Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 18, Economic Stabilization Act.

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 18 — ECONOMIC STABILIZATION
(COVID-19) ACT

(continued)

S. Bond: Good afternoon. I do appreciate the opportunity to make some further brief comments related to Bill 18. As the Chair would know, I started my comments late last week and reserved my spot to conclude my remarks today.

Perhaps we should start with just a brief reminder of the key elements of Bill 18, which, ironically, is called the Economic Stabilization Act. I hope that all of us would remember that this bill is being debated in the context of a fiscal update that the Finance Minister provided last week. In that update, the Finance Minister outlined the staggering debt that British Columbians will be facing in the months and the years ahead.

We learned, after pressing the Finance Minister to be transparent about the current fiscal situation, that the province will be facing what I think could best be described as the best-case scenario, a $12.5 billion deficit.

[2:25 p.m.]

What’s most concerning is that despite the grim financial circumstances we face in British Columbia, there is no sight of a plan to begin the reboot of our economy and to get people back to work again — not a jobs plan, no economic recovery plan. The Finance Minister herself told British Columbians that this is likely to be the worst economic downturn in recent history, yet there is no strategic and aggressive economic recovery plan.

I know that every member of the House is entitled to their own views. But this morning, to listen to the members of the government try to state that because we believe there needs to be a comprehensive strategic economic plan, we don’t believe that health needs to be a priority…. Of course it does. There now exists in British Columbia a health crisis and an economic crisis. So we need to see the government recognize that and create an economic recovery strategy.

If the members would like to look across the country, they will see that other jurisdictions are far advanced when it comes to looking at how to spur investment and create consumer confidence. So it’s not unusual or unexpected that we would be talking about how British Columbia becomes competitive once again.

As I noted earlier in my remarks, Bill 18 deals with supports and initiatives that have, for the most part, already been announced. But we know there’s so much more to do. I think it bears repeating that all of us understand that there needed to be supports for businesses and families in our province. The issue now is: how do we grow the economy? How do we rebuild consumer and investment confidence?

A significant component of the bill relates to the deferral of taxes. What it does is extend 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. While those initiatives in and of themselves have merit, there is concern about the date that is included in legislation.

The opposition and business organizations in the province have called for an extension to the repayment period. Recently the B.C. Business Council has suggested that the tax deferral should be extended until the end of the year. In addition — something that we spoke about earlier last week — there should be a 12-month repayment period in 2021, on top of businesses regular ’20-21 taxes. In other words, stretch out that payment plan so that businesses that are struggling will have an opportunity to make those payments in a reasonable way.

That is one way the minister could minimize the number of businesses that may be forced to shut their doors. It’s that serious in our province.

Here’s what Jock Finlayson of the B.C. Business Council had to say about extending the tax deferral date: “Extend deferrals on tax remittances until the end of the year, because it’s not like by September 1 or September 30 the economy is going to be back on dry ground. It’s just not the case.”

As I noted in my earlier remarks, the legislation allows for a potentially later date that may be specified by regulation. I can assure the government that during committee, we will be asking the minister if she is prepared to commit to an extended date and whether or not she’s considering that. Equally importantly, is she considering a repayment plan that stretches over a longer period of time?

The act also enables the adjustment of dates for payment of the employer health tax, moving the payment to October. Well, we know this. Even prior to the pandemic, the employer health tax was a problem for many businesses and organizations. I know that we will all remember that these costs were downloaded on businesses, including a year where the government even double-dipped, collecting both MSP premiums and a brand-new employer health tax.

How on earth does the minister think employers will be able to pay the EHT after the devastating economic circumstances they are facing, notwithstanding a change of date for payment?

[2:30 p.m.]

One of the key elements of the government’s COVID-19 response plan was a tax-free one-time payment of $1,000 for British Columbians whose ability to work was im­pacted. An amendment to the Income Tax Act is included in this bill to make that payment possible.

Perhaps one of the most significant implications of Bill 18 relates to the ability to operate in a deficit position by creating an exemption from balanced budget legislation through the ’23-24 budget year. As we saw in the fiscal update that was provided last week, in the absence of an aggressive economic recovery plan, it may well be optimistic to think that as a province, we are only facing three years of deficit budgets.

Certainly, we’ll be asking the minister what her expectations are about additional deficit years, especially if she extends the tax deferral deadlines and makes other adjustments to ensure that more businesses in British Columbia remain viable and can keep their doors open.

Now, I don’t think anyone in the House or in our country, for that matter, believes that a fiscal response to support families and businesses wasn’t important and necessary as a result of the devastating impacts of COVID-19, but it is also critical that there is a transparent, rigorous process that builds in accountability when governments spend taxpayer dollars. As we have seen far too often, that has not been the case in the past, and that is ultimately what led to balanced-budget legislation.

With the exemption that Bill 18 provides, how exactly will British Columbians know whether spending is appropriate, whether it’s reasonable or whether it’s responsible? British Columbians deserve to know those kinds of details, so exactly what safeguards will be in place is an important consideration. Again, these are the kinds of questions that we will be exploring in committee stage.

Section 21 will also require more clarity during committee stage. The Financial Administration Act is being amended to provide an expanded scope for special warrants. It will be very interesting to see how the minister explains the need for the use of special warrants following the expiry of a state of emergency and that changes will even be allowed for the anticipation of an emergency.

I think that all of us can agree that COVID has forced us to be innovative and creative in the way we conduct business in the Legislature. We’ve certainly seen businesses across the province look at ways to try to be resilient and continue their work. That is an important piece of discussion for us as we relate to the issue of special warrants. I think all of us would agree, although it is not necessarily ideal, and sometimes there are technical glitches and challenges — we even saw some of those today — the system that has been constructed allows us, in our view, to effectively conduct the business of government in new ways.

One would assume that that capability would reduce the need for broad, sweeping expansions of scope for use of special warrants. There is a lack of definition and specificity that could once again raise legitimate concerns about the transparency and safeguards related to the use of taxpayer dollars.

While many of the measures contained in Bill 18 are not unexpected, what we continue to be disappointed about is the complete absence of a strategic economic recovery plan that supports the private sector, gets British Columbians back to work and rebuilds consumer, business and investor confidence in our province.

We will pursue answers to our questions when we reach committee stage, but in the meantime, we urge the minister to look beyond this bill and to take the additional steps that are necessary to begin a path to recovery for our province. British Columbia is facing the largest deficit in the province’s history. To be clear, the opposition recognizes the need and the importance of responding to the COVID-19 pandemic — the importance and necessity of supporting individuals and families and businesses.

[2:35 p.m.]

It is also critical that there be transparency and accountability as our province grapples with the uncertainty of the days ahead and of the staggering debt we are facing. We aren’t the only ones calling for a plan. Business organizations, small businesses and many others want to know how the current government plans to spend and on what. I am hopeful that we will see a much more specific, comprehensive plan that will result in the goal of the bill that is in front of us.

The goal of Bill 18, as the title notes, is economic stabilization. While this legislation takes some steps, and there’s more clarity required on some of the elements contained in the bill, there is a lot more work to be done. That needs to be done sooner rather than later.

S. Furstenau: I’m pleased to take my place to speak on Bill 18, the Economic Stabilization Act, today. This bill amends multiple acts and makes a number of changes that implement COVID-19 response measures. It extends the tax filing and payment deadlines for multiple taxes, creates the B.C. emergency benefit and allows budget deficits for the next three years.

One major piece of this bill amends the Income Tax Act to create the B.C. emergency benefit for workers. This benefit is a tax-free, one-time, $1,000 payment for B.C. residents whose ability to work has been affected due to COVID-19. This bill also extends the tax return filing and payment deadlines for the carbon tax, the motor fuel tax, tobacco tax, provincial sales tax and commercial property taxes.

As we commented when these measures were announced, these were the right steps to take at the right time. The emergency benefit, along with these tax deferrals, helped businesses and individuals weather the immediate financial crisis from the shutdowns that took place.

Going forward, there are two challenges that government needs to balance. On the one hand, government needs to be able to adapt, given the substantial uncertainties on the horizon, and ensure that people and businesses are still receiving the supports they need come fall. Otherwise, we risk seeing a substantial wave of bankruptcies and significant financial hardship. On the other hand, government needs to be sending clear signals about the type of economy it wants to see for the future.

For most of these taxes, now due to be collected in October, I think it’s important to recognize the possibility of a strong second wave in the fall and that there are many unknowns about the ability of people to pay taxes that have accrued over the past number of months. The carbon tax is unique, however, given how powerfully it is connected to being a signal about the types of industries and types of jobs we want to build, so it is also critically important that as a part of our recovery strategy, government bring back the scheduled carbon tax increases that were suspended a few months ago.

It is with some wide dismay that the information around how much in subsidies has gone to the oil and gas industry in the past few months in Canada instead of going to the clean energy and renewable energy industry…. It’s problematic as a signal that we want to be sending. It’s important in B.C. that we take a leadership role on this.

Economists agree that consistent and scheduled increases to the price of carbon are central to its effectiveness as an economic tool. It provides business certainty and spurs investment in a clean economy.

There are many innovative businesses in B.C. that are willing and able to lead the transition to a clean economy and can create huge numbers of clean jobs as they do this. But these businesses have been clear. It undermines potential investments in transitional technology if there is no certainty that the economy is moving in this direction and that it has the full backing of government. We will continue to urge, as strongly as we can, for government to let the carbon tax do its job as a price signal to help us to transform our economy.

The bill also extends the time period for municipalities to remit the school tax and police tax to the province, but it does require municipalities to fulfil their tax remittance obligations to TransLink and B.C. Transit to give them certainty of cash flow.

[2:40 p.m.]

While the extension in this bill on the school tax and the police tax does provide municipalities with additional fiscal flexibility to deal with COVID-19, the financial situation of municipalities is a serious issue and something I expect we’ll be talking far more about in the House in the months to come. Municipalities are facing a significant financial crunch, and they don’t have the same fiscal flexibility nor the multiple forms of revenue that the provincial and federal governments have.

At committee stage, I’ll be asking about the work that the province has done to understand and mitigate the fiscal situation facing municipalities, especially given that they are being required to still remit full taxes to B.C. Transit and TransLink, despite depressed revenues. We need to be sure that extending the school tax and police tax deadline will be enough to ensure that they remain on firm financial footing.

This bill also amends the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act to temporarily suspend the prohibition against deficit budgets for the next three years, enabling the government to pass deficit budgets to the Legislature for the 2021-22, ’22-23 and ’23-24 fiscal years. As the fiscal update showed last week, we, like every jurisdiction dealing with COVID around the world, are facing a very challenging fiscal situation. There is a consensus amongst economists and public policy experts of all political stripes that substantial government investment and intervention is required to support people and to boost our economy in this highly uncertain time.

Of course, the government needs to continue to respon­sibly manage expenditures, but fearmongering about deficits is not helpful. Running deficits is not inherently irresponsible or problematic. What matters is not the deficit itself but the size of the debt relative to the strength of the economy as well as the cost of borrowing. The cost of borrowing is extremely low right now, and we went into this crisis on strong financial footing. At this moment in time, it would be, frankly, irresponsible to not run a substantial deficit to support people and keep the economy moving.

But unfortunately, as the opposition can attest, fearmongering about deficits seems to be good politics. Requiring a balanced budget each year is a purely political act that doesn’t support good policy outcomes. It makes longer-term planning and programming more difficult and results in artificial constraints and inefficient spending in ministries. So while I fully support the fact that this bill allows for deficits for the next three years as we seek to recover from COVID-19, I question the reluctance of this government to challenge this paradigm. Government should not have to change legislation to be able to run a deficit when it’s the responsible thing to do.

This brings me to my major concern about the bill: not what it changes, but what it doesn’t change. This bill continues to reinforce the political frame that government is not to be trusted and that its role is to be minimized, despite the fact that this most recent crisis is showing us that precisely the opposite is true.

Despite allowing budget deficits for the next three years, this bill does not change the salary holdbacks under this legislation that were introduced by the previous government. These holdbacks mean that ministers are penalized 10 percent of their salary for not balancing their individual portfolios and another 10 percent when the government budget as a whole is not balanced, for a 20 percent penalty. This means ministers are essentially being penalized for authorizing the social supports, economic investments and programs required to get B.C. through this crisis.

