Orders of the Day

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

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 4 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2020

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

A division has been called. Pursuant to the sessional order adopted on June 22, 2020, this division will be deferred until 30 minutes prior to adjournment this evening.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage on Bill 18, Economic Stabilization (COVID-19) Act.

[1:35 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 18 — ECONOMIC STABILIZATION
(COVID-19) ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 18; S. Gibson in the chair.

The committee met at 1:37 p.m.

On section 4.

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members.

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

Perhaps the minister would like to respond to the question around the motor fuel tax at the same time as she deals with the sales tax. As I foreshadowed to her in our previous discussions, the questions are the same. How much, in this case, sales tax was deferred during COVID? How many businesses deferred sales tax? What is the new revenue number for the sales tax?

I think we were going to come back to some of those answers. I’ll leave it for the minister to respond.

[1:40 p.m.]

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

The question first was on fuel tax, the number we were going to get, coming back from lunch. The July number is $907 million, which is down $117 million from budget. That’s for the July statement. Then on provincial sales tax, in the budget, $7.9 billion, and the July number was $6.6 billion.

S. Bond: To the minister, then, could she speak to the number of businesses that deferred the sales tax and exactly, you know, the percentages that she reflected in her earlier answers on other taxes? Can she give us a sense of how many businesses deferred sales tax and how those numbers, again, will be used to increase the certainty with her budget assessment?

Hon. C. James: So 68 percent of businesses deferred their provincial sales tax. A number of them used the opportunity. There would be no difference from the discussion we had around carbon tax and how we take a look at, obviously, economic growth, what’s going on in the economy and all of the statistics available. This would, of course, include the number of businesses that have looked at deferral as well.

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

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

S. Bond: Again to the minister, then, can she describe for us how much of the tobacco tax was deferred during COVID — if she has any specific numbers regarding businesses that deferred tobacco tax? Also, what is the new revenue number that she will be using for the tobacco tax?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: The budget number for the tobacco tax was $755 million. In the July update, the fiscal scenario was $730 million. That shows the decline, as we mentioned earlier. And 30 percent of collectors have deferred on the tobacco tax. That doesn’t correlate to businesses, because it’s not the individual businesses who submit the tobacco tax. It’s, in fact, the top of the chain. It’s those who are importing and selling who actually provide it. So that doesn’t actually correlate to the number of businesses, when it comes to who sells tobacco.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for those numbers and for her patience as we work through these tax sections. As I said earlier, the number that was given was a cumulative total in the update. Now we have a better sense of what those deferrals and losses of revenue look like, potentially, in some of those key tax areas.

With those comments, those would be my last questions on this particular section.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

S. Bond: The minister and I — and of course, our colleagues — can see the bill in front of us. This section is about regulation, and it’s about new dates. I’d like to ask the minister, specifically, if she has received any submissions for new dates in terms of deferrals, other than the September 30 date.

[1:50 p.m.]

If yes, or no, it would be interesting to know whether or not she is considering any other specific dates in terms of an extension or a change in those dates. Again, can the minister speak to whether or not she’s received any specific submissions for a new due date other than September 30?

Hon. C. James: This kind of comes back to our previous conversation that we had this morning, just around the consideration. As the member points out, this section talks about regulations to give the ability for those dates to be changed. As I mentioned, we’re reviewing all of those dates now for the deferrals, for the consumption tax and other pieces, as part of a group of measures that we’re looking at.

Yes to the member’s question around “have groups written in about other dates.” We’ve had groups write in to talk about the end of the calendar year. We’ve had groups write in that have talked about the fiscal year. We’ve had groups write in that have asked about payment plans — begin paying in October, but pay on payment plans. Change the payment plan schedule to give more time between payments. A whole variety of ideas have come forward.

People have really engaged in all of the ideas around recovery, including this piece. At this point, as I said earlier this morning, nothing’s off the table. We’re reviewing everything at this point.

S. Bond: I thank the minister for that answer. Yes, this is a recurring theme, because as the minister well knows, the opposition has also been talking and calling for, in particular, a look at a payment-plan approach. Deferral is one thing, but when suddenly there’s a lump sum due on a particular date, the stress and the ability to be able to pay, for many of those businesses, will be very, very challenging. So I do appreciate that nothing is off the table. I think that’s important.

The opposition, as I said, have been calling for some kinds of potential options that would look at, potentially, that stretched-out payment period. I know the minister has been reluctant to…. I mean, it’s ironic. We’ve had this conversation. It’s called the Economic Stabilization Act, and from all of the information — and I’m not being personally critical of the minister — it’s hard to feel like there’s any sense of economic stabilization with the discussion we’re having about deferral, about revenue loss, about potential deficit size, all of those things. It’s just part of the world we’re living in.

What I would like to ask the minister: is she prepared today, considering she has the ability now, with this section, to look at potential changes in dates? She’s having discussions. They’re listening.

Businesses are feeling a sense of urgency. Many of them are literally holding on by their fingernails. Is the minister prepared today to commit to a date where she is going to tell small businesses across British Columbia when, or if, or some detail about, a deferred payment plan that stretches out for a longer period of time, a change in the date…? When will she be telling those businesses, to give them some ability to plan and feel some sense of relief?

Hon. C. James: As we discussed this morning and, in fact, as we’ve been discussing for the last number of months — and certainly, when we all came together in the Legislature to put the $5 billion COVID package in place — I recognize how critical it is that we provide support to individuals, to businesses, to sectors in our economy, to the people of this province who are really continuing to struggle.

[1:55 p.m.]

We’re starting to see some positive signs, but there’s still a great deal of work ahead and a great deal of road ahead of us. It’s why, as I said, we made sure that we first dealt with the health and safety. We continue to see that. I think we were reminded this past week that when it comes to the numbers around COVID-19, we have to continue to be vigilant. We have to continue to be vigilant as individuals, as businesses in our restart process and in the work we’re doing in protecting health and safety.

