Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call third reading of Bill 11, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 11 — ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES
(VEHICLE INSURANCE)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2020

Bill 11, Attorney General Statutes (Vehicle Insurance) Amendment Act, 2020, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage, continued, on Bill 13, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 13 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2020

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 13; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:32 p.m.

Sections 12 to 15 inclusive approved.

On section 16.

M. Lee: I just want to ask, in terms of the status of next steps with this change to expand the number of Supreme Court justices from 90 to 95…. What’s the expectation around timing, with the federal government, in terms of getting these additional judges in place?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The timing is dependent on the federal government, which has the responsibility for appointing. There are conversations, of course, between the courts and the federal government. What this does is it creates the possibility for additional appointments. The complement is the number of judges in the province, and the existing provision has the number 90. This changes it to 95, but the appointments sit with the federal Attorney General.

Sections 16 to 20 inclusive approved.

On section 21.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment to section 21 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 21, by adding the underlined text as shown and deleting the text shown as struck out:

21 Section 30 is amended

(a) in subsection (2) by striking out “must make the following information contained in transparency records available for search by any person” and substituting “must make the following information contained in transparency records available through searches conducted under section 35 [searches by members of public]”,

(b) in subsection (2) (a) by striking out “reporting bodies that are, at the time of the search, registered as owners” and substituting “reporting bodies that areidentified as registered owners”,

(c) by repealing subsection (2) (b) (i) and (ii) and substituting the following:

(i) individuals who are, at the time of the search, identified as interest holders in relation to

(A) the reporting bodies referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection, or

(B) the interests in land in respect of which the reporting bodies referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection are identified as registered owners, and

(ii) in the case of reporting bodies referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection that are trustees of relevant trusts, persons who are, at the time of the search, identified as settlors of the relevant trusts; ,

(d) in subsection (2) by adding the following paragraph:

(b.1) parcel identifiers for parcels of land in relation to which persons are, at the time of the search, identified as reporting bodies, interest holders or settlors; , and

(e) by repealing subsection (3) and substituting the following:

(3) The administrator must take reasonable steps to ensure that the information to be made available under subsection (2) relates to persons who are, at the time of the search, identified as reporting bodies, interest holders or settlors.

(3)(4) The following information, as that information relates to an individual who is identified as an interest holder or settlor, must not be made publicly accessible under subsection (2) until at least 90 days after the transparency report to which the information relates has been accepted by the registrar for filing with the administrator:

(a) primary identification information;

(b) parcel identifiers for parcels of land in relation to which the individual is identified as an interest holder or settlor.

(4)(5) For certainty, the requirement under subsection (3)(4) (b) that parcel identifiers must not be made publicly accessible as information that relates to an individual identified as an interest holder or settlor does not affect the requirement under subsection (2) (b.1) that parcel identifiers must be made publicly accessible as information that relates to a person identified as a reporting body.]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: This amendment amends section 21 of the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2020, to require the administrator of the Land Owner Transparency Act to take reasonable steps to ensure that information that is provided as the result of a public search is current.

The amendment is in response to concerns raised by the administrator that in a small number of cases, information in the registry may be out of date with respect to land title and survey records. In these cases, the administrator will manually intervene to ensure the information is accurate, but it may impact their ability to provide accurate information immediately as required by the current legislation.

The Chair: Just to clarify, Members, this amendment was moved in the name of the Hon. Carole James.

Hon. D. Eby: Thank you for the correction, hon. Chair.

Amendment approved.

Section 21 as amended approved.

On section 22.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the amendment to section 22 standing in the name of the Minister of Finance on the orders of the day.

[SECTION 22, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

22 Section 35 is repealed and the following substituted:

Searches by members of public

35  Subject to reasonable conditions that the administrator may impose, a person may search obtain publicly accessible information by

(a) searching for the name of a person to ascertain the parcel identifiers for the parcels of land in relation to which the person is, at the time of the search, identified as a reporting body, interest holder or settlor,

(b) searching for the parcel identifier for a parcel of land to ascertain the persons who are, at the time of the search, identified as reporting bodies, interest holders or settlors in relation to the parcel of land, or

(c) conducting a prescribed search.]

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Eby: I wondered if I might speak to the amendment just so members knew what it was.

[2:40 p.m.]

This amendment amends section 22 of the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2020, to help provide clear authority to the administrator of the Land Owner Transparency Act to release information when the public searches the registry.

The amendment is in response to concerns raised by the administrator that the act as previously amended did not provide clear and uncontestable authority to release the primary identification information of beneficial owners to individuals who search the registry.

Amendment approved.

Section 22 as amended approved.

Sections 23 to 30 inclusive approved.

On section 31.

B. Stewart: I just would like the minister to perhaps clarify and advise what the process is in the event under subsection (3.1) where there are more than six parcels. If there is no newspaper, does it revert to subsection (3) where written notice must be provided to every person that has an interest in the appertained land?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m just clarifying. I think that the minister responsible for the act will be answering these questions. We’re just making sure to get him online. It might be one moment.

If we might have a brief recess, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: This House will be in recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 2:43 p.m. to 2:43 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. D. Eby: I wonder if the member could repeat his question. I see the minister is now online and able to answer.

B. Stewart: The question is on subsection (3), section 94. Can the minister advise what the process is going to be in the event under section (3.1) where there are more than six parcels? If there’s no local newspaper, does it revert to section (3), where written notice must be provided to every person that has an interest in the appurtenant land?

[2:45 p.m.]

The Chair: Minister, are you ready to answer now? Please proceed. I can’t hear you.

The House will be in recess for another five minutes.

The House recessed from 2:46 p.m. to 2:48 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. D. Eby: Mr. Speaker, just given the challenges that the minister’s having, I wonder if we might stand his sections down and reach out to his office and try to get him physically here into the chamber.

The relevant sections, as I understand it, for the minister are this section through to section 34, inclusive. Yes, 35 would be where we would pick it up. So we’d stand down this section and 34.

The Chair: All right. Members, we will then skip to section 35.

Sections 31 to 34 inclusive stood down.

On section 35.

[2:50 p.m.]

B. Stewart: Under section 35, section 18, in regards to the E-Health (Personal Health Information Access and Protection of Privacy) Act, I just would like to clarify what is being done here in this section and section 36, which is amending section 23 of the Pharmaceutical Services Act. Was this amendment reviewed by the Privacy Commissioner, and was the privacy impact statement done?

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that the commissioner’s office was involved in that they were consulted on this particular amendment, and there was a privacy impact assessment done.

B. Stewart: Just to go back, I combined two of my questions into one there. The first one, in section 18, we just want to confirm that what’s being proposed here, and section 36, is amending section 23 of the Pharmaceutical Services Act.

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that this adds those relevant subsections to the Pharmaceutical Services Act, so I believe his understanding is correct with respect to that.

B. Stewart: To clarify that this amendment is being done to provide consistency with the amendments that were made in the previous amendments to FOIPPA in the bill?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is correct. In the previous section we passed a miscellaneous statutes bill that amended FOIPPA, and these provisions, 35 and 36, incorporate those amendments into the E-Health Act and, as the member noted, the Pharmaceutical Services Act.

B. Stewart: I don’t think I was asking about the…. I was trying to get an answer about the fact that this was to provide consistency with the amendments that were made in the previous act in the miscellaneous stats, of FOIPPA, that was brought forward previously.

Hon. D. Eby: Assuming that the member and I have the same understanding, I think the short answer is yes. They incorporate provisions from that previous amendment by reference. It actually brings those provisions directly into these acts. So it would make them entirely consistent because it directs people to those particular amendments. It literally uses those exact amendments.