The Minister of Health, to take one example, oversaw a health response to COVID-19 to keep our health care system functioning and to keep British Columbians safe. The minister has implemented widespread testing, extra surge capacity for our hospitals, PPE for our health care workers and a surgical renewal plan, all of which cost substantial money and all of which are absolutely required to help us to weather this crisis. Because of this, the minister is facing a 20 percent salary penalty this year. That doesn’t seem right. This is true for every minister and every portfolio affected by COVID-19.

[2:45 p.m.]

This isn’t about individual ministers and how hard they’ve been working or their individual decisions. This is about the signal we’re sending about the role of government leadership and the discretion of elected politicians to make decisions supported by evidence and by experts in the public service. The proper place for ministers to be held accountable for these decisions is in the Legislature and, ultimately, by the people of B.C. during elections. It’s not by a punitive financial penalty that isn’t responsive to the actual context we are in today.

This type of legislation reflects the damaging notion that government is not to be trusted, despite the fact that this pandemic has shown us more clearly than ever the need for responsible government leadership to support the health and well-being of the people of British Columbia. So I’m sad to see that this government has chosen to leave this in place.

I will be speaking to this issue further at committee stage, and I look forward to the discussion.

Deputy Speaker: Our final speaker to Bill 18, second reading, is the member for Surrey South.

S. Cadieux: With the introduction of this bill, government has indeed unveiled a plan to run deficits for three years. Last week the Finance Minister laid out a grim picture for the province’s finances, and we’re still waiting for a discernible economic recovery plan of any type. Now, I understand the likelihood of deficits for a few years. It is difficult, though, to blindly support it. The anticipated while likely uncertain depths of the deficits that are projected are an important consideration.

Deficits for recovery purposes are one thing. Deficits for unbridled spending on partisan projects or programs while on increased government payrolls are something quite totally different. While we heard from the Finance Minister that her priorities had not changed, despite laying out for the public the likelihood of a deficit for this year of over $12½ billion…. Despite that, the Finance Minister isn’t taking a look at government priorities.

We’re also concerned about the broad emergency powers this legislation will confer upon government. The additional and even pre-emptive emergency spending authority contemplated by these amendments needs to have the appropriate checks and balances in place that this power merits. This is especially the case when we have now cemented the ability to scrutinize the budget through video conferencing technology.

This bill does a number of things, however, some of which are not unexpected given the announcements of tax deferrals made by government over the last couple of months. So this bill creates the authority for those deferrals.

Sections 1 to 5 enact the deferral of the carbon tax and the motor fuel, sales and tobacco taxes to September 30 or a later date if specified by regulation. There appear to be no phased-in repayments at this point, so while businesses have appreciated the ability to defer, the repayments are all coming due at the same time. That may cause another cash flow issue, as the member for Prince George–Valemount laid out in her remarks earlier.

The B.C. Chamber survey data suggests that 43 percent of businesses have said that they’ll require more financial help to stay open than is available from governments currently. Chamber president Val Litwin specifically referenced the deferred tax payments that will all come due in that one swoop on September 30. Many businesses, although reopening, are still seeing revenues far below normal levels. Only 23 percent have achieved normal sales volumes. They’re certainly not strong enough yet to be covering accumulated debts from closure months. In fact, many are still accumulating that debt.

Section 6 is going to enable regulations to extend the repayment deadline and make regulations retroactive. The Finance Minister has mused publicly about the possibility of repayment plans, but there’s no indication in the bill how those might work or be structured. Section 6 prescribes, as I say, the regulation-making authority to extend the deadlines, but we aren’t assured at this point that government intends to use it, nor how.

Sections 7 to 9 enact the delay on penalties for late payment of property taxes. Sections 10 to 14 enable local governments to delay the payment of tax sums collected and owed to the provincial government in order to ensure liquidity from municipal governments.

Section 15 enacts the deferral of the employer health tax and allows alteration of payment plan scheduling.

Section 16 repeals section 15, coming into force on December 31, 2021. Now, that’s, effectively, a sunset clause in EHT deferrals. Both the late payments will now become due at a new date, meaning that the combined deferred payments become due in October.

[2:50 p.m.]

Section 17 allows government to disclose information for the administration and auditing of the federal CERB applications.

Section 18 enacts the emergency benefit for workers, which adds sections 214 to 239 of the Income Tax Act. Certainly, this was an action of government that was not unexpected, in order to support people who had lost work through the pandemic. Certainly, understanding these sections need to be implemented in order for that to ultimately take effect….

Now, section 214 appears to state that the emergency benefit is for the 2019 taxation year. This will need a little explanation. I’m sure there’s a drafting purpose served here that I’m not immediately understanding, but we can cover that in committee.

Section 215 establishes the qualification criteria. Section 223, a penalty of $3,000 for false applications, of which I certainly hope we don’t have too many. Individuals who received the B.C. emergency benefit for workers but are ineligible have to repay the amount, and interest on that amount, after 30 days.

Section 234 gives audit powers. All very standard. But equally important to all of this is what the bill doesn’t do. It completely fails to add any measures that could be construed as a recovery plan, despite its title — nothing that could be argued to act as stimulus for an economy in shock. The government has done much in terms of spending, yet it’s kind of dumbfounding how little help there has been to help our small business–dependent economy.

In fact, there’s been very little support of any kind provided to businesses. Almost no real spending on the part of government in the way of cash. No help to strapped employers to get through. Not on rent relief for small businesses who had to close their doors to help respond to the pandemic and keep people safe.

Government has, many times, pointed to the school tax reduction as a help for small businesses. Yes, the province is taking a large hit with this measure. But who is it benefiting? Mostly it is benefiting landlords and property owners, but the majority of small businesses are tenants. They are not owners and landlords. Many of them have seen no flow-through relief from the measure implemented by government.

With just deferrals of owed taxes, which is what this bill helps bring to fruition, we will now see all of that come due in one lump sum for those small businesses. Meanwhile, just next door, our closest competitor has announced a $10 billion recovery plan, starting with a cut to the corporate tax, which will further serve to reduce B.C.’s competitiveness. Whether or not one likes tax cuts or professes that that’s the only thing that this side of the House ever suggests…. Regardless of whether or not that is your position, when your closest competitor does exactly that, your competitiveness is harmed if you don’t match it.

Recovery grants of $5,000 for small businesses, accelerating $500 million of shovel-ready projects this summer to help get people working, launching an innovation employment grant to support jobs and industries that diversify the economy…. We have heard much from both this government and from its supporting Green Party members that we want to see us build back better. We want to see us build a greener economy with our recovery. Well, how do you do that if you don’t help businesses and small businesses find ways to improve their operations?

The B.C. government, in contrast, has launched a survey to find out what British Columbians think they should do with $1½ billion. The Finance Minister was quoted as suggesting that health and safety measures are all that’s needed. While we argued this morning that health and safety is necessarily and arguably priority number one, it isn’t sufficient in and of itself as a path to recovery. The only certainty that we have from government around recovery is its own paper accompanying the CERB.

They see recovery as building a B.C. where strong public services are always there, meeting the challenge of the climate crisis and doing so in partnership with Indigenous peoples. They’re all good things. They’re all essential. They’re all things that government has to be considering when it’s making policy. But there are glaring omissions, like any mention of the industries and sectors that create the ability for government to spend money, the industries that bring investment to B.C., and revenue, therefore, to the province, like the tourism economy. It had a pre-COVID revenue of $20½ billion, with $1.7 billion in tax revenue to B.C. It’s been devastated.

[2:55 p.m.]

There’s no plan currently to assist these businesses to stay afloat until global travel resumes and clients return. Small businesses — 98 percent of the economy, employing more than half a million British Columbians. The retail sector who might be looking to get online…. Ontario had a Digital Main Street grant to help build resiliency. I would anticipate that many of our small businesses could use the same help.

What’s the plan to support our resource industry and our exporters? If we’ve seen exports fall 15 percent through the first five months of 2020, what are we doing to ensure that we’re going to build that back stronger?

Really, it would just be great to know that government had a plan at all. We don’t see any evidence of it. We need to be sure that we’re taking a comprehensive look at our economy as we plan for the future. Beyond a hope and a prayer that people will resume their normal activities and spending patterns, what does government plan to do to stimulate the recovery? What are they going to do to increase our competitiveness as an economy and as a province to drive innovation and resiliency in our biggest market sectors? This can’t wait. It is urgent.

Ninety-eight percent of our economy is those small businesses, and up to 20 percent of them are expected to disappear within a year. That’s just not sustainable, and that isn’t going to help us to build back better.

Many businesses, although reopening, are still, like I said, seeing their revenues far below normal levels. They’re not strong enough to be covering those debts for closure months, and they’re not able to hire back all of their employees.

Government needs a plan for the economy. We don’t see it from this government. Without it, businesses will fail and people will teeter on the edge of bankruptcy. Government’s projections for a $12½ billion deficit will slide even further into the red. So how is government going to leverage that $1.5 billion they have earmarked for recovery to springboard our economy to a better place, not just to plug holes in the dam?

What do we know about what government is planning? A future that will likely have fewer balanced budgets, given changes that government is making in this legislation. Section 19 creates that exemption for 2021 to 2024, and no change is made to the ministerial holdback provisions…. Section 20 allows supplementary estimates, instead of surplus amounts going towards debt repayment.

When it comes to the presumption of deficits, what are the safeguards? With all of the ridicule the NDP levelled at us for balanced budget legislation when it was introduced and even subsequently…. Yet her own government, for over three years, felt obliged to provide the same, to present balanced budgets under that legislation and to lecture, if not boast, about the strict commitment to balanced budgets that she was undertaking.

No one, under the circumstances we find ourselves in worldwide, would think it was unreasonable to be projecting a deficit. Of course emergency spending was required. Of course revenues are down. But we still have a Finance Minister that believes that recovery will just happen. But businesses are failing, jobs are being lost forever, women and young people are the hardest hit, and government has no strategy to present.

The concern, however, is that this bill is starting an unravelling and a dismantling of the rigidity of the budgeting process for the province. The reason these measures were put in place were quite simply because, left to their own devices, previous governments of many stripes saw fit to abuse the budget process for their own political reasons. That’s why the strict timelines for budget processes are in place — to prevent the manipulation of both the timing and the content of the provincial budget.

The pandemic response, pandemic-related revenue declines and even recovery spending are fully expected, and yes, reasonably, some of this might stretch beyond this budget. But we do need to know what to expect.

What are the safeguards going to be, if not balanced-budget legislation? When government has presupposed the next three years of budgets will not be balanced, on what data is that supposition being made, and what will the difference be between a $5 billion and a $20 billion deficit, from year to year? What controls will be in place to ensure that spending is reasonable, to ensure that it is proportionate to the emergency, to prevent that deficit from being padded by political posturing and unnecessary growth in the public sector? What are the safeguards to ensure that a responsible fiscal plan — versus the NDP’s old ways of budgeting, of overspending and uncontrolled spending — to resume?

Section 21 is going to expand the Financial Administration Act’s scope for when special warrants can be authorized for spending up to six months during a state of emergency. We are told this is because the pandemic may not have been covered by the previous special warrant definitions.

[3:00 p.m.]

Additionally, preventative and post-emergency recovery measures and criteria are contemplated for special warrants. Preventative and post-emergency — what reasonable example can the minister give as to why this is necessary? We suspect that these conditions are too permissive, especially given that the Legislature has now achieved a means to authorize such expenditures remotely.

I’m surprised, frankly, given the comments in the Green Party member’s response just before this, that there was not more of a focus on this presumptive measure. She talked about the importance of trusting government and trusting ministers and, in her opinion, the need to remove the ministerial holdback provisions because you should trust government to do the necessary spending and the right thing. Yet here we’re being told to trust government to presumptively spend money without the Legislature’s approval and to presumptively, in a recovery stage, spend money, again without the Legislature’s approval.

We’re doing this despite the fact that we have now the ability to sit virtually. We have seen us come together as a Legislature to do what was necessary in very short order in March to provide government with necessary spending authority. So I am, yes, a bit suspicious of the dismantling of the procedural safeguards that are being proposed through this bill. The extension by 30 days from election isn’t, I don’t think, overly egregious — at least, probably not — but it does signal, also, a potential trend.