That’s part of economic recovery: the restart, and doing that in a measured approach, to build confidence. If there’s one reminder I’ve heard over and over again from businesses, it’s the need to build that confidence, so that people feel comfortable to go into businesses again. I certainly understand the pressures; I certainly understand the issues that are there. As I said this morning, we are reviewing all of the submissions that have come in, all of the approaches that have come in. We’ll be looking at all of that, and we’ll be making decisions shortly.

S. Cadieux: I’ll be asking questions on sections 7 to 9 here. So, Minister, please indulge me. They sort of cover all three sections at once. Can the minister confirm that this section forces municipalities to delay their deadline for property tax without penalty to residents?

Hon. C. James: I just wonder, Chair, whether we want to move past, then, and onto section 7.

The Chair: Are there any further queries on section 6?

S. Cadieux: Yes, let’s vote on section 6, please.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

S. Cadieux: Minister, if you could please confirm that the section on property taxes in the bill forces municipalities, essentially, to delay their deadline for property taxes without penalty to residents. So the same policy is now in place across the province?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Thanks to the member for the question. Thanks for the patience while we all learn the technology and make sure we have the right people in the room to be able to help answer. So thank you, and a huge thank you to staff — if I haven’t done that already this morning — for the extra energy they’ve had to put in, as well, when it comes to using our technology.

The end result is the same. What it requires is a little bit different. This requires municipalities to delay late penalties. What that means is that people can still submit if they wish to submit. They have the opportunity to submit, but they don’t get charged with a late penalty until October 1. That gives the September 30 date for people to not be penalized on their taxes.

The only exception, of course, is Vancouver, because of the Vancouver Charter. But the city of Vancouver had already moved to do that, to match up with the measures that we’re taking, as well. So no additional work was needed in that area.

S. Cadieux: Thank you, Minister. Yes, thank you to staff who are diligently supporting behind the scenes.

Minister, were the homeowner grant application deadlines also delayed, given the deferrals for the property tax deadline, or were people expected to still file their homeowner grant application for the July 1 deadline?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: It’s probably a little-known fact that people can actually apply for the homeowner grant any time. I think most people presume it comes with their tax bill, and they pay it by the due date of the taxes, but in fact, you can apply for your homeowner grant any time during the year. But to avoid the penalty, yes, it has to be applied for before the October 1 date, when the penalties start kicking in.

S. Cadieux: Thank you, Minister.

So then, with the property tax deferrals, can the minister give us an estimated volume of total property taxes effectively being deferred as a result of this section?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Just a little bit of clarity, perhaps, here around the two things we’re talking about. There is a property tax deferral program. As the member will know, people can defer — seniors can defer, families with young children can defer — their property taxes. That’s not related to this late payment date.

Just for the member’s information, we received 65,000 applications this year for property deferral. That’s the piece that doesn’t impact the bottom line, because those, obviously, are owed taxes on the house when the person sells their house or their house is sold. So 11,000 of those were new applications this year. Those were new people who put in for their property tax deferral. That’s roughly $246 million, as of a few days ago, that was deferred. That’s the deferral process.

We don’t get specifics on people who postponed — obviously, that’s their choice, and we don’t gather the information until the taxes are paid — but in our discussions with municipalities, most municipalities believe they’ll get about 75 percent of their property taxes before the deferral date. With the rate that’s coming in and the amounts that are being paid right now, they believe that they’ll have about 75 percent of those before the deferral date of September 30, before the penalties kick in on October 1.

S. Cadieux: Let’s move to section 10, please.

The Chair: Any further comments on section 7?

S. Furstenau: I do have one question specifically, as the member opposite, on sections 7 to 9. October 1 is the date at which penalties begin to be payable for unpaid business taxes. It’s November 2 for unpaid rural business taxes. My question for the minister is: why set a different date for rural and other property taxes?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: On the issue of rural property tax, there are already two due dates for rural property tax — one of them on July 2 and one of them on November 1. There is no penalty on the July 2, July 3 date. We didn’t need to make a change, because the November date was already there. So there was no point in making a change for the October to November to make one month’s difference. That’s already taken care of for rural properties. There isn’t a worry there about them being penalized, compared to other properties.

I just wanted to clarify, because with the previous question, we were talking about two different pieces. We were talking about residential properties and deferral of properties. We were talking about the date being moved around penalties for commercial properties.

I just wanted to make it clear that residential properties still have to pay their taxes, in case anyone is watching and they’re wondering about the due date for their residential properties. That is set by the municipalities. What we’re talking about here are commercial properties. We moved the penalty dates, got rid of the penalties until September 30 for people to pay on October 1.

I didn’t want anyone to be confused about the residential properties versus the commercial properties. The change in the date relates to commercial properties. People who have their residential property taxes need to look at their date and need to look at when that’s due for their municipalities.

Sections 7 to 9 inclusive approved.

On section 10.

S. Cadieux: Can the minister confirm that this section allows the taxes collected by the municipality, on behalf of the province, to be held for a longer period to ensure municipal liquidity?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: We’re talking in a general sense about the sections. This specific section actually does the opposite. It helps others with their dollars that they’re collecting. This is related to ensuring that B.C. Transit and TransLink — that those dollars flow through to them, that that issue isn’t passed down to those bodies and that they end up receiving the dollars that they have.

But the sections, as we move on — section 13, etc. — talk about the cash flow support for municipalities through the school tax that would come in to the province. Yes, it is being delayed.

S. Cadieux: Thank you, Minister. I apologize. I’ve got my questions bundled into the sort of sections on tax remittances, 10 to 14. Thank you for the flexibility in allowing me to follow my own train of thought here, rather than exactly, specifically the section.