[2:55 p.m.]

B. Stewart: Of course, I mean, privacy and the fact that we have examples last fall, recently, where there has been information that was inappropriately shared. I think it’s important that we get this right and that we don’t just make any assumptions here.

To be clear, the minister has confirmed that this is to provide consistency with the amendments that were made in the previous amendments to the FOIPPA bill. As the minister will remember, the Privacy Commissioner had significant concerns with those amendments and had filed communication to the government in that respect. Do these amendments take into consideration any of his recommendations that were in that communication?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is testing my memory about the previous amendments. The commissioner’s comments and feedback were in relation to the previous set of amendments that have already passed this House. With respect to these amendments that incorporate the bill that then passed, there was no additional work done with the commissioner in terms of those original submissions of the commissioner’s related to the amendments.

I just want to note that those amendments do not permit storage outside of Canada. I believe the member was referencing the LifeLabs data breach, which was in relation to data that was stored. So this would not have a relationship to the LifeLabs data breach. It’s for temporary processing by a computer outside Canada, not for storage of data or information outside Canada.

M. Lee: I appreciate the member for Kelowna West raising these questions on this provision. That actually is the commentary, in my recollection, when we went through this similar set of provisions on amendments relating to temporary storage outside of Canada. There were issues and concerns raised from the Privacy Commissioner about those amendments. So just to clarify again, with these proposed amendments here to this particular act, is it on the same basis for temporary storage as were the previous amendments that were made under a different misc stats bill?

Hon. D. Eby: That bill did pass the House, and there is a requirement that additional statutes, to borrow the member from Kelowna’s words, are made consistent. So these statutes are being made consistent with that which is now law in British Columbia.

The member…. I think he just misspoke. But just to be totally clear, those original amendments and these incorporating amendments do not permit the storage of personal information, either on a temporary basis or on a permanent basis. They only allow the processing of information outside of Canada.

M. Lee: I intended to say temporary processing. It was the temporary processing of personal data outside of Canada that the Privacy Commissioner had concerns about and the way that that was being expressed in the previous amendments that were being made. We had actually proposed amendments to that to reflect the concerns of the Privacy Commissioner.

In making these further amendments, even if it’s for consistency purposes — coming back to the Attorney General’s previous response — has there been any further dialogue with the Privacy Commissioner about this particular set of amendments? And does the Privacy Commissioner still maintain any concerns regarding the nature of these temporary processing requirements?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I am advised that the commissioner did not raise similar concerns this time around.

Sections 35 to 74 inclusive approved.

The Chair: The House will be in recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:01 p.m. to 3:02 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The Chair: We will be now going back to section 31.

Hon. D. Eby: I’ll be taking those sections for the minister.

On section 31.

B. Stewart: In section 31, the repeal of subsection 94(3), we just want to clarify that the process in the event under section 3.1…. If there are more than six parcels, if there is no local newspaper, does it revert to section 3, where written notice must be provided to every person that has an interest in the appurtenant land?

Hon. D. Eby: The answer is yes. All affected parties are notified in writing in the case of where there’s not a local newspaper.

B. Stewart: No other questions on section 31. Section 33 is the next one.

Sections 31 and 32 approved.

On section 33.

B. Stewart: In this new section, 117.1, I just would like to confirm what the purpose of this section is and what generated the need to add this section?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: This is an issue where there’s a practice taking place, currently, and an act that requires activities but doesn’t clearly fulfil the requirements of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. In particular, you need to have explicit authority to collect, use and disclose certain personal information under FOIPPA in British Columbia. That needs to be explicit within the act itself. So the amendment fixes that omission by expressly giving authority to collect this information.

The information is important for a number of reasons. It’s available inside and outside of Canada and used by a wide range of users. So certainly government, emergency services, provincial health authorities, industry — including forestry, mining and oil and gas companies — use this information to notify impacted users. For example, downstream users would be notified of an incident that could impact public health and safety, like, for example, a spill of a chemical — to use just one example — which is why this information needs to be collected and kept up to date.

Under the Water Sustainability Act, there are obligations where an applicant for water use must identify and notify other potentially impacted users. For example, if your water source is likely to be detrimentally impacted, the ground water licence applicant has to notify others who are using that source that they intend to use it in that way. The only way they can know who to notify is if the information has been collected, and the only way the government can let them know who will be affected is if government can disclose that information.

B. Stewart: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and to the minister for that very comprehensive answer.

Again, in the fact that this is an oversight in a previous piece of legislation, has this been gone over by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and was the privacy impact assessment done just on these changes? Can the minister advise what the response was from the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, in the case that they did do that?

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that there were two temporary orders that were issued by the minister engaging with the Privacy Commissioner in order to address the omission. The commissioner advised government that we should be ensuring that the statute was amended and that the omission was corrected before those temporary orders expired, and they expire in 2021. So that is the extent of the feedback from the commissioner.

I’m advised that the commissioner had on this simply that we needed to have a provision like this in the act and not to address it through maintaining the temporary order but to fix it in legislation as soon as possible, which is what we’re doing.

B. Stewart: So just to be clear, the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner confirms that the temporary orders by the minister responsible for the Water Sustainability Act — these improvements were necessary and covered off by the changes that are proposed here?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: This fully addresses the issue, and the temporary orders will be cancelled once this passes.

B. Stewart: Okay. Just to confirm, the Privacy Commissioner accepts that as being a…. That’s acceptable, being that he hasn’t issued a written report on this. We want to be clear that he is in agreement that these changes meet the privacy requirements.

Hon. D. Eby: It’s my understanding that the commissioner requested that government make these amendments. So they are consistent with the commissioner’s wishes, in terms of how government addressed this issue.

B. Stewart: The next question on section 117.1 is: has this ability for the minister to disclose this personal information been…? Sorry. In section 117.1, it provides for the information to be published in a registry. Does this registry currently exist, or is this something new that’s being created?

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that there are two existing registries that are intended to be captured by that section. One is the groundwater wells or the GWELLS registry, and the other is the water licence registry, also known as the e-licensing database.

B. Stewart: We’ve got two different registries that previously existed. Who has access to the registry, and is it publicly available?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that the public has access to these registries. It is online access, and they’re fully searchable. This is partly why the provision talks about access in and outside Canada. It’s online and can be accessed and searched, likewise, from anywhere in the world. Both are fully public registries.

B. Stewart: In subsection 117.1(3), can the minister advise what might be sources other than an individual in this act?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that common examples are the land title registry or the B.C. Assessment rolls. They would be sources of information, other than the individual, that could be looked at for access to information that would assist in these registries.

B. Stewart: Moving on, in the same section, to 117.1(4), in the existing act, it says that published personal information “that was collected otherwise than directly from the person to whom the personal information relates” must not be published unless notice is provided and consent provided. Could the minister just confirm how that’s going to occur?

Hon. D. Eby: I wonder if the member could just draw me to the section he’s referring to about the publication requirement. I’m just trying to clarify with staff exactly which section he’s referencing here.

B. Stewart: This is, again, subsection 117.1(4). What I was referring to was that the former act required that the information was not to be published unless notice was provided and consent provided. The new section does not apply to the publication of personal information. What is the rationale for overriding the protection of the existing act? That’s my question. Sorry.

Hon. D. Eby: The member is right. It’s an unusual thing to have the publication of personal information by government, so there needs to be an overriding objective. In this case, it’s ensuring that people have information, in the event of emergency or another significant impact on water use, of who would be affected and who needs to be notified. If you have a well that you’re relying on for drinking water for your family, it’s vital that if there is some kind of contamination or spill, you get notified right away.