On the surface, a most reasonable-thinking British Columbian might see merit in providing government with extraordinary tools in case of emergency, but what is the definition of “emergency”? The inclusion here of anticipated emergency seems convenient but not in keep­ing with the Emergency Program Act definition that emergency means “a present or imminent event or circumstance….” The European Commission for Democracy through Law cites three key principles for the implementation of emergency measures, which are necessity, proportionality and temporariness, to reference my colleague from Vancouver-Langara.

Anticipated emergencies are a new concept for this act, meaning we should be especially conscious of the potential pitfalls that may result from broadening that special warrant authority. They are, in essence, a means for cabinet to procure funds prior to seeking authorization from the Legislature. So how do we ensure that special warrants stemming from that anticipated emergency will result from necessity? How will they be proportionate? And will they be temporary? Certainly, the ability to issue a special warrant up to six months after a state of emergency begs the question of how we define “temporary.” How cabinet anticipates emergencies will call into question the matter of proportionality.

Finally, now that we’ve positioned the Legislature, as I stated, with special standing orders and video conferencing technology that allows us to scrutinize needed spending, as we did in March and continue to do today, we must also ask the question: to what extent do those powers meet the test of necessity? Any number of things could be considered here, and I think the Finance Minister will need to provide a very compelling case that what is captured is specific enough to warrant support.

We are debating another bill to implement a bunch of measures that will significantly impact the provincial budgets for the coming years. Just last week we saw a snapshot of B.C.’s dire financial picture. When asked about the future, the Finance Minister admits that we don’t know what it will look like. There are lots of unknowns, and it could get worse, yet there are no plans to look at reduced government spending.

Before anyone goes off suggesting that I think we should cut the programs people need, for the record, I am not. But there is and always are areas that can be trimmed when the belt needs tightening. The minister herself had government do that just last year.

At the best of times, things happen, and priorities shift. Ask any minister who has worked on a plan for a program or for legislation, only to see it shelved for another day. But in the face of a $12½ billion deficit — possibly more, since they’ve decided not to update us on the projections for B.C. Hydro and ICBC and since the Premier has since announced that he will match federal dollars that are targeted for recovery — this government has no plans to reassess their priorities.

[3:05 p.m.]

Well, that’s not good enough. Once again, no one on this side of the House is going to blame government for the pandemic nor for the need for significant emergency spending measures. But it is only reasonable to ask what the plan is to get back to a sustainable spending level.

Understandably, things will continue to change and evolve. They do that even without a pandemic. But that isn’t an excuse not to have a plan five months in. I think government needs to do better. It’s not unreasonable for us to be asking. Clearly the pandemic has taken priority. The budgets of all levels of government have been thrown into shambles. This government now, at least…. Are they taking another look at their plan? Well, in response, they saw fit to announce those deferrals on a bunch of tax measures but very little else for businesses and very little to drive growth in our private sector economy.

Now we have this bill, essentially cementing the inevitability of deficit budgets for government for three years. We see the government next door beat the NDP to the punch, reduce their corporate tax rate and add billions to support their economy while here we have a government content on discussions. This government has no plan for economic recovery — period.

Businesses and economists are scratching their heads, wondering why the government is treading water. “B.C., in relative terms, is really throwing toonies and loonies at the sort of support-for-the-economy piece here, and they’re essentially relying on the federal government’s balance sheet and federal institutions. They really have done very little,” said the B.C. Business Council.

Unfortunately, the legislation before us doesn’t represent a change in direction. It contains no semblance of a plan for economic recovery, despite its title as the Economic Stabilization (COVID-19) Act, in a province that desperately needs it, and it sets us up for years of deficits. What we know is that recovery will not be easy, even under the best of circumstances. But as elected officials, we have to make sure that we’re making decisions based on all of the relevant information.

I hope that as we move into committee stage on this bill, we’re able to get more clarity from government on their recovery road map as well as answers to the questions I raised today in this time here. It’s an important piece of legislation for the future of our province. I look forward to discussing it further.

With that, I’ll close.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize the Minister of Finance to close debate.

Hon. C. James: Thank you to the members who have responded to the second reading on Bill 18, the Economic Stabilization (COVID-19) Act. Just a few pieces to touch on to summarize. I know we’ll have a chance for a lot of this debate and discussion when we move into committee stage, but I did want to touch on a few of the themes that I’ve heard running through this discussion.

The first one is around plans for the economy. I heard a lot of discussion around plans of the economy and what kind of direction the government is going. Well, I want to remind the members once again that in fact the clearest plan for our economy and for economic recovery is a strong health and safety plan, because if people do not feel confident in the direction that’s happening in the province, if they do not feel confident that we’re addressing the health and safety issues, you will see no economic recovery. In fact, that was our first and foremost piece that we put in place for our COVID action plan.

The second piece: immediate supports for businesses and for individuals. I won’t run through all of those. I’ve done that often. But I did hear the members say there was nothing there for businesses, other than a few deferrals. Well, $700 million in a tax cut for businesses — not a deferral, an actual tax cut to reduce property taxes to help with cash for businesses.

Targeted support for the agriculture industry. Targeted support for the tourism industry. Mental health supports. Child care supports. All of those not only help businesses but, in fact, help individuals and families as well. Support for people with diverse abilities to make sure that they were receiving the supports. Support for children in care. That’s just a short list of the kinds of approaches that have been put in place.

[3:10 p.m.]

Then next, safe restart, making sure that we could, as a province, start opening up in a way that was planned and measured and, most importantly, safe, to build that confidence for customers, to build that confidence for individuals and, most importantly, to build that confidence so that businesses could open up again.

I heard members talk about the deficit budgets and questioning the three-year approach to deficit budgets to measure three years ahead. There is no question. No one, including economists, business groups or organizations, has a crystal ball to know how long we are going to face the challenges in the economy. So we looked at what had been done previously by the past government, for example, in other years. They put aside three years. It’s going to be reviewed each year. It’s going to be looked at each year. But we feel, again, that’s a responsible way to be able to manage.

Responsible budgeting. I heard discussion around re­spon­sible budgeting. Well, we’ll have an opportunity to talk further about responsible budgeting and deficit budgets. There is no question that there may be a difference of opinion between the past government and ourselves around putting those supports in place.

I heard the member ask about reductions in the civil service and the public service, looking for cuts, looking for reductions in supports. Well, that’s not our approach. It’s not a time to start creating less jobs, to start causing challenges when it comes to providing services and supports for people that they rely on so deeply in this province. We saw for 16 years what happens when you approach budgeting from that perspective. So yes, there will be a difference of opinion, I expect.

I know these amendments that are laid out in this bill will help ensure that the province is better equipped, not only now through COVID-19 but, in fact, into the future. I look forward to the conversations the members have talked about, the special warrants piece. I think that’s, again, a very good discussion. I agree with the member that it has to be very tight. It has to be for extreme circumstances. I think this session has shown that we have the ability, in some emergencies, to be able to manage.

I give the example of an earthquake. Perhaps, as a Victoria MLA, it’s on my mind often that those are risks that we face. This building faces big risks if there’s an earthquake. If the system was down and there weren’t opportunities to come together and emergency funds needed to be there, to include the pandemic as one of those emergency pieces, I believe, is the responsible thing to do, with all of the checks and balances that the member talked about — making sure that it has to come back to the Legislature, making sure it has to be public, making sure that it’s short term and making sure that it is truly an emergency.

I would agree with all of those points, so I think that will be a good discussion.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 18, the Economic Stabilization (COVID-19) Act.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. James: I move that Bill 18 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 18, Economic Stabilization (COVID-19) 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. S. Robinson: I’m acting as House Leader. I now call second reading, Bill 23, Workers Compensation Amend­ment Act.

BILL 23 — WORKERS COMPENSATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2020

Hon. H. Bains: It is my honour to stand and open the second reading of Bill 23. I move that Bill 23 be read a second time now.

I must say, right in the beginning, that as the Minister of Labour, it is my commitment and the commitment of this government to make British Columbia the safest workplace jurisdiction in Canada and to support injured workers and their families. At the same time, government is fully aware of the financial pressures being felt by employers during these unprecedented times.

[3:15 p.m.]

Worker safety and an effective, supportive workers compensation system are important to me, both personally and as Minister of Labour. One of my priority mandate commitments from the Premier is to increase compliance with employment laws and standards put in place to protect the lives and safety of workers. Over the past three years, I have been working with WorkSafeBC on changes to improve education, inspection and enforcement programs and engage employers and workers on how to ensure workplace safety.

It is also a priority of this government to have a workers compensation system that is more worker centred, because the primary purpose is to protect workers and to support workers with rehabilitation services and loss of earnings compensation during difficult situations. If you look at the three basic pillars of the workers compensation system, it is through education and training, working with the employers and the workers to prevent injuries in the first place. Prevention is important.

Then in order to make that happen, you must have a strong enforcement regime in place. When injuries do occur or people become sick due to the workplace, they are respected and their claims are dealt with, with respect and dignity so that they get the support that they need, the medical care that they need and rehab that they need to prepare them to go back to their pre-injury job.

All of those are key fundamentals to have workers’ health and safety and a strong workers compensation system in place. In support of this goal, many policies and program changes are taking place at WorkSafeBC to ensure that the workers are treated with respect and feel supported when they need to access workers compensation.

While important policy and program improvements are taking place at WorkSafeBC, some improvements require amendment to the Workers Compensation Act. As such, Bill 23 introduces a number of modest but important improvements to British Columbia’s workers compensation and the occupational health and safety system. Bill 23 makes the improvements that our government believes are important to keep workers safe and to support injured workers and their dependents while ensuring affordable changes for employers at this time.

Many of the significant changes in Bill 23 reflect the findings and the recommendations from four reviews undertaken since 2017 to examine different aspects of the system. In April 2018, Paul Petrie reported on his review of WorkSafeBC’s policies to ensure a worker-centred approach wherever practical.

In December 2018, Terry Bogyo delivered his report examining options for WorkSafeBC’s accident fund and the excess surplus. This review included a number of options for using the excess surplus to increase workers compensation benefit levels. Given the financial uncertainty that has since arisen with the COVID-19 emergency, many of these options are not being addressed at this time. Bill 23, however, does include several of the more modest proposals of Mr. Bogyo’s report.

In August 2019, Lisa Jean Helps reported on her assessment of government and WorkSafeBC’s progress in implementing recommendations stemming from past reports into the tragic Lakeland and Babine sawmill explosions in 2012. Ms. Helps reported favourably on the improvements made to date but recommended a number of further changes, including four new legislative amendments to better protect workers’ health and safety and to support WorkSafeBC’s health and safety inspection program. Bill 23 makes all four of these statutory changes.

[3:20 p.m.]

Finally, earlier this year Jeff Parr consulted with businesses, workers and Indigenous representatives on the legislative proposals in the Petrie, Bogyo and Helps reports and made recommendations for legislative change based on what he heard. Most of the significant changes in Bill 23 were reviewed with these stakeholders and were endorsed in Mr. Petrie’s consultation report, although we’re not moving ahead with all of the recommendations, due to the COVID-19 emergency.

I do want to take this opportunity to thank Paul Petrie, Terry Bogyo, Lisa Helps and Jeff Parr for their professionalism and expertise in undertaking these reviews and providing government and WorkSafeBC with very thoughtful findings and recommendations for our consideration.

I will now move on to highlight the specifics of Bill 23. Bill 23 makes three enhancements to provide injured workers with workers compensation benefits that better take into account their loss of earnings. When people are injured on the job, we need to ensure that our workers compensation system responds to their needs and the needs of their families. These meaningful changes will improve support for injured workers and their families without significantly increasing the employer’s cost during the current COVID-19 emergency.

The first improvement relates to the approach used to determine the amount of the permanent disability award. The most beneficial calculation is used for each individual worker’s circumstance.

In 2002, the previous government amended the act so that, in most cases, permanent partial disability payments must be calculated using what is called the loss-of-function approach. Under this approach, the monthly compensation benefit is based on a worker’s likely loss of earnings according to the nature of their injury. The alternative loss-of-earnings approach, whereby compensation takes into account a worker’s real loss of earnings in their particular situation, is only permitted in exceptional circumstances.

For workers who are unable to return to their pre-injury employment and income — and those circumstances are not considered by WorkSafeBC as exceptional — the 2002 amendment requiring a loss-of-function award often results in compensation less than the worker’s loss of earnings.