Can the minister explain how the deferrals that she essentially is allowing for the municipality are different from the deferrals for business around taxes?

Earlier we were talking about it and around carbon tax and sales tax. The minister was very clear that those were due to the province, and they didn’t provide any essential liquidity for the businesses in the interim while they’re being deferred. But in this case, with the municipalities, it appears that the delay for the remittances is specifically for that purpose of liquidity for the municipalities.

Can the minister explain the discrepancy between how she is referring to the deferrals of tax payments in these sections?

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

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. C. James: There are a couple of differences. We talked about the remittances previously. The remittances are collected by businesses, if we’re using the example of the carbon tax. The customer is expected to pay that. Therefore, the business holds on to those dollars. We’ve said to them: “You don’t have to have to have the administrative burden, because your businesses may have been closed, to actually submit those to the Ministry of Finance. That’s deferred until October 1.” That’s why that piece is an administrative piece.

The difference with the municipalities is that they would provide, normally, the school tax portion, which they collect on the property taxes, to the province. What we’ve said is: “You have permission to utilize those dollars. You have the ability to utilize those dollars. They have to be paid to us January 1.”

That’s the difference. They have that ability to use those dollars. That’s why it’s not simply an administrative support to municipalities. It is an administrative support to businesses.

S. Cadieux: Apologies to my colleague who was going to take the floor next, but I just have a quick follow-up because of the minister’s answer.

I guess the question follows then: why would the minister choose to provide that flexibility and that sort of cash liquidity support to municipalities and not provide that same level of support to the struggling small business community in saying, with the deferrals, that they could similarly use the money in the interim, knowing that they would eventually have to pay it back at a future date?

Why that difference in process? Does the minister not trust the small businesses the way that the minister trusts municipalities, or is there a legal difference?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: Yes, indeed, there is a legal requirement, and that is the difference between municipalities and small businesses. Certainly, some small businesses would, in fact, benefit from this property tax piece, so it isn’t that the property tax piece only benefits municipalities. In fact, because of the reduction — it’s about $700 million — many small businesses, in fact, will benefit from this piece. But, in fact, businesses are legally required to hold those dollars that they collect on things like carbon tax, the consumption taxes, in trust. So that isn’t money that they’re able to utilize for cash flow.

S. Furstenau: Just on this collection of sections that we’re looking at. As we know, municipalities are facing a pretty significant financial crunch and don’t have the flexibility of various forms of revenue that other levels of government do.

So my question for the minister is: can she give us some idea about what kind of forecasting the ministry has done about the fiscal situation facing municipalities, especially given that they are required to still remit full taxes to B.C. Transit and TransLink? And how do we know that extending the school tax and police tax deadline will be enough to balance this out for municipalities?

Hon. C. James: I think there certainly wouldn’t be anyone — myself nor the Minister of Municipal Affairs — who would say that these measures will solve every municipality’s challenges that they’re facing during COVID. I think, like others, that there are going to continue to be challenges. But I think these were certainly…. We did a review of all of the municipalities. We looked at funding. We looked at their forecasting. We believe that this addresses a large portion of the challenges that they’re facing.

I’m sure the member, like all of us in this House, will have heard the issues around transit and the challenges there. It’s part of the reason that we have asked for additional dollars for the COVID plan so that we will have support to be able to address the issues of transportation and the issues of municipalities. That’s part of the recovery dollars coming from the federal government that we are matching. Those will be dollars still to be in discussion, obviously, with municipalities and with Transportation to look at where those dollars and where those needs come in.

We also provided flexibility for municipalities to borrow from their capital reserves for one-time challenges that they face during COVID. Then, also, we worked with the Municipal Finance Authority to provide some room and some space for municipalities there.

These are, again, ongoing discussions, just as there are going to be with every sector that is in the province that’s been impacted by COVID.

[2:40 p.m.]

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

Can the minister just tell us how long the deadlines for school tax and police tax are being extended by?

Hon. C. James: Municipalities usually make monthly remittances, and we have said that they can make those monthly remittances in mid-January for both the school tax and the police tax.

Sections 10 to 14 inclusive approved.

On section 15.

S. Cadieux: Why, during this time, did the minister not consider raising the lower threshold of the employer health tax to enable relief for small businesses?

Hon. C. James: I think a couple things just to mention on the employer health tax. I think the first one is that when COVID hit, and when we were looking at how we could provide immediate support, the immediate support that was there — that we moved on quickly — was, in fact, to defer payments until October 1. We felt that gave the quickest direction that could happen, the quickest move that could happen.

There have been suggestions around looking either now or in the future at the employer health tax and at the threshold and where the threshold is, but that’s obviously a longer piece. It’s a legislative piece; it’s usually part of a budget piece as well. We wanted to look — in the pandemic and in putting together a COVID-19 plan — at how we could do that in the quickest way to provide support, which is exactly what we did. So discussions around whether that September 30 date stays, whether we look at further deferral or other changes that I have mentioned earlier…. They’re all in discussion.

S. Cadieux: Thank you, Minister. I appreciate the answer, but I guess I am a little bit flustered by it in the sense that we know businesses are struggling. They’ve been struggling since day one of the pandemic. It’s not news to anyone.

[2:45 p.m.]

In fact, everyone is…. I think most of us, at least in the Legislature, are very actively trying to help promote the need to support our small businesses, knowing that they’re 98 percent of our economy — at least of our businesses — and that the potential job loss, should those businesses fail, is significant.

The minister says that they wanted to do something quickly that they could do that would improve the situation. I applaud that. I think that is absolutely what was necessary, and in fact, the minister did that by saying they could defer these payments of EHT. But we are here debating legislation to actually enable that. We could have equally been here debating legislation that would have enabled the threshold change.