That urgency and the need for people to be able to access this information as quickly as possible, including even a longer-term project where there’s construction proposed that’s going to affect groundwater in an area…. The contractor or the proponent needs to be able to find and identify who will be affected by that activity and provide notice to them.

That is the justification for removing this publication or consent process. The overriding value here is of urgent notice and upfront notice so that people can register objections or concerns or otherwise be notified of a potential issue with the water that they’re using.

[3:20 p.m.]

B. Stewart: I can appreciate the sense of urgency that is needed with some of the things that the minister described earlier. Being that this section is now going to override and remove the section about the personal information — it’s going to be available — was this section, again, reviewed by the Office of the Privacy and Information Commissioner, particularly allowing publication of the personal information without consent?

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that the whole of 117.1 was reviewed by the Privacy Commissioner. I have advised him of all of the feedback that I understand we have received from the Privacy Commissioner about it.

B. Stewart: Section 117.1(5): “Nothing in this section is intended to limit the authority of the minister to collect, use or disclose personal information under an enactment.”

Can the minister give an example? The fact that this is such a sweeping statement, very broad — can we just get an example on the record, please?

Hon. D. Eby: There are other acts and other provisions within this act that discuss the minister’s or the ministry’s ability to collect or use different types of information. The goal of this subsection, of this section, is to be clear that this particular section is not meant to limit other authorities that might be out there, in terms of the minister’s ability to collect, use or disclose personal information.

It applies to the scenarios that relate to this section, but not to other sections. The concern would be this section being applied to a section that it was not drafted to apply to. It’s just meant to provide clarity to someone trying to understand how they would be affected by the act — that these authorities are limited to the circumstances described and not meant to affect other sections.

B. Stewart: I think that what we’re looking for is…. Actually, with the minister’s answer, it broadens the whole question about the enactment and the term and how broad that is. Is there an example, specifically, where this has been a barrier, in terms of past actions, so that the public can better understand this?

And I guess the last part on this is: because of the sweeping powers of this, is there going to be a clear policy within government to make certain that this information is restricted within government and only used for the purpose that’s been described here today?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is looking for a clear statement of the purposes of the collection of the information that are stated in subsection (2).

[3:25 p.m.]

The provision specifically says: “The minister may, for one or more of the purposes listed in subsection (2)….” So when it says that, then you have to go to subsection (2) and see when the minister can collect, use and disclose the information.

The purposes are as follows, and they’re a limited set of purposes: purpose (a) to administer the act; purpose (b) to publish the information in a registry — we talked about those registrations — where the registry relates to one or more of the following matters. So it’s not just any registry, but it has to relate to these: (i) authorizations, change approvals, permits or drilling authorizations; (ii) works, like construction; (iii) water, streams, groundwater or aquifers; and (iv) is a prescribed matter that can be set by regulation.

And then there’s also a subsection (c), of course, which is to manage significant harm to public safety, the environment, land or other property; and (d) to monitor compliance with this act and the regulations. So the minister is constrained by this section around what purposes he is allowed to collect, use and disclose the information, and it is only those purposes that are permitted.

Subsection (5) is important — to note that, you know, there may be other sections of the act…. And I apologize to the member. I don’t have one at hand. But what it’s meant to say is that this section is not meant to apply to other sections of the act. It’s not intended to…. Where there may be another provision that somehow has a broader ability to publish or has different requirements or different purposes, it’s not meant to limit the authority of the minister to collect or use that information. It’s not an unusual provision in that regard. It doesn’t enable some sort of widespread data collection. The minister is still limited by subsection (2).

Sections 33 and 34 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete as amended.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:28 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 13 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2020

Bill 13, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2020, reported complete with amendments, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Eby: Mr. Speaker, I call committee stage of Bill 20.

[3:30 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 20 — MOTOR VEHICLE
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2020

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 20; S. Gibson in the chair.

The committee met at 3:31 p.m.

On section 1.

J. Johal: I just have a couple of broad questions for the Attorney General. Can the Attorney General explain the overall purpose of Bill 20?

Hon. D. Eby: The amendments proposed relate to number plates, also known as licence plates, and validation decals, those little stickers with the month and year you get from your ICBC broker when you renew your insurance. They provide for the possibility for decals to last for periods longer than the term of the vehicle licence plate and are non-expiring — you get your sticker, and it doesn’t expire — and also for the possibility of there not being a decal at all.

It enables a number of pieces that flow from this — in particular, during the pandemic. We had phone renewals and email renewals for people, for their insurance, when it’s expiring, to be able to provide social distancing and assist them to interact with their broker. Certainly, they still had to receive the sticker for their licence plate.

With online renewals and phone renewals and email renewals, it may be — depending on engagement with, for example, law enforcement — that it’s better not to have a decal at all. There are many jurisdictions that don’t have decals like this. So it’s an example of the kind of reform that could flow from this.

This is enabling. It’s not prescriptive. It depends on our engagement with groups, like law enforcement, that depend, potentially, on the decal to know whether a car is insured or not. Or maybe they use their licence plate readers and a database, and they don’t look at the decals at all.

We’re going to be engaging with those stakeholders. This enables the possibility that changes could flow from that.

J. Johal: The Attorney General touched on the impact of COVID and how ICBC has responded on behalf of the company and, of course, the people of British Columbia. Were these changes that the Attorney General is talking about inspired because of what happened with COVID and how ICBC responded to the pandemic? Why now?

Hon. D. Eby: We’re engaged in a modernization project with ICBC. Part of that includes an online renewal system. We are continually moving the pieces down the board to turn ICBC into a modern insurance company. Obviously, it’s a significant piece of work. The members have all been here for the work that we did around the enhanced care model. This is part of our continuing modernization.

We’re asking questions. Do we need to do the things that we’ve always done? Are there different ways to approach issues and ways that reduce costs and increase convenience for British Columbians?

[3:35 p.m.]

There are many entities that have an interest in how ICBC does business. These include law enforcement, brokers, other stakeholders and, of course, most importantly, British Columbians. We’re going to do that work. We know that there’s a great deal of interest in online renewals, as one example. This facilitates that kind of modernization work.

J. Johal: Just to confirm, this process, for some of the things that the minister is talking about, started prior to COVID?

Hon. D. Eby: That is correct.

J. Johal: Can the Attorney General give us a sense of the history of this bill in regards to the idea that came and how it made it to the floor today?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s certainly our goal to be responsive to the wishes of British Columbians around their public auto insurer. There are, obviously, some priority areas for British Columbians — that rates be lower and that benefits be better — and there are concerns around convenience, things like online renewals.

Certainly, as I was receiving that feedback from many British Columbians — actually, I think I received that feedback from the member who asked the question — in relation to online renewals, we were looking at…. What would it take in order to facilitate that? Are there things that we do right now that might limit the ability to do online renewals and that might make it less convenient? That opened up a line of questioning around the decals.

There’s not a huge amount of history or depth beyond that. It’s our goal to modernize the company. That includes online sales. To my mind, this is very closely linked to that goal around delivering those online sales.

When it was originally conceived of, we did not imagine the COVID situation, where everyone, overnight — all of the brokers and ICBC — would transition to telephone and email renewals. That experiment, in real time, was a great credit to the brokers and to ICBC staff working together, very closely and very quickly, to enable that to happen. It was a very successful project.

This bill has…. Although the work started before, it’s very complementary to the direction that we’re clearly going.