Bill 23 will provide, for a permanent partial disability, that the amount of workers compensation must be based on the higher of the loss-of-function approach or the loss-of-earnings approach so that the workers are not left undercompensated for their loss of earnings. This important change restores the way the compensation system’s payments for permanent partial disability were determined before the 2002 amendments.

The second compensation improvement impacts the length of the permanent disability award. Under the act, monthly workers compensation payments end when the worker reaches age 65, unless WorkSafeBC is satisfied that the worker would have retired later.

Think about this. Currently the final determination of whether a worker would retire later than 65 is made at the time of the disability assessment, when the amount of their permanent disability award is determined. This approach is a real challenge, particularly for workers injured at a young age, who may be unable to provide satisfactory evidence that they would retire after age 65.

If passed, Bill 23 permits the board to make the determination of a worker’s date of retirement and, therefore, the end date for their permanent disability award after the worker reaches age 63, much closer to the real retirement date. This much-needed amendment makes the system fairer for workers. They will be in a better position to provide evidence of their retirement closer to age 65, and it allows for a more equitable determination of when a worker would retire. For some workers, who can show a later retirement date…. This can be a significant benefit for the injured worker and their families.

The third improvement to ensure that the compensation for an injured worker and surviving dependents better reflects the worker’s loss of earnings is to increase the 2021 maximum insurable earnings threshold to $100,000. The earnings threshold is the maximum income on which workers compensation payments can be based.

[3:25 p.m.]

Currently the maximum income threshold is $87,100 for the year 2020. This means that if an injured worker earned more than this — say, $95,000 per year — their compensation benefit will be calculated based on only $87,100. This means the worker is behind financially, just because of the maximum threshold limit, when injured at work through no fault of their own.

While the intent of the maximum income threshold is to provide financial stability to the system by avoiding excessive compensation payments for extremely-high-income earners, the existing earnings threshold undercompensates a significant number of workers in British Columbia and has fallen behind the maximums used in some other Canadian jurisdictions. The increase to $100,000 is intended to meet the goal of ensuring that at least 90 percent of the workers are covered for 100 percent of their earnings.

For future years, WorkSafeBC will continue the current practice, under the act, of increasing the maximum earnings threshold proportionate to the change in British Columbia’s average earnings. This is another way that we are making real changes to improve things for workers.

In addition to these workers compensation enhancements, Bill 23 adds an important improvement to support the rehabilitation of injured workers.

In some cases, workers may require diagnostic or preventative treatment before WorkSafeBC is able to decide on their application for workers compensation. Providing such health care services on a timely basis, including before a decision can be made on the claim, may prevent a case from becoming a serious claim, a claim that could end up being more severe for the injured worker and more costly for the workers compensation system. This meaningful change is good for the whole workers compensation system.

Certain occupational diseases, such as HIV and tuberculosis, and psychological injuries, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, may be worsened by a delay in treatment. For this reason, Bill 23 will provide explicit authority for WorkSafeBC to provide health care services and supplies before a workers compensation claim is decided if medical evidence indicates that the worker is at risk of a significant deterioration in health. This change provides meaningful support for workers to ensure they remain as healthy as possible, while possibly saving the system higher health care and compensation costs in the long term.

Another change in Bill 23 will specifically recognize mental disorders in the provision that sets a one-year time limit to apply for workers compensation. Currently the claim must be made within one year from the date of injury, which is difficult to establish for claims involving a mental health disorder. Under Bill 23, mental disorder claims will be filed within one year of the date of mental disability.

This change will enable WorkSafeBC to recognize the unique nature of mental health disorders — for example, the fact that they often develop gradually — and establish appropriate policies on how the one-year time limit applies for workers who have a work-related mental health disorder. We believe that this necessary change will better support access to workers compensation for a work-related mental disorder, most notably for occupations with frequent exposures to work-related trauma.

As I noted earlier, Lisa Helps made several key recommendations for legislative changes in her report related to the tragic Lakeland and Babine sawmill explosions in 2012. The amendments contained in Bill 23 will implement these recommendations and help improve the inves­tigation and prosecution of workplace safety infractions. That, in turn, can help deter non-compliance and educate employers about their responsibilities for the safety of workers.

These amendments support my priority for B.C. workplaces to be the safest in the country. To begin, the legislation will provide the authority for justices to issue WorkSafeBC investigators with search and seizure warrants that are appropriate for the investigation of workplace safety offences. Currently the warrants are obtained under the provisions of the Offence Act, but those provisions do not recognize all the realities of investigating a workplace safety offence.

[3:30 p.m.]

This amendment includes the authority for a warrant to conduct tests, take samples, search computer hard drives, observe employer training programs and take photographs — all of which may be important to provide evidence of a worker’s safety contravention or offence.

It also includes authority to obtain a tele-warrant rather than appearing in person before a justice, to recognize modern technology and the need to sometimes obtain a warrant on an expedited basis from a remote location in the province.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

The Workers Compensation Act will also be amended to remove the existing unnecessary step that the WorkSafeBC president must give approval before a WorkSafeBC officer may forward an investigation report to Crown counsel to consider prosecution.

We are also adopting this health recommendation to allow injured workers and family members of deceased workers to make victim impact statements to the court as part of quasi-criminal or regulatory prosecution, similar to victim impact statements that can be made in criminal proceedings. This important change will give a voice to affected people to describe the impact that a breach of workplace safety has had on them. It will also provide them with a better sense that their personal perspectives and impacts have been heard.

Bill 23 also provides the legislative authority for the court to order a person who is convicted of an offence to publish, at the person’s expense, the facts relating to the commission of the offence. The potential for such an order will act as a deterrent, and publication will help educate other employers about their legal responsibilities for worker safety.

Bill 23 also includes a number of changes to improve the effectiveness of the workers compensation system in British Columbia. For example, Bill 23 will provide WorkSafeBC with additional tools to collect unpaid assessment and other amounts owed to WorkSafeBC from employers. Improved collection will help ensure that funds employers are legally required to pay will be available for workers compensation. Improved collection also ensures a level playing field for employers who play by the rules and make the payments they are required to do.

Specifically, this bill adds a director’s liability provision to hold corporate directors liable for a corporation’s unpaid assessments or other amounts owing to WorkSafeBC. It also clarifies and expands on the board’s ability to collect from successive employers when an employer closes one business and opens a new legal entity that is, in effect, the same business. As well, in cases where the business owes money to WorkSafeBC but claims to have no assets or has otherwise not paid the debt, the bill provides authority for WorkSafeBC to collect money from the third party that owes money to the business.

Another significant operational improvement will pro­vide the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal, often called WCAT, with the authority to hear and decide Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and human rights code issues that workers or employers may raise in a case before WCAT. Currently, workers and employers can have Charter and human rights questions decided at the first level of review of the WorkSafeBC review division, but not at the second and final level of appeal of WCAT.

This amendment will mean that workers and employers can have Charter or human rights code questions decided in a more streamlined manner within the workers compensation system without having to appeal the review division’s Charter and code decision directly to the courts.

One final operational improvement that I will specifically mention is the new authority for WorkSafeBC to reconsider a decision or order after the usual 75-day limit for consideration has elapsed if the decision contains an obvious error or omission. Currently when an obvious error is discovered after the 75-day period, the affected worker or employer must go through a review and appeal process to have the correction made.

[3:35 p.m.]

This change will streamline the process for workers and employers when WorkSafeBC acknowledges after 75 days that a decision contains an obvious error. This is fair. This also cuts red tape, which many employers will be looking forward to.

Besides these more significant changes, Bill 23 also contains several other operational improvements and a number of housekeeping and technical changes to the Workers Compensation Act to ensure that the drafting style is up to date and the act clearly expresses the legislative intent and existing policy.

Given that we continue to live with the new reality of COVID-19, I will end with the one amendment that has been included in it to directly respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. As members of the House may know, WorkSafeBC is currently conducting an expedited review and consultation on potential occupational disease presumption for COVID-19, and possibly other diseases caused by a communicable viral pathogen.

If the WorkSafeBC board of directors chooses to enact a regulation to establish this presumption, this bill will waive the usual statutory requirement that a WorkSafeBC regulation may not come into force until at least after 90 days after its date of deposit. Waiving the 90-day requirement will allow WorkSafeBC to expedite the support and impacted workers during a provincial health emergency.

Our government is committed to improving things for injured workers while keeping the system affordable for employers during these challenging times. Bill 23 is important because it will provide improvement to the benefits and support that injured workers and their families receive. Bill 23 will protect and support workers throughout the province as they go to work and undertake their workplace duties during these unprecedented times and beyond.

Workplace safety is everyone’s responsibility, and WorkSafeBC needs the investigative tools to thoroughly prosecute workplace safety infractions. Bill 23 will give them those tools, which, in turn, can help deter non-compliance and educate employers about their responsibilities for the safety of workers.

I ask all members of this Legislative Assembly to join with me for workers, for employers, for safe B.C. workplaces and support these important legislative initiatives. I look forward to the debate on this bill. Thank you very much for the opportunity to have my say.

J. Martin: It’s a pleasure to be able to speak to Bill 23, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act of 2020. The legislation before us today proposes a number of things: boosting the maximum salary on which workers compensation benefits are based, allowing courts to issue search and seizure warrants in workplace safety investigations, as well as what the minister just summarized, waiving the current 90-day waiting period if WorkSafeBC lists COVID-19 as a presumptive occupational disease.

On top of it all though, in the middle of a pandemic, with unemployment approaching 14 percent, this is a government bill that will impose added costs — unknown added costs — to businesses who are struggling desperately right now. In a word, it’s quite irresponsible, and the timing couldn’t be worse. Without a doubt, it is, of course, the obligation of a government and employers to protect the health, well-being, and safety of all workers. When workers get injured on the job or suffer from a work-related disease or illness, they deserve to have easy, quick, efficient access to treatment, care and support.

We all want an efficient and effective workers compensation system, one that provides fair compensation benefits to all workers in British Columbia. B.C.’s workers compensation system is funded by premiums paid by employers to compensate for workers injured on the job. As such, the system requires balance and stability at the same time. So we must ensure that the system has the money to provide protection and compensation, not just today, but down the road into the future. It’s critically important that this system is committed to being financially stable and sustainable in the long term.

[3:40 p.m.]

However, the Labour Minister’s actions in recent months have not given workers or employers the security they need and deserve under this system. For example, in May, we sent a letter to the Premier asking for WorkSafeBC’s surplus to be used to reimburse employers for purchasing personal protective equipment to keep employees and customers safe during the pandemic. Well, the Labour Minister told Postmedia: “All of the surplus has been wiped out.” Let me repeat that. The Labour Minister told Postmedia: “All of the surplus has been wiped out.”

However, WorkSafe issued a statement the next day which suggested something very different. This must be very embarrassing for the minister, who showed a complete lack of understanding about the financial situation of his own Crown agency. And now this exact same minister tables a bill saying that there is enough money to enact changes to the workers compensation system.

Once again, let’s be very clear. Of course we are committed to a healthy and safe workplace and to providing support for injured workers. However, the minister has not been clear at all about the cost these proposed changes in the bill may result for employers. In other words, this takes us down the road to another unknown. Nobody knows what this is going to cost.

We can’t emphasize enough how B.C.’s workers compensation system must strike the right balance between workers and employers to ensure fair compensation and long-term financial stability, especially in the middle of a pandemic — or I should say in the midst of a pandemic; none of us know — with so much uncertainty, when our society is already in stress as B.C.’s economy plunges into recession with staggering job losses.

British Columbians deserve better than this. During the COVID crisis, why is the government focusing on a plan that will impose greater costs on small businesses who are already reeling in the wake of a pandemic? Hundreds of thousands of British Columbians are out of work. Countless businesses are on the brink of shutting down permanently.

This is a time when government should be making things easier so that people have jobs to return to and paycheques to look forward to, to support their families. While keeping health and safety in mind as the priority, we need to do everything we can to support small businesses instead of adding extra costs at this, the worst possible time to do so.

We’ve seen from the past four months that this government does not have an economic recovery plan anywhere in sight. Not only have they turned down our suggestion to give refunds to employers from the WorkSafeBC surplus to cover the cost of PPE, they also ignored our other 13 policy letters with more than 60 suggestions sent to the Premier.