It’s a bit of a difficult argument to swallow, I guess — that the reason we didn’t do it was because it was a legislative requirement. The reason the minister didn’t choose to do that was because they fundamentally don’t want to do that, despite the fact of it being a recommendation of many on their relief committee and so on.

I think that’s just important to note, but I appreciate that we are here to at least approve the deferral of the tax. Certainly, that has been, in some small way, a support, I’m sure. Hopefully, it won’t be a tremendous burden for struggling small businesses that have still barely reached 30 percent of revenues to pay back all at once in a couple of months. I hope that the minister is seriously considering making some significant additional changes as we go forward so that businesses will be okay.

Now, moving on, though, to another aspect of the employer health tax. That is that there were businesses in B.C., certainly, that were eligible for the federal Canada emergency wage subsidy. That was of help to those businesses and continues to be as it’s been renewed.

Will the Canada emergency wage subsidy be exempt from the health tax, or will those payments be counted as payroll on behalf of the businesses?

Hon. C. James: I appreciate the member raising this. This has certainly been something that has come forward as part of the discussion we’re having on recovery. A number of businesses have asked for this to be looked at in context of all the other pieces that are being looked at. So yes, it’s being looked at now.

S. Cadieux: Sorry, I’m not clear which piece is being looked at — the possible exemption of the Canada emergency wage subsidy to be exempt from the tax or the broader raising of the threshold. It wasn’t clear from the minister’s answer.

Hon. C. James: Whether the dollars coming from the wage subsidy will count as part of the employer health tax. Right now it would count as part of payroll, so people have written in, as part of their recommendations, to say that that should be looked at in the context of all the other things that we’re looking at. So it is added to that list.

S. Cadieux: The minister may wish to consider the fact that WorkSafeBC, a government body, has already exempted the CEWS from premiums for WorkSafe. So the same principle should apply, I would expect, for the employer health tax. I would hope that the minister would consider that. But that’s just a statement, not a question.

With that, unless there are other members who have questions, we can move on.

S. Furstenau: Just one question on this section, which is applicable to the 2020 calendar year. My question is somewhat technical. Given that the change is for the 2020 calendar year only, why is this section not repealed until December 31, 2021?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: It’s technical but understandable. It impacts the calendar year and the fiscal year. So the reason it extends into 2021 is because the returns are actually not due until March 31. There’s the three-month lag there, and that takes us past the calendar year and into 2021 for those payment dates.

Section 15 approved.

On section 16.

S. Bond: Just a quick question. Can the minister confirm that the coming into force date of this section effectively renders it as a sunset clause on the deferral of the EHT? Perhaps she could also answer, quickly: why is this section structured differently than the other tax deferrals?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I think the most straightforward way to explain it is that the employer health tax is paid in installments. It’s not taxes due. It’s installments that are due. So that’s why it’s structured in a different way than the other taxes.

The consumption taxes have a very specific due date when those taxes are due. There aren’t any loose ends, so to speak, whereas the employer health tax is paid in installments. Then March 31 is basically the last date where the calculation is done. It’s not a final installment date. It’s a calculation of the year and what the actual payment was, and it ties that up on March 31.

It’s basically because of the installment structure of this tax versus the consumption taxes, which have a tax due on a certain date.

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

I have no further questions on this section. In fact, if there are none from other colleagues, hon. Chair, we could move on to section 18, when you’re ready.

Sections 16 and 17 approved.

On section 18.

S. Bond: Obviously, one of the key factors around this bill that the opposition considered as we brought our concerns to second reading and elsewhere is that many of the initiatives that were announced by the government previously are included in this bill. In essence, it breathes life and gives permission to do those things, in some cases, retroactively.

Section 18 is one of those critical pieces: the B.C. emergency benefit for workers. I think all of us in the House wanted to be sure that individuals and families have the kind of support they need through COVID. I do think that today we would ask for some details from the minister. Anything that she could provide would be most helpful.

Perhaps my first question is: how many people have claimed the workers’ benefit as of today or as close to today as possible? Does the minister expect that those numbers will increase before December 31?

Hon. C. James: Numbers hot off the press, as of last night, so current. We have received 651,000 applications, and 623,000 have been paid. It’s very strong numbers on the…. This is our $1,000 benefit, as the member knows.

[3:00 p.m.]

Do we expect that we’ll see any further applications? Yes, I expect we will. I expect that there will be people who will still be utilizing the weeks that they have left on the CERB benefit, which will provide them the opportunity to be able to claim this benefit as well.

S. Bond: Can the minister tell me whether the enforcement and audit measures that are in this section…? Are they standard? If so, could she give us a sense of what they might be similar to, or of where else we might find these same enforcement and audit measures?

Hon. C. James: Yes, the member is quite correct. These are standard. They’re standard clauses in the Income Tax Act, for example. So they’re mirrored in this act as well.

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

I’d like to ask the minister a further follow-up question. We know that we can extrapolate and do the math when it comes to the number of people that have applied for a $1,000 grant. Could the minister advise whether or not there were additional staff required to process these claims?

Obviously, that is a significant number in a very tight time frame. The minister — I know her — would be committed to getting that out as quickly as possible. Were additional staff required to process the claims? If the answer is yes, how many?

Hon. C. James: I know the member has worked with staff as well, so I know she would agree with me that the extraordinary measures that have been taken by staff continue throughout COVID. In fact there were no new hires brought on for this payment. We utilized their revenue division staff who would have been looking at some of those tax payments that were coming in and that have now been deferred. We redeployed those staff to be able to help in getting these payments out.

Once again, as I said, exceptional work by the staff in the Ministry of Finance, to be able to do things as efficiently and effectively as we possibly can.

S. Bond: The minister and I don’t always agree, but we do agree, certainly and strenuously, on that point — that the public servants who serve not just this ministry but all of the ministries that I was privileged to be a part of are spectacular.

[3:05 p.m.]