J. Johal: The Attorney General talks about eventually getting to online renewal. I don’t recall the government mentioning online renewal up until about last year. I could be off by a few months.

What change was in the mindset of the Attorney General and the government to now bring this bill forward and move towards online renewal?

Hon. D. Eby: I think that what was really the focus of government’s attention in the first couple of years on the file was the hemorrhaging of $1 billion a year by ICBC and the need to urgently address that. Online renewals, although certainly a priority in terms of convenience for many British Columbians, really paled in comparison to the financial state of the corporation and the need to address that very urgently.

With our first round of reforms around the limit on pain and suffering awards for minor injuries and the use of the civil resolution tribunal, stabilizing ICBC’s finances and now the enhanced care model work proceeding along, it creates the possibility for what I would describe as second-stage modernizations and initiatives that we would have liked to have prioritized but that had to, essentially, take a back burner because of the financial state of the corporation.

[3:40 p.m.]

This work is proceeding along in the background. I do have to acknowledge it hasn’t been as significant a priority, given the priority of the financial reforms we’ve had to make to improve benefits and reduce prices for British Columbians and get ICBC on a stable financial footing.

J. Johal: Online, as the Attorney General said, is the eventual goal with this bill. Can he provide a road map of when British Columbians can expect…? After the passage of this bill, there’s a lot of work still to do. But can he provide a timeline of when we can get to that point of British Columbians actually being able to renew their licence online?

Hon. D. Eby: Well, the good news is I can advise the member that people, right now, can renew by email and by phone, through their brokers, and that work is in place.

In terms of being able to go to a website, the back-end work for the enhanced care model needs to be complete first. That is due in May of next year. There’s engagement with stakeholders — like law enforcement, brokers and others — around the issues of the decals that also need to take place. So until that work is done, people will not be visiting a website to do their renewals. However, I am optimistic that we will get there sooner rather than later.

The challenges, though, are…. Again, the priority is getting rates down for British Columbians and delivering the benefits of the enhanced care model, which requires an overhaul of the technological back end of ICBC, and that overhaul will facilitate the additional work. There are unbelievable challenges with the existing computer system that makes some really important work quite difficult.

The happy news is that by May of next year, the infrastructure will be in place that will facilitate things like online renewal and other important work that ICBC, and most people, would expect that ICBC would be able to do in the year 2020. But we are playing catch-up.

J. Johal: It’s safe to say that with the passage of this bill, we probably won’t see online renewal within the next 12 months.

Hon. D. Eby: British Columbians have online renewal available right now, but in terms of doing that through a website or an app, it’s unlikely to be within the next 12 months. The focus is on enhanced care implementation to reduce rates for British Columbians.

J. Johal: I should have clarified. I was talking about a website and an app. Is it fair to say that we can expect online renewal before the end of this government’s mandate?

Hon. D. Eby: Well, hidden in there is a very important question about when the end of this government’s mandate is. We’re in a minority parliament. I wouldn’t set that as a date in a minority parliament for anything. But the member’s first question, I think, was one that I feel better equipped to respond to.

I don’t expect that, outside of email renewals, British Columbians will be visiting a website or using an app to renew their insurance within the next 12 months. The focus within the next 12 months will continue to be the enhanced care project and delivering those lower rates and better benefits for British Columbians. In the interim, we have email and phone renewals.

J. Johal: There’s a significant amount of consultation that’s still coming with this bill, after the passing of this bill. We can get to the law enforcement question a little bit later.

But can the Attorney General educate this House in regards to what the consultation process is going to look like moving forward for various stakeholders, including brokers, and how he sees that moving forward?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that an initial outreach has already been made to the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police and that their initial feedback is that this is an important modernization effort. They are heartened that in other jurisdictions where they have made this modernization of getting rid of stickers, they were able to address law enforcement concerns. That work continues.

There’s also engagement with the Ministry of Transportation commercial enforcement team and enforcement teams under Public Safety and Solicitor General, as well, to determine how or if they use these stickers for any reason. Then, in addition to the law enforcement outreaches that are taking place, I expect to hear a report from the brokers in the next 16 to 20 weeks. They should complete that process and have provided a list of feedback on online implementation.

The member will know that I am not particularly enthusiastic about hiring on a significant number of people at ICBC to manage online. My preference is that the brokers take on that work of managing online. In order for that to happen, we need their feedback, and I’m expecting a full report from them with recommendations, certainly within the next four months.

And then, with respect to other groups, I’d certainly welcome any suggestions that the member might have about other stakeholders who should be consulted. But those were the two main groups that staff have identified: policing and law enforcement groups, and the brokers.

J. Johal: Is there a cost savings for ICBC in regards to the decal arrangement?

Hon. D. Eby: It depends very much on what the final model looks like. Certainly, we do expect some savings to flow to ICBC, but I don’t have any numbers. There’s been no modelling, because the actual model of what it will look like is not finalized yet.

I do note that it’s hard to know how British Columbians will take up online renewals. In Saskatchewan, it’s about 15 percent of people who renew online, despite there being an online renewal model. So if we have a modest sort of uptake like that, the impact will be relatively low. But if there’s a greater impact, there might be greater savings for ICBC.

J. Johal: As the Attorney General is saying, he doesn’t have a desire to add on more employees at ICBC. He wants to work with the brokers. But when customers go online, they expect some savings with the convenience of going online. Does the minister see any impact on broker fees — in this case, brokers making less money — and any compensation? Is that part of that conversation too?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: That will very much be determined by the kind of model that comes forward. The recommendations and feedback from the brokers will be considered, as will any feedback from law enforcement and enforcement teams within the provincial government around the stickers and so on.

Certainly, my hope is a more efficient process for everybody, where everybody wins, resulting in lower fees and reduced cost for consumers, and we do believe there will be some savings for ICBC. But at this stage, it is too soon to say, given that we have not yet settled on a particular model of how this will be delivered.

I think the goal here is to externalize as much as possible, from my perspective, the support and follow-up, if people have trouble with the online system. I don’t particularly wish that ICBC has to hire up new call centres to deal with and provide support to people who are having trouble with that. I would much prefer that the brokers take on that work, but that is all part of the conversation.

J. Johal: As I had stated, the people do expect some savings when they go online. Is it safe to say that the Attorney General hasn’t ruled out compensation for brokers? Because as he knows very well, they have applied for this licence. They have spent a significant amount of dollars building their business and training their staff. At the same time, customers do want reduction in what they’re paying at times — 5 percent, 10 percent. That’s got to come from somewhere.

Does he see at least some sort of potential conversation in regards to compensating brokers who may lose some business?

Hon. D. Eby: You know, I think the COVID experience of the telephone and email renewals has eased, maybe, some of the concerns from brokers around what it would look like, potentially, going forward. It was a net positive experience for customers, brokers and ICBC, which is always a nice thing when everybody is happier with the outcomes.

I think if we can successfully implement a system that reduces costs for everybody, then that will be the mark of a successful online project. But the only way we can do that is through engagement, consultation and designing the best system, and that’s where we are in the process. It’s too early to say what the final process will look like. My hope is that we realize savings for everybody here, and we’ll see.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

M. Morris: Just with respect to subsections 12(2) (b) and (c) on there…. I guess I have to make a comment first that this appears to be rushed. I haven’t seen legislation come out like this where there’s been no consultations on…. Some of these are fairly significant issues. I’m curious to see what law enforcement has to say with respect to this.