Now, we need to know that this bill is not just another way for the NDP to incur further costs for employers and businesses who are already suffering due to an economic downturn, lack of consumer confidence and the government’s 23 new and increased taxes over the past several years. This bill could in fact be the straw that breaks the proverbial camel’s back for far, far too many businesses in our province.

There’s going to be an opportunity to hear from other members from my caucus and possibly others, and we’re going to have an opportunity in committee to look at this bill in great detail. But I would like to just point out a few things, specifically, that have caused some concern.

Section 11, for instance, allows the board to reconsider a decision past the 70-day limit if it contained an obvious error or omission. However, what does that mean? “An obvious error or omission” is not defined in the amendment. This could possibly end up meaning that it extends beyond a typographical or administrative error. We need some clarity. We need some assurance of what this bill would do.

If we go to section 15, this is the section that allows for payment of services and supplies before a decision has been made on a worker’s entitlement. Well, 95 percent of claims are accepted, which means that the workers compensation system will be effectively subsidizing a portion of care that would otherwise be covered by the health care system. How many businesses are going to be able to endure this?

[3:45 p.m.]

Section 17, compensation for permanent disability will be paid based on the higher amount based on section 195 and 196 of the act. Well, the dual system allows for small loss of function awards to become larger loss of earnings awards, which was a factor that led to issues with WSBC’s financial issues prior to the reforms in the 2000s.

Section 18. This is the one that changes the age at which a determination for a worker’s retirement must be made, at 63. Well, this could present issues for cost management and projections with a lack of finality once a decision is made.

In section 25, it strengthens the powers of the board to make a demand from a third party to pay moneys owed. Well, it’s easier to pursue larger third parties but much, much harder in the case of small and medium-sized businesses. This section may need to be clarified to indicate that such a process would only be pursued when other processes have failed. Additionally, this is going to make it much, much more difficult for small businesses, non-profits and social service agency boards to recruit directors.

This bill is problematic on so many fronts. I cannot support it, and I urge my colleagues in the House to oppose it. At stake is the future prosperity of British Columbia. Thank you for this opportunity.

G. Kyllo: It gives me great pleasure to rise on behalf of my constituents in Shuswap and speak in opposition to Bill 23, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act.

There are many challenges with this bill, and the biggest part of it has to do with stability and the timing. As we know, we are currently in the midst of the worst pandemic that we’ve seen in over 100 years. There’s much uncertainty with respect to businesses, as my colleague from Chilliwack has mentioned — unemployment rate at 13.4 percent in the province currently. In the last jobs report, of the new 108,000 jobs that were apparently recorded last month, the majority of those are part-time — so still a significant of British Columbians that are out of work.

The unemployment rate for young people in our province is near 30 percent. Just think about that for a second. Nearly 30 percent of the young people in British Columbia are currently unemployed and out of work. As we’ve seen with this government over the past three years, we have seen continual burden put on the backs of B.C. businesses, starting first with the employer health tax, which put an additional $1.9 billion of new taxation right on the backs of B.C. businesses. In addition to that, we saw the increase of the corporate tax rate here in British Columbia.

We need to keep in perspective the fact that at the time when B.C. is continuing to erode the competitiveness of B.C. businesses, we’re seeing other jurisdictions, both south of the border and to our neighbouring province of Alberta, going in the opposite direction. The corporate tax rate in Alberta today is 8 percent. In B.C., it is 12. The corporate tax rate in British Columbia is 50 percent higher than it is for our neighbouring jurisdiction of Alberta, just to our immediate east.

Again, as my colleague from Chilliwack mentioned, we have to provide balance. There is no question that WorkSafeBC is extremely important. It provides safety and security for workers, but we also have to find the balance to ensure that the WorkSafeBC premiums do not escalate to the point that it continues to erode the competitiveness of businesses here in British Columbia.

There are a number of challenges with the bill, with respect to the uncertainty that it provides. My colleague referenced, with specificity, the reference to the return to the dual-pension system. Now, this is one of the areas that caused significant cost pressures on the organization back in the 1990s. WorkSafeBC was in a financially unsustainable situation, and the primary driver for that was that there were required reforms specifically around this dual-pension system.

Now, if the current government did not learn any lessons from the 1990s, there was considerable work with reforms that were put in place in the 2000s that moved away from that dual-pension system in order to provide the certainty around costs and to provide cost relief largely for businesses.

[3:50 p.m.]

What we see now is a return to that. So we must ask ourselves: why now? There is so much uncertainty with respect to COVID. Businesses are absolutely struggling. Many businesses are telling me that they’re in survival mode, and 10 percent of businesses are likely going to be closing their doors. There is certainly some financial support that’s coming from the federal government, with very little support from the provincial government, I might say. As those supports come to a close this fall and CERB payments come to an end, I think we’re going to find ourselves in a very, very tough situation here in British Columbia.

There’s no question that there are some portions of the bill that have merit and validity and that I think need to come forward. But on any hint of additional cost pressures that are going to be put on the backs of B.C. businesses, I think we must ask ourselves: why now? Why is it the time?

Even the timing for the release of Bill 23 is a little bit suspect in itself. It came out on the same day that the Minister of Finance was providing her fiscal update. If that announcement alone wasn’t cause for concern enough — a $12.5 billion deficit — at the same time that the Finance Minister is putting out the very bleak news about the prospect of the economy here in British Columbia, they dropped this bill, with very little fanfare.

So I think government certainly is aware that there are many concerns with respect to this bill, and the business community is extremely concerned. Also, I think we have to start having a look at the minister. The minister stands in this House today, suddenly with all of the answers. The skies are clearer. He has a clear understanding of what is needed for WorkSafeBC. But I think we have to also take that into context.

As my colleague for Chilliwack mentioned in his opening remarks, it was only back in May that, when questioned about size of the worker accident fund — which, by the way, it reported in December of last year, was $20 billion; that’s $20,000 million — the minister responded by saying that the surplus, which was anticipated at $3 billion back in December, had been wiped out. You have a $20 billion fund, and the minister, in responding to a reporter, cavalierly, off-cuff, mentions that a $3 billion worker accident fund surplus has suddenly vanished.

Now, WorkSafeBC quickly came out to provide some relief to British Columbians that, actually, no; they’d only lost $1 billion. We even have to just think of that for a second — $1,000 million was lost under this minister’s watch; $1 billion had suddenly disappeared through, I would say, certainly not conservative investments of those funds. There are no funds in this province that are more important than those funds that are set aside specifically to look after workers that are injured and unable to return to the workforce, yet, under this minister’s watch, $1 billion was lost from that fund.

Here the minister stands, suddenly with all of the answers, with many new initiatives that are going to cost an untold amount of money, and businesses in B.C. should be very concerned. We need to have stability, and we need to remove uncertainty.

The business community has written to Premier Horgan and to this government and asked them: “Please, whatever you do, do no further harm. Do no harm. Do not put any additional costs on the backs of businesses when they’re struggling or looking for recovery.” As we know, many of the changes that are set out in the Workers Compensation Amendment Act will put additional cost pressures on WorkSafeBC, and we have yet to have numbers provided by the minister that give any idea of the magnitude of those additional costs.

We also have to give consideration to the true cost of WorkSafeBC. I was speaking just recently to a logging contractor. He indicated that the rate for his industry classification is 7.8 percent. For the 7.8 percent out of every dollar that gets paid to an employee, an equivalent amount gets set aside from the employer into the WorkSafeBC fund.

[3:55 p.m.]

Now, when you have a look at what the minister is considering with moving to the presumptive cause for COVID, what many British Columbians don’t understand or appreciate is that if a worker is injured on the worksite, it’s not just their future wages or wage losses that are covered by WorkSafeBC but all of the medical costs and medical care. Quite often that is a very significant portion of the costs.

In many cases, the wages that are paid out to the injured worker pale in comparison to the overall cost of the medical services that are actually provided. We’ve got to wonder: is this a manoeuvre of the current government to move costs that are currently being absorbed by our medical system in our province and putting that directly onto the backs of B.C. businesses?

You know, if we think of the number of individuals that have been impacted by COVID…. My heart certainly goes out to those families that have been impacted and those that have been affected directly. At the same time, we have to consider that we’ve been very fortunate. We have very few cases, compared to other jurisdictions, but what about a second or a third wave? That’s certainly something that is concerning for all businesses.

You have a business that potentially could have a worker that is impacted by COVID. For that individual, should they be hospitalized and have to be intubated or on a ventilator for a number of weeks or a number of months, the cost per day is literally thousands of dollars. If you look at the potential cumulative total of additional cost burden just with the health care associated with COVID….

Again, we must remember that for many of these businesses, through no fault of their own, an employee could come into contact with COVID at a worksite. That would be very unfortunate, but why should the business have to bear the full brunt of those costs? The additional costs associated with a claim, COVID-related, could be in the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars. For a small business, they would not be able to absorb that additional hit on their WorkSafeBC premium.

We have to be very cognizant and make sure that we’re being fair with respect to how we’re moving forward on any changes to the WorkSafeBC regulation that’s currently in place in our province. Again, if we just go back to the whole idea of competitiveness and business certainty, I’ve spoken already about how businesses are struggling. As we look to the B.C. Restart Plan, there has been little financial data with respect to how B.C. is going to actually look at restarting and kick-starting the economy of our province. It’s been a very slow start to date.

I appreciate that the work that we’ve done — largely through the advice of Dr. Bonnie Henry, of keeping COVID cases down — is absolutely critical and absolutely the first step. We also have to give consideration…. Here we have the Premier of our province, who has chaired his Economic Recovery Task Force. They’ve been sitting now for three months, and what have we heard from this task force after three months of meetings? Zero, zilch, nada, not a word.

So $1½ billion was set aside. It was our understanding it was going to be there to help businesses that are looking to re-establish themselves and reopen, and to provide that opportunity for people to find that most gainful employment, yet we hear nothing from this government.

The Minister of Labour himself, in estimates just a few weeks ago, shared this with me, with respect to sick pay. He reassured me that businesses could not afford any further cost burden. That was the reason why the Premier and he, as minister, had chosen that they certainly would not be putting any additional costs with respect to sick pay on the backs of B.C. businesses. I applauded that to the minister.

However, here we are not two weeks later, and we’re moving forward with new legislation that is doing exactly that — putting more cost burden on the backs of B.C. businesses, eroding the competitiveness of B.C. businesses. It is for that reason that I’m unable to support Bill 23.

M. Lee: I also wish to rise today to speak to Bill 23, the Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2020.

[4:00 p.m.]

As the member for Chilliwack has spoken, too, we all recognize, as members of this House, the need to strike the right balance between workers and employers to ensure fair compensation and long-term financial stability. We know that as a province, especially where we are facing the ongoing effects of COVID-19. With that and with unemployment approaching 14 percent, this Bill 23 will impose additional costs to employers and businesses who are struggling tremendously in this current circumstance.

It’s important to ask, as the member for Shuswap has just done: during this COVID-19 pandemic crisis, why is this government coming forward to impose greater costs on small businesses, who are clearly struggling in their recovery from this pandemic? Why bring forward these changes at a time where this government has no economic recovery plan? Why is this government taking a piecemeal approach when the minister doesn’t even know the costs and the impacts of the changes under Bill 23? And why are this minister and this government causing greater uncertainty at this time?

As the member for Chilliwack said, there are hundreds of thousands of British Columbians that are out of work and countless businesses that are on the edge of shutting down permanently. This clearly is a time where government should be making things easier so that people can have jobs to return to and paycheques to support their families.

When we look at the concerns of this bill, we look at the uncertainty that may be caused. Take, for example, section 18 of Bill 23. We’ve heard the minister speak to the determination of retirement age and deferring that the board’s determination of workers’ retirement will be when the worker reaches the age of 63. This clearly will be a challenge for businesses to know how to manage and know the costs.

Another example is section 11 of this bill. We certainly will want to examine, at committee, the grounds on which the board may, on its own initiative, reconsider a decision or order, particularly when we know that there are other review and appeal processes in place. The fact that the board can self-initiate and correct its own mistake only belies the fact that, in the first place, their decision should be made accurately and without error and that if there is a challenge it ought to be done through the various review and appeal processes that currently exist.

