going on, we’re actually being financially hurt in the back, through the back.”

You can never forget that when you do an emergency order, it has a universal impact and somebody is affected. And you do it for the benefit long term or it’s a short term, for the period of the time of the emergency. When it’s over, it expires.

So be careful what you decide to codify in this legislation. That basically will affect people after the emergency is over. Remember, they’ve got families. They’ve got jobs. They’ve got bills to pay. You can’t just make a decision that says that somebody doesn’t have to do something. It hurts them long term, financially.

It’s been an interesting response. I just believe that, as we come through this, we can actually enunciate this and fix it, but we need to keep in mind the fact that we’re in a state of emergency, and coming out of it, we should know that the state of emergency is over. Most of these orders have to go away. If they have to be fixed in the future for emergency management, we do that in legislation with clear thought, with the experience that we’ve gone through.

B. Stewart: By the previous speaker speaking to this particular Bill 19, the COVID-19 Related Measures Act, you can see how these emergency measures that have been carried out by government out of necessity have impacted people’s lives in ways that are sometimes not what was intended.

I know that I have my own stories in the riding of Kelowna West, where I have families that are directly impacted and are, you know, very much in a very difficult spot similar to the member for Langley East who just talked about the ten files that he has dealing with this.

I think that one of the things…. I find that this is a very interesting piece of legislation. I know exactly how — as a former cabinet minister, and the members that are in government, who have had to deal with the COVID crisis — these things are out of necessity. Changes and decisions have to be taken to make things happen.

I guess the fact that we’re now over 100 days since the pandemic was declared, and we were having to deal with some of these measures, I think that we’re really in a situation where we need to have good debate and sober second thought about some of the things that we have either done, or government has done, and how long the process should be.

I don’t think that anybody, including the provincial health officer, can give us a timeline as to when it’s expected that we will have a normalcy in terms of our ability to expect to go back to life as we knew it once. So some of the things that we’re talking about with the residential tenancy restrictions on landlords and evictions, etc., is a good example, if there is a second wave, if this continues on. When is enough, and do the landlords…? Are they going to be forced out of their homes? Are they going to be forced to lose their homes because of actions that government has taken in an attempt to protect one part of the overall equation?

It’s a very difficult equation. At some point, there needs to be time limits. I’m a big believer in sunset clauses. I’m not certain that the sunset clause in Bill 19 is adequate in the sense that the idea that things could go on for a year, I think, removes the scrutiny that the public expects that its elected officials have in that. I think that it’s realistic. We know that we’ve got some sessional dates in the fall after this session is completed. We should be able to look at and be able to extend them further into the spring session so that they’re not never-ending. And there should be good public debate around this.

[5:10 p.m.]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The fact is that being supportive of the health measures and, of course, knowing that it’s an emergency, we’re supportive. I think that it would have been helpful if we could have had the type of discussion we’re having today, the debate on Bill 19, at an earlier point, to talk about some of the unintended consequences which I think have been kind of mentioned, in terms of the other speakers that have come before me.

I do find that it’s interesting that the Ombudsman has come out with a report that is critical of different things, and I’m sure that it’s open to interpretation, as the Minister of Public Safety has mentioned. But I do think that we do need to find better ways.

I think that what I have found during this pandemic has been that businesses that put their minds to the challenge of what they were faced with…. In terms of social distancing, protecting your staff and coming up with it, the ones that really came up with innovative ideas were actually able to — I wouldn’t say rebound — reopen and be able to get to a point where they can operate.

I know that in my own community, the city of West Kelowna chose to have town halls with the chair spacing in a large community hall so that…. They could have opted to not have that, but of course they did have the spacing, and they set the chairs up. When I looked at the room, I had to laugh, because the spacing at that point was dramatic in terms of what the usual spacing would be in a community hall.

But I do think that we have to get back to some sort of normalcy in terms of the public’s expectation. With all of the pressure that is on us, as elected officials — and I don’t think it’s any different for somebody that’s not in government — we’re expected to come up with answers of why the things can’t be properly discussed at a local government basis and regional district basis where things have been suspended. I think that they do expect that we’re going to have rules that allow us to be able to not indefinitely suspend our rights, as has been stated by the Ombudsman, but I think other speakers have talked about it.

I think that we do need to kind of get back to thinking about how we can do that. I realize that takes time and effort on the part of the ministries that are involved, and I know that they’re especially busy. I do worry about the things that are set out — the report by Jay Chalke, the Ombudsperson of British Columbia, that was released with a set of recommendations that prompted the legislation that we see here today before us. Since this report was only recently made known to government, I understand that this bill itself was drafted prior to that, in addition to looking at the actions of the ministers involved in declaring states of emergency. It is important to reflect on it.

I do think that what may be a component that could be improved in this bill — and we’ll see that in the committee stage — is where recommendations could be looked at with a view to being acceptable to the government as improvements on this so that we can come together and find solutions to what has been a very difficult and challenging time for everybody that is in the province of British Columbia, let alone the world.

As a result of this normal process of briefing, I think that as opposition, our critics feel that we were obviously rushed. There hasn’t been the same amount of time. But I think that even today with the member that led the Public Accounts Committee and just talking about the Zoom interviews, etc., we’re finding that we can do these things. We need to action them and make certain that they’re in use and that we don’t have the restrictions created by the fact that we don’t think that we can do a proper consultation or a discussion amongst the committee.

[5:15 p.m.]