You know, I go back to my law enforcement days, and those validation stickers provide a valuable, inexpensive tool for police officers in their day-to-day activities. Just a mere glance, they can tell whether a vehicle has got legitimate or valid plates or not and valid insurance at the time. It’s a good tool to take uninsured vehicles off the road.

I’m just wondering, again, what the minister has in mind that’s going to replace the validation stickers so that the police officers still have significant access to a tool that has proven very beneficial in the past.

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: In 2007, the province had a pilot program of automated licence plate readers for law enforcement. It was made permanent in 2010.

Through the automated licence plate reading program, law enforcement has access to the ICBC database of currently insured and registered vehicles. That program enables them to scan licence plates and have the computer flag when a licence plate that is scanned automatically is not insured — the member can advise me, actually, if he has any experience with it — which, I understand, is a helpful tool for law enforcement around detecting uninsured vehicles.

I don’t, for a second, dispute the member’s assertion that it’s helpful to look at a sticker and identify whether a plate is expired or not or whether insurance is expired or not. I can advise the member that we have already reached out to the Association of Chiefs of Police and have received a positive response from them. That engagement work continues.

I’ll have to take with a grain of salt the comments of one member in the media that we are moving too slowly on online and the comments of the member that this legislation seems rushed. We’ll try to fall somewhere in between and do this as carefully as possible to prevent any adverse impacts on law enforcement, either within the provincial government or within police, but also to satisfy the wishes of British Columbians to have an efficient online renewal process.

M. Morris: The automated licence scanners are great technology, but it comes at a cost. I’m just wondering whether the minister has looked at the projected costs to law enforcement agencies, whether they’ll be compensated for that or they’ll be expected to cover those costs themselves.

How much money is going to be required to ensure that all our police agencies are equipped with these licence scanners, which will replace the visual validation stickers?

Hon. D. Eby: The member, I mean, really identifies why we’re engaging with law enforcement on this, in terms of the number of these readers that are available in vehicles already — this is a program that’s been in place now for a decade — and any concerns they have about a shortage of ALR devices. Certainly, we’re engaging with law enforcement, and those concerns will be raised. I have no doubt.

I don’t have solutions for a problem that hasn’t been raised yet. So in terms of the member’s question about expansion of an ALR program for vehicles that don’t have it, the issue has not yet been raised. I suspect, based on the member’s experience, that at some point it will be raised. The extent of it or how many vehicles, and so on, I don’t know, again, because it simply hasn’t come up yet.

M. Morris: This will be my last question here.

[4:00 p.m.]

Again, it goes back to where I feel it’s rushed legislation here. The consultation hasn’t taken place. We have no idea what the costs of rolling this legislation out will be, not only on government and ICBC, perhaps, but on law enforcement agencies that are already overstretched with the resources that they have.

Is it going to cost a couple hundred thousand dollars? Is it going to cost a couple million dollars? At the end of the day, it remains to be seen.

It is rushed, and it’s a shame that government hadn’t taken the steps to fully consult with law enforcement agencies — and all stakeholders, as a matter of fact — on this before they rushed into that.

Thanks very much for your time.

Hon. D. Eby: I just wanted to…. For the member’s assistance, he mistakes how this bill operates. It is an enabling statute. It creates the ability to do these things. It is not actually doing these things. It’s not getting rid of stickers. It is not expanding the current period of their expiry.

It creates the authority for regulations that could do those things. The regulations themselves will be based on the engagement with law enforcement.

I’m not sure if that assists him in whether or not he feels it’s rushed, but I did want to say that we certainly will be engaging with law enforcement, and their feedback will be informing the regulations.

Again, I’ll note the profound irony of two members from the same party, one saying, “Not fast enough,” and the other saying: “How could you rush so quickly?” Fair enough, I’ll take both critiques.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

J. Johal: This section replaces the term “licence year” with “licence term” in section 13 of the act. Will the Attorney General explain how this term, “licence term,” is to be used and understood?

Hon. D. Eby: This refers to a licence year. The licence it’s referring to is the licence for the vehicle, and although it says “licence year,” not all vehicles are licensed for a full year. The term can be as little as three months, up to a year.

This is a housekeeping amendment that does a couple things. One is it recognizes that already, licences are issued for less than a year. But it also enables the possibility that you could license your vehicle for longer than a year. It is a housekeeping amendment to make sure that section 13 is consistent with the rest of the act, which is now using the words “licence term” rather than “licence year.”

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

[4:05 p.m.]

J. Johal: On section 4, this section makes some substantive changes to section 20 of the act, which is on the notice of removal or destruction of a motor vehicle. Can the Attorney General explain the purpose of section 4? Why was it needed to change the existing section 20?

Hon. D. Eby: There’s sort of a housekeeping piece of this which is consequential to the section 12 amendment.

The more significant piece of this section is that it provides additional discretion to ICBC to determine what an owner or licensee has to do when they’re cancelling their vehicle licence and applying for a refund of insurance premium or their licence fee. They’re saying: “Look, I don’t need this anymore.” The old section said explicitly that you have to surrender the vehicle licence and the licence plates — the plates on the vehicle — for the motor vehicle or trailer.

This gives a little bit more discretion. It says that ICBC can provide direction to the person about what to do. It could still be to surrender the plates and the licence, but it could be something else — provide evidence that you’ve destroyed it and so on, or during a pandemic, you’re allowed to hold on to them and then reapply them to your vehicle.

It just provides a little bit more discretion about what ICBC can require when someone is trying to get a refund of their insurance or licence fee because they no longer are using their vehicle.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

J. Johal: Regarding section 5, it amends subsection 51(2) of the act. Currently ICBC must issue a new decal to a licensee who has made the requirements of proof application and is paying the fee. However, section 5 would change this so that ICBC may issue a new decal. That’s an important difference for just one word. What is contemplated by this change? What is the real effect as well?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: It might be helpful to think of it as a transitional provision, in the event that, in fact, we no longer issue validation decals in British Columbia.

The scenario that this anticipates is one where somebody has a decal on their vehicle and, during the term of their vehicle licence, the system changes and decals are no longer issued but something happens that causes the decal to be lost, mutilated or destroyed.

If the existing provision stood, ICBC would have to issue a new decal to the licensee. Now it says may issue a new decal or, instead, issue whatever the new document is that shows that your vehicle is licensed and insured.

It assists with that transition where some people might be caught under the old system and some are under the new system.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

On section 7.

J. Johal: Bill 20 provides for regulations that would authorize ICBC to issue other documents or to take other actions respecting the validity of a vehicle licence instead of using validation decals. Can the Attorney General explain what that would look like in practice?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s too early in the process to have any particular documents or process to share with the member.

I can tell the member that this has been drafted in a manner that enables flexibility, based on our engagements with stakeholders, in terms of what the documents might look like or how they would be issued or their term of the licence and so on.

What the actual process looks like will be governed by the regs.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:15 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 20 — MOTOR VEHICLE
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2020

Bill 20, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 2020, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Eby: I call committee stage Bill 21, Wills, Estates and Succession Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 21 — WILLS, ESTATES AND
SUCCESSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2020

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 21; S. Gibson in the chair.

The committee met at 4:19 p.m.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

M. Lee: Just subsection 35.1(2). I wanted to ask, in terms of the term and the usage of the word “inhibits,” in what manner that would occur.

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: So the mischief here that we’re seeking to address is somebody sending a link to the will, essentially, and providing the will in the way that the person who receives it isn’t able to store a local copy or store, print or reproduce a copy on their own, wherever they are.