As the member for Shuswap has already referred to, section 17, in amending section 196 of the act, would significantly increase long-term disability costs, particularly for mental health claims. We want to understand from this government why it’s returning to a process that resulted in significant financial instability for WorkSafeBC in the late 1990s. Why is this government looking to increase employers’ WCB assessment costs now, in the time where the province is most at risk? This will likely be quite significant in terms of the additional costs and add to the current economic challenge for employers and businesses in this province.

The administrative amendments under section 15 of this bill are another example of what is not a modest amendment. The minister, in his second reading speech here, referred to these amendments as being modest. Well, perhaps that’s modest compared to the other significant changes that are proposed in these numerous reports that have been in front of government for some years now.

[4:05 p.m.]

Section 15 would broaden the services and supplies pro­vided by the board to be completely open-ended, without the defined list that is currently set out under the act. It would enable the board, before it makes a determination of a worker’s entitlement to compensation, to pay for health care services and supplies.

This is an expansion of the board’s mandate, clearly, and potentially reaches into broader health care issues rather than workplace and employment issues. This is inconsistent with the historic compromise that is foundational to our province’s workers compensation system, where the right to sue for workplace injuries was exchanged for employers funding a no-fault insurance scheme for workplace injuries.

Now, the minister talked at length as well…. I had the opportunity in estimates to discuss with the minister the communications that the minister had, and the Premier, with the WorkSafe board. I will say that in the midst of the indications that there will be a national sick pay program, one wonders why this is needed at this time.

As I reviewed with the minister during the estimates process, the board is clearly going through and adjudicating claims related to COVID-19. Certainly we recognize the importance of ensuring that workers are provided with the right benefits and compensation to help address where those claims have been found to be related to COVID-19. But of the 500 claims that were adjudicated by the board, about 150 of them were dismissed.

I didn’t get any indication from the minster that there was any concern that the board was not able to deal with COVID-19 claims in the workplace. That is what the board has been doing. Yet through communications from this government to the board, despite the minister’s indications and confirmations of the independence of that board, this government has come forward to accelerate a COVID-19 presumption. Already the board has accelerated and expedited its review. It has taken a process that would typically take 18 to 24 months and compressed it to a matter of months, and it has done so where…. WorkSafe is moving faster than any other jurisdiction in Canada.

There are some states in the U.S. that have put in place a COVID-19 presumption, but from my understanding, it’s not nearly as broad as the approach that WorkSafeBC is clearly and currently mandating. When you look at the review that was provided to WorkSafe, its board, it cited that the research was based on limited analytical research currently available and that the conclusion of this rapid review is that there is no strong evidence of a consistent association between workers in a specific occupation and a significantly greater risk of COVID-19, SARS and the H1N1 infection.

Despite that, this government is putting in place an amendment to the act to enable a regulation, if it comes into place — if the board makes that decision to put in place a COVID-19 presumption under schedule 1 — that the 90-day period would no longer be required. Well, this indication clearly flies in the face of the minister’s repeated assertions and confirmations to myself in estimates that this minister and this government respect the independence of the board to do the work within their mandate.

[4:10 p.m.]

Without a doubt, it’s clearly the obligation of government and employers to protect the health and safety of all workers. Certainly, as we look at what is being proposed here, we need to ensure that there is an efficient and effective workers compensation system that provides for fair compensation benefits to all workers, but this system needs to be balanced, and it needs to be stable.

This government has demonstrated a real lack of ability to ensure and manage that WorkSafeBC surplus, with the indications, the corrections and the confusion that the minister has caused, about the status of that surplus, by his statements that it had been wiped out at one point. This is in the face of proposals by the Leader of the Official Opposition and our caucus, to the Premier, that the WorkSafeBC surplus ought to be used to reimburse employers for purchasing personal protective equipment to keep employees and customers safe.

I look forward to debating this bill at length at committee because this government is taking advantage of the circumstances of this special session — circumstances where we have the Economic Recovery Task Force of this government, and we haven’t seen the report. We haven’t seen the results, yet in a very piecemeal fashion, this government is bringing forward legislation to amend a component — an important component, but only one component.

In the absence of understanding the impact of the costs, as the minister demonstrated during estimates — and the additional uncertainty that this will impose on employers in our province — if employers and businesses can’t manage the recovery, there won’t be those jobs for the employees. We won’t have the paycheques to ensure that families can be fed, that rent can be paid.

We are, clearly, all in this together. For this government to bring forward this act on a basis where they have had some challenges with employers in this prov­ince in terms of consultation — the lack thereof — and rush this bill forward…. We will want to be asking, in opposing this bill, to ensure that we continue to maintain that right balance, that there isn’t additional cost in the way that small businesses and industry, all over this province, have been asking this province and this government to ensure would be the case.

This is not the time to add additional costs and uncertainty to employers throughout this province. We need to get this province back on its feet. We need to defeat this bill.

B. Stewart: I’m glad to be able to express some of the views that I have on Bill 23. I know that my colleagues who have spoken before me have raised the issue about the timing of this particular bill and the sweeping kinds of changes that it contemplates, not just on the presumption of people’s health after COVID-19 but, more importantly, about the costs that are going to be added to the people that are part of this insurance scheme.

I think one of the things we have to keep in mind about the insurance we’re talking about here is that WorkSafeBC is not really any different than ICBC. It’s a government insurance scheme where people pay into it to make certain that if in need, they have an ability to fall back on that. But the two schemes seem to be going in very different directions. We had Bill 11 just recently the other day, which limits compensation to people that are accident victims, in one insurance scheme, and we have WorkSafe, for which we are opening up the doors in all sorts of ways, taking off limits and making changes.

[4:15 p.m.]

I think we’ve got to remember that the clients, in both cases, deserve to have a certain amount of certainty. If it goes too far in one direction and doesn’t seek the balance, it affects everybody that’s using the scheme — employees, employers and the province — for certainty that people don’t end up on other supports that the province is providing, whether it’s the health care system, social development or whatever might befall somebody that ends up in one of these two schemes.

The thing that does concern me is the urgency with which, the minister has kind of suggested, this needs to be brought in. It’s been brought in. There have been three different consultations. However, the consultations, I think, lack the business or the employers’ perspective. We’re seeing academics, social enterprise–experienced people, making comments about how this should be, but what I see that’s missing is the employers’ component on this. Why have they not been consulted on their perspective about these things?

There are thousands and thousands of employers that have firsthand experience dealing with WorkSafe, and I think that in most cases, employers want a good, reliable system that doesn’t benefit people that are using the system inappropriately and that, as well, makes certain that there are punitive things for employers that are not necessarily doing their part.

I guess I’m struck by some of the sweeping changes that are in this bill. The one that struck me the most was section 4 — the police state that we’re going to find ourselves in, in the fact of the ability for WorkSafe employees to be able to go out to a workplace and seize and shut down operations, based on certain criteria. That leads me to believe that WorkSafe is inching towards being even above the court system. The court system in Canada is the cornerstone of our democracy. It is the final stop where people get a determination on their rights.

I think this section goes beyond that, and I look forward to questions about that being answered — and the limitations. I think too often we find that the government puts it into an act where regulations will determine that, and frankly, that’s just not acceptable. British Columbians, Canadians, deserve better. They need to know that there is certainty when it comes to these things. They cannot have an arm of government that essentially has powers that are threatening that will shut things down.

What type of state will we be in if we have it so that employers feel threatened every time there is something that somebody is coming to check, rather than a collaborative point of view? I heard, earlier, the Minister of Finance speaking about collaboration. This is the way this should be working. It should be a collaboration between employees, employers and the government to make certain that there’s a balanced, good, solid system that has a foundation that doesn’t necessarily favour one side or the other, unless there’s a particular reason for that type of balance.

I do see that there are other changes that have been mentioned. It says that the board “may make regulations that differ in either or both…ways.” I think the situation is that both employers and employees are looking for certainty and a lack of confusion in terms of how these are to work. If you get something that’s so complicated, and there are all sorts of exit ramps or off-ramps in terms of that, it leads to the uncertainty.

It adds to the cost, and it leaves people that actually really need the help, in terms of the WorkSafe support, from being able to get an easier, quick, clearly defined decision so that they can get better — or if they are not able to return to work, perhaps retraining or some other opportunity for them. I think that that is an underlying thread of the overall Bill 23: it just leads to confusion amongst everybody that it’s going to be touching, in this particular case.

[4:20 p.m.]

Section 11 talks about errors and omissions. I think that in this particular case…. I’m not quite certain about the 75-day limit currently, but it’s not defined in the amendment. I guess I’d have to question why it wasn’t working before and why it needs to be altered.

I think that there do need to be limitations in terms of reviews and in going back and looking at orders. Certainly, I think that in the worst-case scenario, you might want to have to be able to appeal to the court if you need to overturn or to look at a decision like this. But the idea is that it is changing, and I’m not certain if open-ending it is really such a good idea.

I think that the things we look forward to are more certainty and more clarity for people that are going to have to live with this, whether they’re small, medium-sized or big employers or whether they’re workers that are non-union, union. They all count on this system to protect everybody’s rights.

Employers want to make certain that they can afford it. I think that that comment earlier about the fact that we’ve added on increases in the corporate tax rate, the employer health tax, which came out just earlier this past year….

The reality is that we’ve got what is not stated, but that there is going to be an increase in liability with WorkSafeBC because of the fact that we’re changing the rules. We’re increasing the protection, and that doesn’t come without some sort of added cost to both the employers or the people that are counting on that reserve system. I know the minister had some confused remarks around it. But the reality is that those reserves are there to protect people in the long term, both the employers and the employees.

As we move towards the end on this, I can’t help but compare the uncertainty that the new Bill 11 has created, in terms of limiting people being able to go to the courts and limits on ICBC insurance, and the fact that we have this open-ended, perhaps, plan with WorkSafeBC under Bill 23.

I have to say that I’ll be looking for a lot of answers in the committee stage. I look forward to hearing those and having the minister explain. Perhaps, maybe, there’ll be some reasonable amendments to come out of this. I do think that it’s important that employers have a say at the table on this, not just the government and the people that they’ve used as people to help them make the decisions or recommendations that are in front of us today.

So thank you very much. I take my place to hear more on this bill.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Minister to close the debate.

Hon. H. Bains: I just want to say thank you to all of those members who participated in this very important bill. A theme that I heard from member after member is to strike the right balance between the workers’ needs, their health and safety, and to protect employers and their concerns. But that’s exactly what Bill 23 does.

We have taken a very modest approach which will keep the rates of the employers, as a result of this bill, the same for the next two years. At the same time, we are improving workers’ health and safety and bringing ourselves in line with many other jurisdictions who are already there or way ahead of us. When you look at enhancing workers’ health and safety and keeping employers’ premiums stable and low, that’s exactly what it is — what you call “strike the right balance.” That’s exactly what we are doing.

This government understands that the businesses, the workers and our society are going through very challenging times because of COVID-19. We recognize that. That’s why, very quickly, government put in place support for businesses, knowing that many of them will be hurting, and they are hurting. As a result, many workers are being laid off. That’s why the tax deferrals and tax cuts…. For example, in the business property tax cut, it amounts to about $700 million — one of the largest tax cuts for businesses in the history of the province.

[4:25 p.m.]

WCB also allowed employers to defer their premiums for six months, without penalty or interest, waiving premiums for certain employers.

Going back years and continuing on even today, employers are paying subsidized premiums paid for by the surplus enjoyed by WorkSafeBC. Because of a good, strong economy in the last number of years, more premiums are going, more workers are working. And also a good return on their investment, so they were able to give subsidized rates.

The cost of claims is $1.67 per $100 payroll, but the employers are paying $1.55. I’m advised, despite Bill 23, they will continue to enjoy subsidized rates for the next few years. That’s what the responsible government does. That’s exactly what we’re doing with Bill 23.

The member talked about a historic compromise that we should not forget. I agree. What is the historic compromise? It is that the workers gave up their right to sue their employers if they are injured at a workplace or they become sick as a result of the work. In return, employers agreed to fund a no-fault system through premiums so that the workers who were injured at the workplace are looked after — their health and safety. Their medical bills are paid. They’re looked after. Their rehab is looked after for them to be prepared to go back to work. And their loss of earnings is looked after so that they can continue to support their families.

If you look at the changes that we have since 2002, 2003, in many areas, they’re not fully compensated. Their loss of earnings is not fully compensated. We’re making some modest changes to bring some fairness into the system without adding costs to the employers.