I can tell you that we’ve heard nothing but positive commentary about the way that public servants have managed the extra pressures. On that note, I would just like to confirm, then, that there were no extra staff required for audit or enforcement. In fact, perhaps the minister, then, as I bundle these questions, really generally…. I think both of us would agree that we have a lot of faith in British Columbians to do the right thing.

Were there additional audit or enforcement staff required? Have people actually been audited? Has the minister had to deem any of the claims ineligible or perhaps ask for claims to be repaid? So just a general sense of where we’re at with compliance and the audit and enforcement side of the grant.

Hon. C. James: At this point, we haven’t had to hire additional compliance and audit staff, but as business picks up, as we start seeing more businesses back at work and more payments coming in, there may be a need. So I don’t want to rule that out. But at this point, we haven’t had to hire additional audit or compliance staff in place.

There has been audit work done. That certainly happens as applications come in, as the system flags applications or as there are routine checks done. Yes, there are some reviews that are going on right now. I don’t have any numbers on this, but there have been people who have repaid, who realized that they made a mistake and have repaid the payment. There have been denials as well. The majority of the denials are people applying more than once. Obviously, if they get one application approved, they are denied on any subsequent applications that come in.

On penalties…. The member asked about penalties as well. There are penalties for gross negligence. The intent is not for people who, by mistake or innocently, applied, not realizing that this was not a benefit for them. I think we would all agree, given the COVID benefits that have come out from the federal government and the provincial government, that there’s understandably some confusion sometimes around benefits for people to apply for.

[3:10 p.m.]

The idea is not to penalize those people, to work through. As I said, we have had some people repay that. But there are certainly penalties for people who deliberately try and deceive the system to be able to access dollars that they know they are not eligible for.

Section 18 approved.

On section 19.

S. Bond: This is the section that’s related to an exemption from balanced-budget legislation. My co-critic and I would want to be clear. I don’t think there is anyone in the House or in the country, for example, that didn’t realize that there were drastic measures being taken to support families and small businesses.

This isn’t a discussion about the need to support British Columbians, whether families or small businesses. We do want to walk through, however, what this exemption means and get a sense of the minister’s plan or thinking around how having deficit budgets will impact the economy and what her plan looks like.

Let’s start with this, then. Can the minister confirm whether ministerial holdbacks are affected by these changes? Will salary holdbacks continue to occur?

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

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for that response. Can the minister, perhaps, give us a sense of her overall perspective on balanced-budget legislation?

I know we don’t want to turn this into the differences in our policy directions as a past government and as a current government. But I think that it is important for British Columbians to have a sense from this minister…. Here, this legislation is basically sending a message to British Columbians. There could well be, in many ways, three years….That’s the best-case scenario.

Perhaps the minister can give us a sense of what is her overall perspective on balanced-budget legislation, more broadly.

Hon. C. James: We had a little bit of this discussion yesterday, as well, on the previous bill, on Bill 4. I certainly believe…. There are a couple principles that I think are critical and that we certainly believe in as a government. I suspect most governments would see this as critical: spending every dollar wisely. These are not government’s dollars; these are not our dollars. These are the dollars that belong to British Columbians. I believe that the people of this province expect us to spend those wisely.

I think we will have a difference of opinion around where those priorities are. That’s part of democracy. That’s part of why people look at different governments and different political parties and go through the democratic process. But I think it is an expectation to spend those dollars wisely.

As the member will know well, we have in fact tabled three balanced budgets in the Legislature in our time period, while making investments that are critical to British Columbians. I believe in a balanced approach, no pun intended. I believe it’s important to make sure that we are supporting the people who help build this economy. An economy doesn’t exist without the people of British Columbia. We need to ensure that people have the opportunity, through the budget.

I’ve said this again, that a budget isn’t simply numbers on a piece of paper. A budget really is a descriptor of the priorities of a government and where they feel that the province should go. For us as a government, we set three key priorities: to address affordability for families; to improve services that people count on — the basics, which I consider as health and education, which are critically important; and building a long-term, sustainable economy that benefits every British Columbian and doesn’t leave people behind.

[3:15 p.m.]

That, again, includes, from our perspective, a requirement to do our part when it comes to climate action, a requirement to look at diversification, a requirement to make sure that people have the opportunity for good jobs in every corner of British Columbia and to do that wisely with the dollars that we have. I’m very proud of the fact that we’ve been able to provide that balanced approach.

Now, when we’re in the situation we’re in, I think, as the member has described well, every jurisdiction, every part of our globe, is in this situation where people are going to have to both watch what occurs over the next number of years with COVID and what is expected, and be able to manage their dollars. I go into this upcoming budget, as I’ve gone into every budget, saying: how do we spend every dollar wisely? How do we set priorities? You can’t do it all. It’s not possible to do it all.

I think one of the toughest jobs…. I’m sure colleagues who’ve been in this position, and in fact, in every part of government as ministers, would agree that it’s pretty rare for something to cross your desk that isn’t worth funding, because most people bring things forward that have some connection to the people of British Columbia, our province. But it is impossible to do it all. It is about setting priorities and determining your priorities. As I mentioned, our government set those three priorities, and we will continue those into the upcoming budget as well.

S. Bond: The minister is right. There will be degrees of disagreement. There is no doubt about that. I know that she will want me to be clear. The budget that was tabled, we need to remember, was balanced, based on a significant number of tax increases to British Columbians. That, again, is a difference in approach from our perspective and the minister’s.

I appreciate hearing the minister’s comments. I would just, perhaps, want to add that one of the reasons I think we end up with balanced-budget legislation is…. I would agree completely that it is taxpayer money and that that requires a rigorous and transparent process of accountability. When there aren’t those legislative requirements, we’ve seen in the past that perhaps there isn’t quite as much rigour and transparency on the part of elected governments as there could or should be. That’s probably a look back, and why we ended up there in the first place.