The goal here is to make sure that we are enabling the person who needs to see the will to get it and have it, and have it available to them. Someone trying to inhibit them from doing that could do that through saying: “Okay, here’s the link to the will. You can click on it.” There are ways to prevent people or make it difficult for them to get their own copy of it. So we want to be really clear that they should be able to get their own copy of the will, even if it’s electronic.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

M. Lee: Just under subsection 35.2(4), the term used is “non-substantive differences.” To the Attorney General, could he explain what that term is intended to mean?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: This section is to underline that the text of the will — all of the words — needs to be the same. But if when you print it out, it prints out on a different number of pages or the margins are different, or this kind of thing, or maybe the bullets show up in a different way, that is still deemed to be identical even if there are these non-substantive or insignificant differences in how the copies are formatted.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

M. Lee: Under subsection 35.3(3), the test around whether it is apparent that the will-maker intended to give effect to the entire will is a threshold-type test. In what manner will this be determined?

Hon. D. Eby: In a paper will, typically you’d have a physical signature on the will. But for an electronic will, there may be no physical manifestation of an electronic signature. So there may not be a replication of a written signature on it. It may be a code that somehow locks or otherwise validates the electronic document.

So the current technological example of that would be a blockchain key. I think the member is familiar with that. But for those who aren’t, it is a manner of authenticating a particular document by having a particular code stored in the blockchain which is otherwise accessible. So it’s not a signature as you would expect. It is another way to verify that it is an electronic signature, but it’s not a physical reproduction of somebody’s handwriting.

So that’s what is meant to be addressed here in sub 35.3(3) — that the will is still deemed to be signed even if there’s not that sort of physical reproduction of the electronic signature. It may be done in some other way as long as it’s apparent that the will-maker intended to give effect to the entire will.

Sections 4 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

[4:30 p.m.]

M. Lee: Just in section 55.1(1)(a) and (b), the term “intention” is used in both cases. Could I ask the Attorney General to please clarify the use of that term and what it’s intended to mean, literally?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. D. Eby: With respect to intent, the interest here of the drafters in government is to have a clear indication by the will-maker that they intend to revoke the will, that they mean to do it, that it’s not an inadvertent destruction of the will. So for an electronic will, you might delete a local copy of the will from your computer, but you don’t intend to revoke the entire will. You’re just deleting the local copy.

There’s also a sort of confirming subsection (3) that talks about inadvertent deletion, where maybe you’ve accidentally deleted it. That also is not meant to be captured.

Subsection (b) talks of a sort of symbolic act where you rip up the will or you burn it; you have the intention of revoking all or part of the will. You might also have a situation where someone shreds a copy of a will because they just don’t want that copy of it anymore. But it’s not their intention…. They don’t mean to revoke the entire will.

It’s critical that the intention, the meaning of the person’s action in deleting the electronic will or in ripping up or burning or shredding the physical will is to revoke it. That’s why the word “intention” is used throughout.

Sections 9 to 13 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:34 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[4:35 p.m.]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 21 — WILLS, ESTATES AND
SUCCESSION AMENDMENT ACT, 2020

Bill 21, Wills, Estates and Succession Amendment Act, 2020, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Eby: I call committee stage on Bill 5, the Employment Standards Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 5 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
AMENDMENT ACT, 2020

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 5; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 4:37 p.m.

On section 1.

J. Martin: Can I ask the minister what the rationale was for landing on five days of paid leave as opposed to another amount?

Hon. H. Bains: Thank you very much for the question. I would remind the member…. I think we did consultations. There were five in-person consultations. There were 6,261 online survey responses and 32 written submissions.

Ninety-two percent of the workers supported an employer-paid leave, and 83 percent of the employers supported an employer-paid leave. Ninety-two percent of the respondents want at least five days paid leave. When you summarize all that, 60.4 percent of people that were surveyed suggested five days. Others were quite a smaller number; that was the suggestion.

We looked at the other jurisdictions as well. We believe…. Looking at the other jurisdictions and according to the surveys we conducted — that’s how we arrived at five days.

J. Martin: Thank you very much for that, Minister.

[4:40 p.m.]

Again to the Minister of Labour, I have no doubt whatsoever that each and every one of us in this House wants to ensure that businesses, particularly small businesses, can provide the support needed to workers to ensure that they have the time and space to heal. Did the government give any consideration to tax credits related to the amounts paid out to workers on paid leave?

Hon. H. Bains: We did not consider a tax credit for the employers for this. We looked at the other jurisdictions. As I have said, many other jurisdictions already have that. When we went through the survey — we consulted widely, as I said; the businesses were consulted — as I suggested, 83 percent of the employers support an employer-paid leave.

So I think we fully understand the small businesses’ issues, especially right now. I think it’s one thing that kind of a majority of the people we talked to agreed. This is one area that we’d help in changing the employment standard. That’s why the wide consultation — reaching out to the workers, the small businesses, the business representatives, the labour, the community activists, the women’s groups. I think all of them suggested that this is something that is lacking and we must move on, and that’s how we made this decision.

J. Martin: But given that we are dealing with a societal problem, not just a workplace problem, why wouldn’t the government want to get involved in the rest of the community — society, the government — in supporting such a noble effort rather than the employer having to shoulder the entire cost of such a program that we all support in this House?

Hon. H. Bains: When we went through the consultations, a number of different suggestions were being made. What kind of a program can we have? Can something like the EI program work? It was looked at. In order to have that type of program, or attached to the EI program, it would require the federal government to agree, because that is a federal government program. As we already know, for the EI sick leave, there is a one-week waiting period. So even that part didn’t work.

I think that all those discussions took place during the consultation process. Then we looked at what the other jurisdictions have done. If you take a look at Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick and the federal jurisdictions, they all provide five days employer-paid sick leave, so that’s how the decision was made.

[4:45 p.m.]

It wasn’t an easy decision to be made, because we understand that there are very, very small business owners who may have difficulty in adopting this and incurring the costs. But when you look at what is available, what are the possibilities out there in order to deal with the real issues? We understand the victims or those people who are suffering sexual or domestic violence, the devastation that they go through. I think that it’s our duty as a society to support them so that they can leave that circumstance, for the safety of themselves and of their children, and look for a new job, a new home, a new school — and to do the banking, if they need to change the banking.

There’s a whole host of things that go through the minds of those people who are suffering domestic violence or sexual violence. I think that the last thing that you want them to go through is to worry about the economic hardship that was placed on them by not getting paid. They need time off in order to do all those things, but if they are burdened with worry about paying their bills — because the income is not coming — in order to do the necessary thing that they need to do during that time, I think that’s why the government moved.

I’m happy that the members of the opposition also supported this at that particular time. It’s something that I think is the right thing to do, and that’s why we moved in the direction that we did.

J. Martin: The last inquiry on this particular section. To the minister, will this have any impact whatsoever on workers compensation insurance?

Hon. H. Bains: No, I am advised that it will not have any impact on the WCB.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

J. Martin: When we look at leave for victims of domestic and sexual violence in the Employment Standards Amendment Act of 2019, the Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2020, there’s been very much a non-partisan, collaborative spirit on both sides of the House. However, section 2 of this amendment act leaves the specifying circumstances and the calculations mainly up to regulation. What is the purpose of this when we have largely been able to make these changes legislatively in the previous circumstances?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Again, what we passed in section 1 describes the area — who qualifies for this leave and, also, how that person shall be paid and how the wages will be calculated.

What this section talks about is that in the event there are some gaps left, through regulations, you can fix it. For example, the previous section talked about the average pay calculations. How do you get paid? There are a variety of different ways different people are getting paid. They may have a certain period where their wages are higher. The other times, the wages may not be as much. It’s seasonal-based. There could be a variety of different situations where regulations might be needed in order to fix the gap there.