I think that even in this particular type of pandemic, I don’t see the effort being made by either the government or the ministers to wrap their arms around people that are not government members to help to have their input in terms of how we can make the improvements to what we have to deal with even through a special committee, which I’m sure could be struck.

Now, first and foremost, I think that the Ombudsperson has used some pretty strong language. I’m not even certain if I would, you know, support the terminology that has been used. But I know that there are times when things get done and we have to go back and fix them. But the time now that we have in front of us should allow us to try and make this more right than the past actions being dealt with in the last 100 days.

I think that there is no room for sloppiness. When it comes to legislation, British Columbians expect better from their government. They expect that the government is going to do everything possible to make certain that we try to make certain that we’ve thought these things through.

The last examples about the residential tenancy protection and the fact that some people are, you know, getting support…. They’re getting served from the federal government. This is all interference in terms of trying to get this right. We need to try to get things back to a better normalcy in terms of trying to make certain that we do the right things by bringing in legislation, not rushing things and not making it so that it’s open-ended forever. I think that if the government is looking for our support in this, there should be a reasonable sunset, as I mentioned earlier.

Mr. Speaker: Member, noting the hour.

B. Stewart: Well, noting the hour, I’d like to seek leave that the Legislature continues with this legislation debate at the next sitting of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Member, I’m simply reminding you that we don’t have much time left. Please continue.

B. Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I’m sorry. I should have rephrased that.

B. Stewart: Okay. That’s all right. I thought that we had a little bit more time, Mr. Speaker. Anyways, I will try to…. I know that there are other people that want to speak to this particular bill because of the importance of it.

I think that what’s important is that the unaddressed recommendations include limits and conditions on the exercise of the emergency powers by subdelegates, requiring the minister to expressly consider the principle of necessity before issuing an order and extending it, requiring the minister to make public all such emergency orders and requiring the minister to report to the House to respond to the rationale for such orders.

Of course, the government might argue that they’re going to address these recommendations as they have, the Attorney General mentioned, with further legislation. But I think that it is of paramount importance to British Columbians that we do try to get this right and give relief where required and certainty to people that are impacted by the changes that the government and these orders are making on people’s lives.

The Ombudsperson had a reason for laying out the five recommendations, and it seems odd that this government is ignoring three of those recommendations. While many of the measures laid out in the bill are set to be repealed a year after it comes into force, there are some proposed amendments that seek to make permanent changes to the Emergency Program Act, changes which would create statutory support regarding the minister’s powers under the Emergency Program Act to “…do all acts and implement all procedures that the minister considers necessary to prevent, respond to or alleviate the effects of an emergency or a disaster….”

A necessary part of the discussion around this bill clearly needs to be that government needs to be forthcoming and transparent on all instances that impact the rights of British Columbians.

I want to thank you all for listening and thank Mr. Speaker for allowing me to continue my remarks.

Mr. Speaker: It is my understanding there is no other speaker.

If not, Attorney General.

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you to the members for their thoughtful comments. There are a couple of pieces I’d like to respond to briefly.

I heard, from the critic of the Attorney General, concern about Ministerial Order M1079. This was addressed…. It’s not included in the legislation, in the schedule. It was, as I understand, addressed in the briefing. Again, for the member, it’s dependent on a federal program, and as a result, it has unique transitional requirements. It will be included, but it will be included as part of the regulations. It won’t be on the schedule or part of the legislation that will be done by regulation. The member can rest assured, in terms of the impact on small businesses, that we have not forgotten them.

Also, I heard concern about the residential tenancies piece. I can advise members that government is looking at narrowing that, and it’s also not included on the schedule. Our anticipation is that there will be a revised regulation that will be included. It will not be for a year — as the member had been concerned — after the state of emergency, the narrowed order.

I also want to note, just for clarity. I’m not sure if the member who just spoke wasn’t aware of it. There was an extensive briefing with opposition critics, including providing — very unusual — a copy of the draft legislation for comment and feedback. This is exceptional legislation, and it requires cooperation across the party lines. That was the hope of that engagement. Glad to hear the comments from many members.

I do want to, also, briefly note that the Ombudsperson’s report was cited by a number of members, with some concern. I can advise members that if I thought, as Attorney General, that the Minister for Public Safety, drunk with power, was becoming a law unto himself, extending limitation periods and interfering with municipal council processes, I would have to resign if I provided him with advice that he was acting illegally and he did not listen.

It is my opinion, I can advise the House, that he was acting legally when he did this. He can do any act and establish any process under the act, which is not to take anything away from the very serious and important recommendations made by the Ombudsperson about how we can do better with the act or be more clear or put additional safeguards in, which we had already begun the process of before being contacted by the Ombudsperson. You’ll see our attempt at some of those safeguards in this legislation — having cabinet be approving these processes, having it have to be subjected to a proportionality test.

That is not to take anything away from the Ombudsperson’s recommendations, which we received too late to incorporate into this bill but will be considered as part of the revisions to the act that will be put in front of this House after an extensive engagement process with British Columbians.

I hope that addresses some of the concern. Obviously, this is exceptional legislation. As a person committed to, certainly, democracy and the idea that this place is very important, I’m glad that we’re here, with the safeguards in place. I’m glad that we are debating it, and I’m glad that members have the opportunity to vote on these extraordinary measures that were put into place to respond to the pandemic.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 19, COVID-19 Related Measures Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until July 6 at 10 a.m.

The House adjourned at 5:24 p.m.