They talk about being confused. On the one hand, they’re asking that WorkSafeBC should use the surplus to pay for PPE for the employers. What does that mean? There’s a potential increase of premiums if you do that. On the other hand, they’re saying that in Bill 23, you shouldn’t be able to use the surplus if there’s any cost attached to it. They can’t make up their mind. The cost of this bill is very, very modest: 1.4 cents per 100. They are enjoying a 12-cent subsidy right now compared to the cost of the claim.

We’re being very responsible, very modest, but there are changes that are needed. We need to modernize the workers compensation system so that it works for the employers and it works for the workers. That’s what the system is all about. This bill allows them to do that.

There are some employers’ groups out there that are thankful that it cuts red tape. But I heard some of the members here thinking that is a bad idea; that’s their position. I think this is the right approach. It is a balanced approach. It’s for the right time, considering COVID-19 and that we want to continue to support the businesses but, at the same time, make the WorkSafe system efficient, support the workers, improve their health and safety at the workplace and give them the respect and dignity that they need and deserve when they are injured and using this system.

That’s what this bill does. I want to thank again those who participated in this.

With that, I now move second reading of Bill 23.

Second reading of Bill 23 approved on division.

[4:30 p.m.]

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

Bill 23, Workers Compensation 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. H. Bains: I call committee stage of Bill 6.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 6 — MINES AMENDMENT ACT, 2020

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 6; S. Gibson in the chair.

The committee met at 4:32 p.m.

On section 1.

T. Shypitka: Just a few initial comments before we get into the committee stage here. In my three short years as a critic for Energy and Mines, I’ve learned a lot, and I’m very thankful for the experience I’ve acquired from the hard-working people of this province, who are working in the industry that’s foundational to our province.

Although the industry is very complex, with many moving parts, the basic solution to keeping this industry alive is to be clear, to be consistent and to be certain. Unnecessary red tape and regulation is a killer to our industry, and this bill, I see, has some warning signals attached to it.

With that, Chair, I would like to start with a general question on section 1.

The Chair: Please proceed, Member.

T. Shypitka: A first question to the minister: do we have an estimated regulatory count for this legislation?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: This amendment will add nine regulatory requirements, according to the system that is used to count regulatory requirements.

T. Shypitka: Interesting — nine, in the regulatory count, up. Can the minister tell me if the regulatory count has been up, with this legislation, from 2017 — or through the whole ministry, actually — from 2017 till the current time?

Hon. B. Ralston: This is the only change that has been made to the act since 2017. Those nine changes are the only ones. If the member is seeking the entire regulatory count for the legislation as it is, I’m advised that they don’t have that information right here now, but it will be made available.

T. Shypitka: Yes, I would look forward to seeing those regulatory counts, for sure.

Is the minister, then, saying that regulatory counts are up, for the ministry as a whole, since 2017?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: The process is that when legislation is new, there’s a regulatory count as to what the new legislation might involve. That was done, and I’ve given you that answer.

In terms of what the base is, that doesn’t seem to be available at this point. I think this was an unanticipated question, and that material is not available. The staff is making the commitment to provide that in due course.

T. Shypitka: I guess the final question in this section, before we go to section 2, is: is the minister, then, concerned about regulatory counts as reflective of his ministry?

Hon. B. Ralston: Well, we had a fairly extensive ex­change between myself and the member in estimates. What I’ve stated is that the ministry is engaged in a regulatory reform process, mandated in my directions from the Premier in order to reduce the regulatory burden without lowering standards, in order that the approval process of mines would be more expeditious.

Yes, I am concerned about it. Yes, we are working on it. The member will know from the debate we had in estimates that staff have been added in the three-year cycle of budgets to accomplish those objectives. I think that’s….

The Mining Jobs Task Force also…. It was a process where a number of industry experts, whether management, labour, environmental or Indigenous people, also had that as one of their recommendations. That’s indeed the template that the previous minister was following and that I continue to follow.

So yes, it is a topic of consideration for the ministry, but we are working hard on it, and we are making what I regard as progress.

T. Shypitka: No more questions for section 1.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

T. Shypitka: With the chief auditor position in section 2.1, will the chief auditor be employed by the ministry?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: The chief auditor will be appointed by the minister upon recommendation from the deputy minister.

T. Shypitka: Thank you to the minister. I realize that the chief auditor will be appointed by the minister, but I’m asking: who pays the salary? Is it coming from the ministry itself or is it outside of the ministry?

Hon. B. Ralston: The chief auditor will be paid from the ministry budget.

T. Shypitka: That opens up a few more questions here. Are there any qualifying experiences or education in the mining sector that the chief auditor must possess in order to be appointed under the Public Service Act?

Hon. B. Ralston: The goal is to appoint a qualified, com­petent person, but there are no formal requirements that that person have any particular background in mining. But obviously, given the nature of the position and the work that’s being requested, that will be a factor weighing in the decision as to who the chief auditor, he or she, may be.

[4:50 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: So what I’m hearing the minister say is there’s no guarantee at all that the chief auditor will have any kind of relative mining experience or technical skills. It will be all under the guidance of the Public Service Act.

The next question here, then, would be: can an individual be employed anywhere in the mining sector, private or public, and be appointed chief auditor? If so, then would that individual have to terminate their prior position?

Hon. B. Ralston: The person who accepts this position will not be entitled to hold any other position or appointment. It’s intended to be a full-time job. It would be inconsistent with any other employment in any aspect of the industry.

T. Shypitka: Thanks to the minister for the answer. I would assume, then, that they would have to terminate to get this job. What is the salary for this position? Does remuneration come directly from Ministry of Energy and Mines? I think that he’s already stated that, but just to be clear: what is the salary, if indeed this does come from the Ministry of Energy and Mines?

Hon. B. Ralston: I’m advised that the salary range would be in what’s called band 4, and that ranges from $90,000 to $118,000. The selection of an exact salary within that band would depend upon the experience and qualifications of the hiring committee who are making the recommendation to the deputy and to the minister.

T. Shypitka: Depending on qualifications, but not guaranteed that there would be mining qualifications or experience therein.

[4:55 p.m.]

Going to section 2.1, where will the chief auditor be situated on the ministry organizational chart? Will he or she report to the DM, the ADM, the minister? Where does he sit in all of that?

Hon. B. Ralston: She or he will report to the executive director of compliance, audit and enforcement, within the ministry, and the division within the ministry is the mines health, safety and enforcement division.

T. Shypitka: Okay. So reporting to the executive director of compliance and enforcement — I’m just thinking where else we should go here with that one. Since the position…. Speaking to 2.1 of the amendment, it says: “The minister may not designate any of the following persons as the chief auditor: (a) the chief inspector; (b) the chief permitting officer; (c) an inspector.”

Since the chief auditor position cannot be filled by an inspector, it seems that the position cannot be filled with someone with knowledge of permitting or the bible of mining in B.C., which is the mining code. How will this auditor, without having knowledge of mines, perhaps — not guaranteed, right? — permitting and internal process be capable of determining good things and bad things happening? Does the minister not understand how technical the processes are and that this auditor will evaluate? Is he actually prepared to hire someone with no knowledge of the subject matter to evaluate that subject matter?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: The interpretation of sub 2.1(2) that I’m given and rely upon is that the chief auditor will not be able to be simultaneously the chief inspector nor simultaneously the chief permitting officer nor simultaneously an inspector. So they might have that as something that they’ve done in the past. They might move from one of those positions to being chief auditor, but that would be a matter for the recommendation of the deputy minister to the minister.

I suppose the member wants to create an impression that somehow the person would be an unqualified person. I don’t think there’s really any basis for that, other than purely speculative. Maybe it satisfies him to make that kind of speculation, but it’s not factual.

T. Shypitka: Not practical, but not guaranteed as well. As the minister stated earlier, there are no guarantees on any specific technical skills or any mining experience that the chief auditor will need to have to be hired by this, and he’s making recommendations to the executive director of compliance and enforcement, which will then, I presume, spin off to the assistant deputy minister or the deputy minister and then eventually to the minister, and you can see how you could get a circle of bureaucracy here.

If one of the people in that chain that does have the experience doesn’t agree, then it could go back and could go around in a vicious circle. This is some of the bureaucracy that we want to try to avoid. Now, under all good conditions and all things being good, this may be okay, but this is what we’re trying to get questions on here today.

The next question will be pertaining to section 2.3, and that is: what other ministries have this same process of a ministry auditor, an annual plan, a separate independent audit unit process? Are there any other examples in the ministries in B.C. that have this type of process, and does this not reflect on the staff of the Ministry of Energy and Mines, from the DM all the way down to the Clerk? Does this not suggest that the people, the public servants serving the people of B.C. cannot be trusted?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: There was some consideration or discussion about moving this position outside of the ministry. But the decision, which I think and I’m convinced is the right one, was to keep this position within the ministry. This person will have statutory decision-making powers and therefore achieve the objectives that are set out for the chief auditor. I think we’ll get to that as we deal with subsequent sections — what the duties of the chief auditor will be — but it will meet the objectives that were identified in previous considerations of the plan of the ministry.

T. Shypitka: Well, speaking about compliance and enforcement being removed away from the ministry, was that not part of the Auditor General’s recommendations — to remove it completely from the ministry? If so, why hasn’t the government acted on that?

Hon. B. Ralston: The member mentions the Auditor General’s report, which indeed did recommend removing this function from the ministry. He may recall — he may not — that the predecessor MLA in his seat, Bill Bennett, who was the Mines Minister at the time, very stridently and vehemently dismissed that suggestion — really didn’t even consider it.

[5:10 p.m.]

The staff had extensive consultation with the staff of the Auditor General. It was decided that a better solution was to embed and put those functions within the ministry in the form that we’re doing. It would achieve the same objectives that the Auditor General’s staff were concerned about in the report. That’s why that recommendation wasn’t followed, and that’s why this structure is being adopted and recommended in this legislation.

T. Shypitka: Of course I remember my predecessor being opposed to removing C&E out of the ministry. We were heckled by the now government for those considerations. I’m glad to see full circle and government coming to a good conclusion on that.

I kind of got sidetracked there, because the minister gave me an answer I wasn’t expecting. I don’t think he answered my question. Are there any other ministries that have the same process of a ministry auditor, an annual plan and an independent audit unit?

Hon. B. Ralston: Internal audit is a very common function of most ministries, if not all — certainly Environment, for example, and there’s a number of others that come to mind. It’s certainly a…. For a regulator, an internal audit process is part of the accountability process. The difference here is this has been put forward in this legislation giving the person, she or he, who occupies the position a formal mandate and statutory authority to act. So it strengthens the position within the ministry, and it therefore gives further strength to the recommendations that that person may bring forward.

[5:15 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: Of course there are audits in other ministries, all internalized. This one’s independent, outside, so special treatment here. It makes one wonder if government is supportive of this industry or not, whether it embraces it, despite $8 billion a year in revenue. Why this special treatment for mining and not anything else?

Hon. B. Ralston: Well, I give the MLA on the opposite side full credit. He does continue to make assertions that have no basis in fact. I support mining. The government supports mining. That’s why we instituted the Mining Jobs Task Force. That’s why we are implementing this legislation.

This is to have someone who will examine the regulatory framework carefully. It’s essential for those investors who would look to British Columbia in an ESG lens — that is an environment, social and governance lens — increasingly a consideration for major investors, whether they’re pension funds or BlackRock, some of the big pools of equity throughout the financial world.

It provides that assurance that there is regulatory consistency. Where regulations are not necessary, there will be a recommendation from this person to streamline the process. So it’s a focus on the regulatory process to achieve better results by having a person who has a specific mandate to do that and to report in to the ministry.

The Mining Jobs Task Force was strongly of the view that this will be a way to make mining more responsive, have it recognized, both in Canada and internationally, as one of the premium locations in which to invest. This is all in aid of elevating, enhancing and supporting British Columbia as an important mining jurisdiction. That’s why we’re doing this. So the premise of the member’s question is wrong.

S. Furstenau: I appreciate the opportunity to ask a few questions on this bill. I’m going to just jump back a little bit to section 2.1. I know we’re still in this general realm.

[5:20 p.m.]

The Auditor General’s report on compliance and enforcement in the mining sector really focused on a number of concerns, but one of the concerns that was raised by the former Auditor General was the concern about regulatory capture.