I think that’s the purpose here. In case we miss something in section 1, we are able to fix it through regulations so that it’s clear to the employee who will be impacted by this and also to the employer. So we have fixed the gap in case the gap was left out of section 1.

J. Martin: Thank you for that, Minister. You’ve basically answered my next follow-up to that. But is it the intention to possibly also expand or change definitions in the event of that?

Hon. H. Bains: The answer is no. The only authority under this section to make changes through regulations is how the wages are calculated, not the definition of who qualifies.

J. Martin: One final question to the minister. If there are changes made via regulation — whether it’s to the specifying circumstances, minimum amounts or anything else — will there be consultations made before these changes come into effect, and who would the parties be that would be consulted?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: I think the likely scenario is that some stakeholder will identify some gaps — how the wages are calculated, whether we are doing it right or not, and whether there are some changes needed. I think that’s how we will then consider, with the direction of the employment standards branch…. Then it will be brought to our attention. Then we will make a decision whether we want to proceed with those changes, to fix that gap and to, first of all, consider whether there is a gap and whether that is in line with the intention of this bill.

I think that’s how the system will work. There could be a focused consultation, talking to those people who are impacted and those people who brought it to our attention. It could be other people involved. I think it’s going to be a quite focused approach through those kinds of regulation changes. It all will be driven by if someone identifies that there’s a gap and it’s not working the way the intention is in this section of this act. I think that’s how it will be handled.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. H. Bains: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:58 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[5:00 p.m.]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
AMENDMENT ACT, 2020

Bill 5, Employment Standards Amendment Act, 2020, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Motions Without Notice

RECALL OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY
DEVELOPMENT MINISTRY ESTIMATES
IN RESPONSE TO COVID-19 PANDEMIC

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

[That, notwithstanding the usual practices of the House and the report of resolution and completion on Vote 19 of the Committee of Supply of March 5, 2020, and further to the Sessional Order of June 22, 2020 regulating the proceedings of the Committee of Supply for this Session, the Committee of Supply, Section C, question the Deputy Minister, Ministry of Children and Family Development on July 17, 2020 on ministry operations in regard to COVID-19 related expenditures.]

This has been discussed by all three House Leaders.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Schedule of Estimates

Hon. M. Farnworth: With that, I will also table the revised schedule for Committee of Supply budget estimates for Thursday, July 16 and Friday, July 17.

I call second reading, Bill 18, Economic Stabilization Act.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 18 — ECONOMIC STABILIZATION
(COVID-19) ACT

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 18, the Economic Stabilization (COVID-19) Act, be now read a second time.

This bill implements tax relief measures previously announced by the government in response to COVID-19. These measures will bring financial relief for people and businesses as we address the ongoing effects of the pandemic.

The bill consists of five parts. Part 1 extends the tax return filing and payment deadlines under the Carbon Tax Act, the Motor Fuel Tax Act, Tobacco Tax Act and Provincial Sales Tax Act until September 30, 2020.

When our government announced this extension in March, we understood that the businesses we rely on to make remittances under these statutes were already looking at ways to keep their doors open, whether physically or virtually. The extended deadlines established by this bill recognize that for businesses who might have employees working away from the office, taking care of family members or otherwise dedicated in new ways to keeping business viable, completing tax returns and sending in payments could wait a few months.

Taking this administrative burden off businesses is just one small way the government can help. So remember, this section is about remittances collected by businesses and submitted, not the taxes paid directly by the businesses themselves.

Part 2 of the bill implements three initiatives the government has announced with respect to property taxation. First, it delays the implementation of the property tax late payment penalties for businesses. Commercial properties will not be subject to municipal penalties on unpaid 2020 taxes until October 1, 2020 at the earliest.

[5:05 p.m.]

I’d like to note that the city of Vancouver is not subject to this section, because it operates under the Vancouver Charter. However, Vancouver, in fact, has matched that penalty date and is also keeping its penalty date for October 1.

Penalties for commercial properties in rural areas are delayed until November 3, 2020, which is consistent with the existing penalty dates for the rural property tax.

Second, the bill enacts the provincial announcement that municipalities are expected to pay all tax as billed from other jurisdictions for whom they collect tax. Specifically, to enable this requirement, the British Columbia Transit Act and the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act are amended to require full payment of prescribed taxes.

Third, in order to help municipalities with their cash flow for the rest of this year, the time period for municipalities to remit the school tax and the police tax to the province is extended. Municipalities can choose how much school and police tax to remit each month, but they will not be required to make a payment until the tenth business day in January 2021, again, assisting with cash flow. As announced in Budget 2020, the bill will also align the year-end date for police tax remittance with the date for school tax remittance.

Part 3 of the bill amends the employer health tax so the employer health tax instalment due dates can be extended, as already previously announced by the government. This part also establishes a temporary regulatory-making power to allow the extension of the instalment deadline dates for the 2020 calendar year.

As anyone who has been watching knows, questions around whether we’ll extend the October 1 date or not…. This piece in the legislation allows regulations to give us the flexibility and responsiveness as we move through the restart process. If it is a piece that we want to take a look at, we will have the ability to be able to do that via the legislation and regulation.

This part also provides that the extended instalment deadline dates for 2020 will be retroactive to June 1, 2020.

Part 4 of this bill enacts the emergency benefit for workers program into the Income Tax Act. This allows individuals who receive the Canada emergency response benefit or who would have been eligible for this benefit if it had begun on March 1, 2020, to receive a $1,000 tax-free payment from the government of B.C. Additional eligibility criteria for the emergency benefit for workers include that the recipient was a resident of B.C. on March 1, 2020, and that they must file a 2019 B.C. tax return by January 1, 2021.

I just want to, for a moment, remind people about the extraordinary uptake on this support piece: the emergency benefit for workers. The application process has meant that over 600,000 people in our province have received $1,000 in support. So it really does show the need that’s continuing.

This part of the act also adds provisions to the Income Tax Act to allow for the administration of the emergency benefit for workers. This includes provisions enabling information-sharing with the federal administrators of the Canada emergency response benefit program, requirements to provide notice of ineligibility, time limits for the redetermination of benefits, penalties that may be imposed for gross negligence in making an application or failing to provide notice of ineligibility, an appeals process for penalties and rules for the repayment of ineligible amounts.

This part will also allow the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make necessary regulations for the emergency benefit for workers, including a regulation that will repeal the program when it’s concluded.

This brings us to part 5 of this bill. The COVID-19 pandemic has had unprecedented impacts on the economy of our province, along with the rest of Canada and countries around the world. Measures we’ve taken in British Columbia have made a huge difference, and they’ve certainly helped those most in need during this time of uncertainty. I released our fiscal scenario yesterday to talk about the challenges and the impact of COVID-19 on our economy, a snapshot in time, recognizing it’s all subject to change.

[5:10 p.m.]

I think it’s also important to note that thanks to our strong fiscal foundation in British Columbia and key investments we’ve made in our previous three budgets, we actually are very well positioned to be able to respond to the effects of COVID-19. The fact that we have focused on investing in people, on improving the services that people count on and building sustainable economic growth in our province are all values that matter to British Columbians and values that we will take into the recovery process as we go.

We’re proceeding into our next challenge, which is to continue to limit the transmission as we move into the restart plan. While there are early signs of some economic recovery, we certainly know that the loss in government revenues is substantial and will likely take years to fully recover. While economic recovery is growing, government is going to need to protect the programs that British Columbians rely upon as well as provide supports for economic recovery.