Let’s get back to the numbers. Can the minister tell me what the servicing costs are for the current debt, and if she has a sense of what the future costs will be?

Hon. C. James: Debt-servicing costs in the budget, when the budget was tabled, are $1.197 billion. Then in the July update, the debt-servicing costs have gone up by $176 million.

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

[3:20 p.m.]

Can the minister tell us whether or not…. I mean, risking a credit downgrade is a concern for Finance ministers, for sure. It’s not often easy to explain to the rest of British Columbia why credit downgrades are important. But if the minister is unable to maintain an adequate debt-to-revenue ratio, will our province risk a credit downgrade?

Hon. C. James: Obviously, I think the credit-rating agencies will be reviewing all jurisdictions. This will be a very different kind of situation for them as well, when it comes to their ratings. Often credit-rating agencies will look to see if you have a plan. How is your plan going to be addressed, and how are you going to manage that? So I think all of us will be watching those pieces, and we’ll be working on our numbers as well.

The debt-to-GDP, which is the measure we used in the July update, just to remind the member, was at 15.5 percent in the budget and is now at 22 percent in the scenario, again recognizing that scenario could shift, given the number of risks that we included in the July scenario. Certainly, it’s important. Certainly, we’ll be watching that.

But, again, I think — as I know, I’m sure, from the members on the other side as well — our priority right now is doing everything we can to support businesses, to support people and to get our economy back on track and making sure that we’re doing that in a way that addresses the values that matter to British Columbians — everything from our commitment to climate to reconciliation to equity. As we’ve referred to it, building B.C. back better in a way that addresses those pieces — that’s really our priority at the moment.

S. Bond: Perhaps the minister can just give us a sense…. I mean, I think they’re fairly obvious to most of us, but I think it would be important to have it on the record. I mean, obviously, revenue is going to be a major factor when we look at maintaining debt-to-revenue ratio. Maybe the minister can just give us a general sense of what other factors the minister is watching to ensure…. I can understand the catchphrase “building B.C. back better.” Well, we need to make sure that B.C.’s debt is actually affordable. From the minister’s perspective, obviously, I am assuming revenues would be a major concern for B.C. maintaining its debt-to-revenue ratio.

[3:25 p.m.]

What other factors is the minister watching to look at whether or not B.C.’s debt will remain affordable over the longer term?

Hon. C. James: The member mentioned revenue. Obviously, that’s a critical piece. Economic growth, all of the usual kinds of factors that one would imagine are factors that have to be considered when taking a look at debt…. But I think another piece that’s important, of course, are interest costs as a percentage of GDP.

We are in a very low-interest environment right now. We’ve looked back on debt back to the early 1990s. We, in fact, when you look at the numbers currently — because of the interest costs as a percentage of GDP — continue to be holding very manageable debt when it comes to our jurisdiction.

Those are pieces, certainly, that we’ll be watching as we start building budgets and as we start looking at how we get our economy back on track.

S. Bond: Can the minister tell us why three years of deficits were chosen as a timeline? From everything the minister has described to us today, in the days past and for British Columbians more broadly speaking, she’s characterized the situation — I’m certainly not going to argue with that — in terms of the uncertainty. The loss of revenue. We don’t know who’s going to pay what back. What are we going to do in terms of deferrals? We’re not sure about a lot of factors.

Can the minister tell us why three years of deficits were chosen, and can she describe her update and the decision to include three years as a best-case scenario for British Columbia?

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

Hon. C. James: The member asked why we looked at the three years. It fits the budget cycle. As the member knows, we put out a three-year budget cycle. We felt it was important to look at those three years. Certainly, within those three years, we will be looking at a deficit budget, so we felt that was a reasonable approach.

[3:30 p.m.]

Every year, obviously, gets reviewed. Every year, certainly, we hope that you’ll see the economy recover, but I think we also have to be realistic. No one has a crystal ball. No one knows what kind of situation, how fast the economy is going to come back, what’s going to happen to international travel, what’s going to happen to exports, etc. I think it is tough to know where the situation will be in the future.

But I think the reasonable approach is to look at the three-year budget cycle and to acknowledge, within those three years — that’s what gets put out for the public — that certainly there will be a deficit, reviewed each year, and then, obviously, reviewed at the three-year mark as well.

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

You know, I obviously assumed that we would be taking a look at the number of deficits and, each year, taking a look at an assessment of where the province sits. Can the minister tell us the timeline that she anticipates for paying down the operating debt that will result from the new fiscal plan?

Hon. C. James: I think at this stage, certainly, the operating debt gets assessed as we go through the fiscal year. We’re not through the fiscal year yet. We’re obviously only in the first quarter. The first quarterly report is coming out in the fall.

Then I think the most important piece, of course, is you need to have a surplus to be able to start paying back your operating debt. Again, as we’ve talked about, the three-year cycle for a deficit budget is there. Again, my hope is that we’ll see the economy recover sooner and that we’ll be back to strength again. But I think we also, again, have to be realistic about the situation we’re facing. I don’t expect that we’ll be back in a surplus position within three years.

S. Bond: I will certainly make this my last comment on this section. I don’t know if others have questions.

I just want to be clear that the minister, in one of her recent answers, didn’t make a significant endorsement of a campaign that’s going on in British Columbia. The minister used the phrase “build B.C. back better.” I’m not sure if she’s aware of the fact that that’s a slogan of several environmental campaign groups that are suggesting British Columbia basically abandon the oil and gas sector as part of the recovery plan. Perhaps the minister could just clarify whether, indeed, that was an endorsement or simply the use of a very descriptive phrase about the government’s intent in terms of the recovery process.

I think it would be important for many listeners in British Columbia to know that the minister, in those comments, wasn’t endorsing or was endorsing that particular campaign.