Coming back to the question of where this new chief auditor will be housed, currently it will be housed within the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. My question to the minister is: was there consideration of housing this as a unit within the Office of the Auditor General, independent from Energy and Mines, and could this still be an option?

Hon. B. Ralston: It’s a multi-part answer here. The Auditor General, under the act, still retains jurisdiction to audit this ministry or any other one. Indeed, there will be a follow-up audit to the audit that was discussed earlier.

Secondly, the Auditor General doesn’t have the specific expertise in mining that the chief auditor will have and the ministry will have. Thirdly, the chief auditor has further powers than the Auditor General has, in the sense that, for example, if there’s a safety problem encountered in an audit, the chief auditor will have the power — and that’s discussed in some of the subsequent amendments we’re going to deal with — to make an order correcting that immediately.

The Auditor General has the power to make recommendations, which are passed on to the ministry, and they can act on them or not. Typically, they do act on them, but there’s nothing obligatory about acting on those recommendations. So that’s an enhanced power that the chief auditor will have, which we will discuss in some of the later amendments that are before the House.

[5:25 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: Thanks for that. I look forward to that conversation later on.

Could the minister confirm that it’s correct that Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources has reorganized into two main units: the mines competitiveness and authorizations division as well as the mines health, safety and enforcement division?

Hon. B. Ralston: Yes. There are indeed two divisions in the way that the member has described them, but partly, that is to have a separation of function between the permitting side and the health, safety and enforcement side. There will be two separate lines in the budget.

The feeling of the Auditor General in the audit was that sometimes permitting and that side of the ministry managed to accumulate more of the resources. This imposes a separation and the ability to compare the two budgets so that there will be some continuing focus on the importance of health, safety and enforcement and not mixing that with permitting, as within the budget.

S. Furstenau: Thank you to the minister for that re­sponse and clarity.

I guess my question is…. The decision around putting the chief permitting officer in the competitiveness division as opposed to in the mines health, safety and enforcement division…. This speaks to the kind of issues of public trust that were raised very much by the Auditor General’s report in 2015. Can the minister just explain why the permitting officer is not housed in the health, safety and enforcement division of the ministry?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: I think the member has the premise correct, but the way in which this works better, according to the Auditor General, is to separate the chief permitting officer, who is responsible, as the name implies, for the start and getting mines going and running…. To have them in a separate division from the health, safety and enforcement was to avoid all of the budget being eaten up by the permitting side of the ministry and neglecting the health, safety and enforcement side.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

That was the view of the audit by the Auditor General, and that’s why the recommendation, initially, was to take the auditing function outside the ministry. That has not been followed. But what we are proposing in this legislation is to have the two functions separated, with separate budgets, so that the health, safety and enforcement side is independent of the other side and that some of the challenges that the Auditor General commented on critically will not result.

S. Furstenau: On section 2.2, the authority of the chief auditor, it says: “The chief auditor may conduct audits for the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness of…(a) the regulatory framework…(b) policies, programs, practices….” My question to the minister is: should we define public interest in relation to this section or, indeed, to this act overall?

Hon. B. Ralston: The focus for the chief auditor would be on the regulatory framework for mining and the programs and all practices and actions that create that framework. So it wasn’t felt necessary to add a definition of public interest to the obligations of the chief auditor. The mandate of the chief auditor, I think, is fairly carefully laid out or circumscribed, and that will be, in our view, the most effective way for the chief auditor to proceed and the way in which the public interest will be served best.

S. Furstenau: I guess just a follow-up on that with the minister. How is it ensured in the Mines Act generally, then, that the public interest is served? If it’s not defined for the chief auditor to be looking at, how can the public feel that the public interest is being considered and served in the activities of this ministry and this industry?

[5:35 p.m. - 5:40 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: The health, safety and reclamation code, which is the main regulation guiding mining activity, has four purposes. One is to protect employee health. Two — protect the public from all risks of mining. These are summary. These are not verbatim. Three is to protect and reclaim land and watercourses affected by mining. And fourthly, monitor mining extraction activity to achieve the maximum extraction with the minimum environmental disturbance. Those are the values that are set out in the health, safety and reclamation code that are obligatory when it comes to guiding mining in the province.

S. Furstenau: Just down to section 2.5 on audits, could the minister just give some sense of what would trigger an audit — what conditions, specifically?

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: Generally, the way in which the chief auditor will proceed will be to develop an audit plan. That involves receiving the input of stakeholders, the industry, Indigenous nations and communities. It’s an open process. Then an audit plan will be developed, depending on what are identified as priorities.

For example, after Mount Polley, there were a number of directions about the disposition of tailings and how that was to be done. The chief auditor could direct an audit of subsequent developments here in the province, being informed by, also, subsequent changes in standards, whether Canadian or international. So it would be guided by public appetite and interest, and by the interests and goals of citizens here in the province. All of that would be taken into account, and a plan would be prepared.

My experience on the Public Accounts Committee, as the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee for a few years, was that the Auditor General, to give an example, would develop a plan over multiple years and then move to act on that plan. That, I think, would be the likely course of the audits that would be engaged in by the chief auditor. But that would be up to her or him at their discretion.

S. Furstenau: Just to be clear, it would be the auditor’s discretion on pursuing an audit, not the minister’s discretion? Or, as you point out, like with a committee. Would a committee be able to recommend an audit? Would it be if there’s enough public pressure? Would that trigger an audit? Or is it just the auditor himself or herself who has the discretion to trigger an audit?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: Yes, the chief auditor will have the discretion and the obligation to devise an audit plan that cannot be interfered with. The minister will not be able to direct an audit, nor will anyone else. But in devising that plan, the chief auditor will receive representations from all quarters. Obviously, the maturity and the judgment and the quality of the person that’s hired will be such that they will want to consider those representations carefully and come to their own independent decision as to what should be audited.

One would expect a public official would be responsive to public opinion. The audit plan will be published. If there’s a disagreement about that, then that would be the subject of public debate. That’s how it will go forward.

S. Furstenau: It seems, in the bill, that the purpose of the audit process is focused on evaluating the regulatory framework tied to a mines operation. It’s quiet on whether an audit can evaluate the role and decisions of a chief inspector or a permitting officer. Can the minister please clarify whether the auditor would have jurisdiction to audit the chief permit officer or the chief inspector?

Hon. B. Ralston: The chief auditor would have the power to audit the policies, programs, practices and actions to fulfil the objectives of that framework. That would involve not auditing the chief inspector, for example, but the actions taken by the chief inspector would be the subject of audit — and those reporting to the chief inspector and the actions that they have taken.

It’s, perhaps, a fine distinction. What’s intended is that the regulatory framework and the actions taken within that framework would be subject to audit but not the individual chief inspector, in this case, in the example that the member has chosen.

T. Shypitka: I want to go back a little bit here to 2.1, I guess. We found out earlier that the chief auditor salary will be somewhere between $90,000 and $118,000, depending on experience and….

The Chair: Member, just a second. The minister is providing some clarification.

Hon. B. Ralston: Could the Chair give some guidance? We’ve been moving around. I thought we’d dealt with section 2.1. We’ve dealt with section 2.2. There has been debate on section 2.3, section 2.4. It doesn’t seem…. Perhaps you could give guidance. Are each of these sections the subject of an individual vote, or is it one vote for section 2? In that case, that would be helpful.

The Chair: Let’s deal with section 2 first.

T. Shypitka: It’s a question on section 2, Chair.

The Chair: Is it on section 2, Member?

[5:55 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: Sorry? Okay. I’m just….

The Chair: Member, continue.

T. Shypitka: Can I give my question, Chair?

The Chair: Yes, please proceed.

T. Shypitka: Okay. Thank you, Chair.

We found out earlier that the chief auditor is going to receive a salary somewhere between $90,000 and $118,000. What will be the budget of the chief auditor’s office in total?

Hon. B. Ralston: I’m not sure that this is an appropriate question. It’s more a finance and estimates question. I’ll endeavour to answer it anyway, unless the Chair says that I shouldn’t.

There is a budget for the division, but the specific details of the budget for that office have not yet been worked out. It will be a staffed office with the resources necessary to accomplish the legislative goals that are being set out here.

T. Shypitka: Well, we found out that the chief auditor salary will be coming out of the ministry. This audit unit, I’m assuming, is coming out of the ministry as well. So I’d assume the minister would know what the budget was for that audit unit. Can the minister tell me how many full-time employees will be in the audit unit?

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: In Budget 2019, some of the $20 million was set aside over a three-year period for implementing some of these reforms that are set out in the Mining Jobs Task Force. Just how much will be allocated to this particular office, given that the legislation has yet to pass…. I’m optimistic but by no means certain that it will pass, given that this is a debate in the legislature. But when and if it does pass, then a budget will be worked upon, and it will come forward in the usual process. But at this stage, when the legislation has not been passed, a specific budget has not yet been set.

T. Shypitka: So no real idea on exactly what this is going to cost.

The minister mentioned the $20 million that was afforded to the ministry to be separated between compliance and enforcement and permitting and authorizations. Can the minister then tell me if this money would come from the compliance and enforcement side? I don’t see too much in this bill that actually enhances permitting anywhere, so would this all be coming exclusively from compliance and enforcement?

Hon. B. Ralston: Yes, the audit unit will be in the health, safety and enforcement division of the ministry.

T. Shypitka: So for those full-time employees inside the mining unit that will be hired on, I guess, how will that look? Will they be appointed or will they be hired out through either private or public sector?

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: I thank the member for the question. The staff will be a combination of public servants, who will be hired into the unit, and also contracted private experts with specialized knowledge. For example, if there were to be an audit of tailings, there might be a need to contract experts who understand that particular subject matter.

T. Shypitka: So no appointments — all hired out, either public or private. Will industry professionals be allowed to work for this office?

Hon. B. Ralston: Yes, industry and technical experts will be engaged — again, depending on the subject matter.

T. Shypitka: Just a question to the minister: if an industry expert works for a mining company, are they precluded from working for the audit office due to a conflict of interest? Is this also the case for other offices, such as inspectors?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: The member’s question was specifically about an industry expert who works for a mining company. I doubt very much that an industry expert who was directly employed by a mining company would be able to come and work for the ministry. I think what the member is referring to, though, is likely where the audit unit, for example, has contracted an engineering firm to provide support and expertise. I think that’s what he’s referring to.

So if I could give an example that’s been provided to me. If the audit unit has contracted an engineering firm to provide support and expertise for the audit of tailings storage facilities, including assisting with an assessment of B.C.’s regulatory requirements relative to other jurisdictions, the nature of that work, in the example I’ve given, would not put the company in conflict for future work with mining operations or with the ministry.

T. Shypitka: Thank you to the minister for the answer. Let’s flip it around then. If an expert does work for the audit office, are they precluded from doing contract work for the chief inspector of mines? What about the chief permitting officer?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: We were having a discussion about the circumstances in which the example that the member gives might take place.

It’s difficult to conceive of a situation where someone employed by the audit unit and responsible for, among many other things, auditing the actions of an inspector, arguably, would then work for the inspector as well. It’s difficult to conceive of how that would happen given that if you’re employed full-time by the audit unit and you have specified duties, you would then work for the inspector or the chief inspector. Unless the member can provide an example of where that might be the case, it’s difficult to see how that would even come about.

T. Shypitka: Well, the minister gave an example a few minutes ago about what a conflict would look like. So let’s assume the audit branch, for an example, wants to audit a mine. The minister made a reference to a tailings pond.

For example, at a tailings pond, you need an engineer, a hydrologist, etc. If the audit branch hires experts and subsequently the ministry wants to hire them for work on another site, are they allowed to do the work, or are they conflicted out from doing work for the ministry? Same goes for possible conflict if they do work for mining companies. There are only so many qualified people in British Columbia, or is the intent of the audit branch to have all these experts in-house?

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: There are a couple scenarios here that I want to talk about. One would be the position of an expert, say, in mining tailings. Before coming to work for the unit…. They would not be able to audit a tailings pond that they had designed as an engineer. Typically in an audit, there would be a number of sites that might be audited, but the person who had designed that particular tailings pond would not be permitted…. It would not be permissible for them to, effectively, audit their own work.

I think that would be rather obvious. After participating in an audit and the audit being disclosed publicly, would they be able to do other work in the industry or for the audit unit? Yes.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:25 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:26 p.m.