The effects of COVID-19 and the government’s response and recovery efforts mean that the government will be going into deficit as we work our way through rebuilding the economy. It also means that we will incur operating debt to help pay for services that are so critical during this economic recovery. For that reason, this bill includes amendments to the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act to temporarily suspend the prohibition against presenting deficit budgets for the next three years where necessary, which include fiscal years 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24.

Given the unprecedented nature of COVID-19 as well as uncertainties that remain, not simply here in British Columbia but, in fact, around the globe, it is impossible at this time to forecast with any kind of certainty when full economic recovery will occur. That’s clear if you look at the private sector forecasters that were included in our economic scenario, where there’s a wide range of expectations and forecasts around what we will see in economic growth.

While we’re certainly hopeful that the recovery will be complete in the next three years, we also have to be realistic about the challenges we’re facing. The amendment to look at three years is consistent with the approach that was taken during the worldwide financial crisis in 2009, and we will annually review the need for the suspension as we move through economic recovery. That’s also consistent with the approach that was taken in 2009.

Amendments are proposed to the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act to temporarily suspend the prohibition against presenting supplementary estimates when there is a forecast of government direct operating debt. The effects of COVID-19 and the government’s response and recovery measures mean that the government will have to incur operating debt to help pay for the critical services that people need.

The amendment will enable the government to present supplementary estimates, despite the existence of an operating debt, for fiscal years 2020-21 to 2023-24, as the government continues to work through the economic recovery.

Despite the success we’ve had in reducing the number of infections in British Columbia, we know that COVID-19 is going to continue to be a major concern for our province and the global economy. The use of supplementary estimates, should it become necessary, as we saw in March of this year, will help to provide additional funding to support critical services that people depend on as well as support ongoing economic recovery as needed. Government, as I mentioned, will annually review the need for this suspension as it works through things.

Amendments are proposed to the Financial Administration Act, as well, to provide clarity in the use of special warrants when disasters and emergencies occur or when they’re anticipated to occur when the Legislature is not sitting. The amendment adds a definition for “state of emergency” and provides clarity for special warrants if an expenditure is required during or after a state of emergency or if a disaster emergency occurs or is anticipated.

Members will recall that in March, it became necessary for the House to take extraordinary measures and to arrange for an urgent, modified session at the height of the pandemic distancing requirements.

[5:15 p.m.]

I want to say thank you to all members in this House, to the Clerk, to the staff, to the people who made that work for us to come together in a very quick time period during a very difficult time to make sure that British Columbians were able to get that support.

These amendments will help that process. They’ll provide more clarity in the existing legislation so the government can use the special warrants provision to deal with a major disaster or emergency when the Legislature is not in session.

These amendments set limits on that, which is important. It’s a democracy in this House where we deal with the warrants and where we deal with spending authority. These amendments set a six-month time limitation on the terms of the special warrant authority, requiring that they must be approved by the LG and they must be made public. As well, they must be debated upon the return of the Legislative Assembly. In the case of COVID-19, it would mean it’s part of passing the final supply act for ’20-21.

The amendments to these three acts laid out in this bill will help ensure that the province is better equipped in the future and that funding remains available as we continue to recover from the effects of COVID-19.

S. Bond: Good afternoon. I’m very pleased to begin, at least this afternoon. It’s late in the afternoon and, obviously, at the end of the three-day session that we have had. I’ll provide the beginning to my remarks on second reading for Bill 18. I do want to thank the Finance Minister for her comments and for the work that she and her team have undertaken during these difficult times.

But yesterday we saw that the Finance Minister finally provided what we considered an overdue overview of the current fiscal situation in British Columbia. As anyone who pays attention to the Legislature would know, the opposition has been pressing the government for specific details and transparency related, first of all, to the budget that was tabled in February. I am sure that for everyone, that seems like a lifetime ago.

We’ve also asked about the $5 billion COVID funding package, the spending that has been announced and the plans for the $1.5 billion allocation for economic recovery that currently sits unused as businesses across the province struggle to survive.

What did we learn yesterday? Well, unsurprisingly, the news is far worse than expected. British Columbians are facing likely what is a best-case scenario of a $12.5 billion deficit. Perhaps the most disappointing thing of all was that the government news release completely ignored the grim facts that were contained in the actual presentation that the minister did.

If you were to take just a couple of moments and look at the slide presentation that the minister used as part of her presentation yesterday, the headings of each page of the slide presentation tell a much more accurate story of what has happened in British Columbia in just a few short months. So let’s look at a few of those subtitles: “Steep impacts on B.C.’s labour market,” “Widespread job losses in B.C.,” “Substantial declines in B.C. consumer spending,” “Mixed housing market activity,” “Lower private sector economic outlook for 2020,” and a slide that highlights the elements of uncertainty. And there is a long list of items.

The Finance Minister herself reflected on the fact that this could be the worst economic downturn in recent history. Maybe we should let that sink in for a moment — the worst economic downturn in recent history. With that recognition and the growing economic crisis, one would have expected to see by now a bold, aggressive, strategic economic recovery plan, but sadly, there wasn’t one. While there was a slide entitled “Economic recovery,” the bullets showed the complete lack of urgency that this government has shown when it comes to job creation and rebooting the economy.

[5:20 p.m.]

The slide notes that there is $1.5 billion earmarked. What else does it say? That there are biweekly meetings of an economic recovery task force and that public consultation is underway.

The final bullet, a promise of some sort, is that measures are anticipated for September. September. The minister spent much of her time talking about the uncertainty that remains and the risks that are inherent with the economic scenario that she presented just yesterday.

That brings us to the irony of Bill 18, the Economic Stabilization (COVID-19) Act. While the bill contains a number of measures that have been previously announced by the government in response to the pandemic, they will hardly result in economic stabilization after hearing how devastating the impact has been on our economy.

So let’s take a look at what Bill 18 actually does. The minister did a summary, as she made her introductory remarks, noting the five sections and walking through the specifics. So as she noted, the majority of the bill enacts measures that have been previously announced, including the deferral of taxes by extending the filing and payment deadlines for the carbon tax, the motor fuel tax, the tobacco tax and the provincial sales tax until September 30, 2020. The legislation also allows for a potentially later date that may be specified by regulation.

I can assure the minister that during committee stage, we will be canvassing with the minister whether further extensions are being contemplated in light of the significant challenges that businesses are experiencing right across the province. In fact, if you look at what the B.C. Business Council said recently, they estimate that at least 10 percent and perhaps as many as 15 percent of the 200,000 B.C. businesses with paid employees could be gone by late 2021 even if you account for new entrants.

So while tax deferrals may provide some short-term relief, there is still a requirement for struggling businesses to pay them back. The government has not committed to graduated repayment plans. We will want the minister to provide some more clarity about how she intends to address the fact that many small businesses will be hard-pressed to pay tax deferrals in September. We will want the minister to make it clear whether or not she is prepared to make changes through regulation, which this bill allows, that will allow for a phased approach to deferred tax repayments.

Additional changes in the bill relate to property tax initiatives, including delaying the application of late payment penalties for commercial properties; requiring municipalities to remit the full amount of property taxes prescribed under the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act and the British Columbia Transit Act; and, finally, extending the time period for municipalities to remit the school and police taxes.

I’m reluctant to continue my additional remarks. I look forward to continuing them. Noting the hour, I would like to reserve my place and, at this point, move adjournment of the debate.

S. Bond moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a. m. Monday morning.

The House adjourned at 5:24 p.m.