Hon. C. James: I’m endorsing making sure that we address the gaps that occur in the economy and that have really been highlighted by the challenges of COVID-19: the gaps of inequality, the gaps of climate action, the gaps of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. Those gaps have widened the need for good supports and strong supports for people across our province, the need to not leave people behind.

As far as I know, there is no specific use of “building back British Columbia” in a way that is better than it was before. That’s certainly something, as I said, that we’re committed to and we have been committed to since we were elected government.

[3:35 p.m.]

S. Bond: As noted, that was my last question. I’m glad the minister provided some degree of certainty there that that wasn’t a policy endorsement.

With that, my questions on this section are complete. I have one question in the next section, but my questions on this section are complete.

S. Furstenau: Just to canvass this topic a little bit further. As the other two — the opposition member and the minister — noted, there’s some disagreement. We’re going to add a bit of disa-green-ment into all of this on the balanced budget question.

We look at this idea of enforcing balanced budgets year over year as more of a political decision than a fiscally responsible one. We advocated for looking at balancing budgets over four-year terms, as opposed to year over year, because it can often result in an incapacity to plan for longer than a year. It can have impacts on decisions that are made for budgeting.

The minister has spoken to this quite a bit in her discussion with the opposition member, but can the minister speak a little bit more to the issue of the holdbacks under this legislation that has been left in place? Amending to allow for three years of deficit budgeting did not go to amending the fact that ministers who do not have balanced budgets themselves will be facing up to a 20 percent impact to their own salaries.

Can the Finance Minister speak to why this decision to leave those holdbacks in place was there, particularly in a time when I would point to, in particular, the Minister of Health, who has done a truly herculean job to address what was a completely unexpected and definitely an unprecedented crisis? I think it would be of some interest and concern to the citizens of B.C. to know that he would be facing a reduction to his salary for the work that he did if he wasn’t able to present a balanced budget.

Hon. C. James: I think there are a couple of things that’ll take us back to our conversation that I was having with the other member from the opposition, which is really about priorities and spending your time and energy on the priorities that are in front of you.

I think the member raises an interesting discussion around the four-year business cycle and those conversations. But I have to say, as government, we made it very clear that we were going to focus on our three priorities as we came in. You can’t do everything.

That’s even more critical right now during COVID. There are some huge challenges in front of all of us as British Columbians, most importantly in front of the businesses and the individuals and the people of this province. We felt, as a cabinet, that it was important for us to focus on those priorities.

Do I feel that every member of our cabinet and our caucus is working incredibly hard and doing the best they can in the situation? No question. People are working beyond the call of duty when it comes to the challenges. But so are the grocery clerks, so are the nurses, so are the support staff, so are the municipal workers, and so are the transit drivers. People are putting in an incredible amount of time and energy. So are the families who’ve had to scramble to be able to manage as well.

Given all of that, we set a priority to say that we are going to do as much as we need to, to be able to legally address the issue of balanced budgets over these next three years. There would’ve needed to be more changes made, more debate and more time on the legislation focused on ministers’ salaries. We felt that our priority needed to be on putting together recovery for people in this province, and that’s where we put our focus.

[3:40 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: Thank you to the minister for that. I think that there are different views from economists and on the role of government. I think we would be able to say with some real certainty that the last several months have shown us that government plays an incredibly important role. It was government that rose to the challenge of COVID-19 in British Columbia, across Canada and, to differing degrees, around the world. But we are being recognized here in B.C. as having mounted a response to this crisis that is seen as world leading, thanks to the work of Dr. Bonnie Henry but also thanks to the Health Minister.

We know that the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions has been faced with, as we’ve called it, a kind of second pandemic of mental health and addictions issues which has been exacerbated by COVID-19. Yes, workers and people across B.C. have also risen to this but have not had to face that, for their extra work, they’re going to see less pay.

I think that that is something we should all be recognizing — that this is a way to say to ministers that we’re going to adhere to this notion that we can’t really trust government, that government doesn’t have an important role to play. We’re going to maintain this notion that first and foremost, you are not going to be rewarded for serving, in a crisis, the needs of the people of British Columbia, particularly in the case of this government. I commend all of the ministers for the incredible work that has gone on through this crisis.

Can the minister tell us….? Does she anticipate that ministers will be seeing a holdback of their salary, and if so, how many?

Hon. C. James: I think there is no question. We will go into a deficit budget, and that will mean a holdback for all the ministers if there is not a provincial balanced budget. Again, I’m sure this debate will continue — not simply this year. I’m sure that next year and the year after, this debate will continue. But for now, given the situation that we are in, given the situation our province is in and given the situation that the people of British Columbia are in and the challenges that they’re facing, we feel it’s important right now to spend our focus, time and energy on supporting the people of British Columbia. As I said, I’m sure these will be future debates, but that’s where our focus is.

S. Furstenau: Further to the discussion that happened earlier about building back better, I think that it is important to recognize that we have a very serious weight on all of our shoulders, to recognize that the conditions that have created the crises we are in are conditions that we absolutely want to change and not go back to.

I was, earlier, writing a piece that I’ll be speaking about tomorrow about the efforts in Cowichan, undertaken by Nourish Cowichan, to feed 800 families over the COVID period. Those children would have had food in school to supplement their nutrition, because they were coming to school hungry. But when schools closed, this incredible group, working with the school district, had to find a way to get food to 800 families.

In a province where there is enough to go around for everybody, it’s very, very distressing that we see the levels of child poverty, see the levels of people living without a home, see the levels of mental health and addiction issues. I think that, again, looking historically, governments that choose to invest deeply into their future create better futures for people. The notion of everything coming down to a balanced budget sheet can send us to conditions that we do not want to replicate.

[3:45 p.m.]

I do hope the minister — and I believe her to be very true to her word — recognizes we have a lot of work to do, a lot of gaps to fill in British Columbia. I strongly encourage her to continue on the path of recognizing that this is a time for us to change the outcomes in this province. I will leave it there with those comments.

I appreciate that the minister was concerned about the extended debate that may have happened over holdbacks for salaries. But I think that this was not the right direction to go at this time. I think that we have to acknowledge and applaud the incredible hard work of the ministers and their staff at a time that was incredibly stressful for everybody. I am disappointed that we are adhering to this notion of holding these individuals accountable when they are doing the absolute best they can for the province. I do hope that this debate will continue and that we revisit these decisions that were made at this time.

Section 19 approved.

On section 20.

S. Bond: Just a quick question. Section 20 allows for the possibility of supplementary estimates in deficit years. So does the minister, at this point…? Obviously, she’s building in the ability to allow for supplementary estimates. Does the minister anticipate the need for supplementary estimates in the deficit years?

Hon. C. James: Again, I think it’s early going. But when we’ve seen the kinds of challenges and the needs for the supports that have been put in place over this past while with COVID-19…. Not knowing what could be coming, not knowing second wave issues, not knowing what kind of situation we could face, I think it’s entirely possible, and I think it’s the responsible thing to do to make sure that it’s included in case it’s needed.

Section 20 approved.

On section 21.

Hon. C. James: On section 21, I move the amendment to section 21 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

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

21 Section 24 of the Financial Administration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 138, is amended

(a) in subsection (1) by adding the following definition:

“state of emergency” means a state of emergency declared under section 9 of the Emergency Program Act. ,

(b) in subsection (2) by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (a) and by adding the following paragraph:

(a.1) during a state of emergency, and for the ensuing period ending 63 months after the expiry of the state of emergency, a matter arises for which an expenditure is required, or , and

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

(b) a disaster or emergency occurs or is anticipated and a matter arises for which an expenditure is required, or for the ensuing period ending 63 months after the occurrence of the disaster or emergency, a matter arises for which an expenditure is required, .]

On the amendment.

Hon. C. James: This amendment is intended to do two things. The first is a minor housekeeping change to correct for a sectional reference omission, which has been identified by our legislative drafters in the amendment at section 21(c). It’s a very small housekeeping change.

The second piece, I think, is an example…. We’ve been through this before, certainly with my critic. We’ve been through this before where we’ve had some very good discussions in briefings on the bill. Some areas and questions have been raised on particular pieces, both in our discussions that we had with the official opposition and the Third Party.

These sections deal with the limitation period allowed for the use of special warrants while the Legislative Assembly is not in session, in order for the province to respond to emergencies and disasters. So the previous proposed amendment would have provided for a limitation period of six months after the emergency or the disaster event. Through this House amendment, and through our discussions with the official opposition and with the Third Party, we’re now proposing this House amendment to provide, in fact, for a limitation period of three months.

[3:50 p.m.]

There certainly was no intent to leave the impression that the Legislature would not come back if that was possible. I think we have shown, during this time period, our willingness to be able to be adaptable, to be able to ensure that people have a voice, that we go through that democratic process. This section was certainly not intended to circumvent that at all.

With the recommendation from members, in discussions around the bill for a shorter period of time, I’m certainly quite prepared, as I have done through this amendment, to look at a three-month time period. I want to thank the members of the opposition and the Third Party for the good discussions that we’ve had around this piece and an amendment that I believe reaches that balance, which is the balance of recognizing that there may be emergencies and time periods when the need for those warrants is there.

I think we’ve seen it through COVID. But we also know the challenges of, perhaps, an earthquake, as an example. We are obviously in a place that has some challenges if there’s an earthquake. So those kinds of situations could occur. But as I said, there is also a balance. We’ve shown that we can come together as an assembly. We showed that in March during the middle of COVID, when it was tough for people to assemble, to be able to pass supports.

This amendment, I hope, strikes a balance that will meet the needs of all of the members.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

A recess has been requested. We’ll return momentarily.

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

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

The Chair: We’re continuing on section 21, on the amendment moved by the minister.

[4:00 p.m.]

S. Cadieux: Can the minister just provide us with a sense of why she’s bringing this amendment forward? Why does she feel this expansion of special warrant authority is needed? I understand — thank you to the minister — that the amendment has lessened the time frame, but it is still a new authority. Can she please provide some comment on why this is essential?

Hon. C. James: To the member: thank you for the appreciation around the amendment. I think there are a couple of pieces. The biggest piece is clarity. The biggest piece is looking at clarity. There wasn’t, certainly, an opportunity to be able to include a pandemic, and we wanted to make sure that there was clarity around there and then that there was clarity to be able to address the emergency as well as fund operations that may be needed as you move into recovery as well. So that really was the key: to take a look at how we ensured that there was clarity, both for the people of the province to know that supports could be in place, and to make sure that the resources could be there for that emergency.

It also, as the member knows, sets a limitation on the special warrant authority to be able to, again, recognize times when the Legislature may not be able to meet. I think we’ve all exceeded expectations during this session and during the March session, and that gave extra confidence, I think, for everyone around looking at an outer limit and how far that outer limit would be so that the Legislature would still have the ability to come back and do their due diligence around special warrants. They have to be made public. This isn’t information that can’t go public. They have to be debated as part of a return to the Legislature.

I certainly hope this authority is never needed. I hope it never has to be used, but I think providing that clarity is really why these amendments came forward now.

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

Hon. C. James: Yes, I believe that that would have been needed. I think special warrants are an exception — therefore, opportunities when it’s not possible for the Legislature to sit, when it’s not possible because of a disaster. So yes, I certainly feel that the March opportunity was there and would have been utilized.

[4:05 p.m.]

S. Cadieux: Now that we have proven as a Legislature that we have the ability — thankfully, thanks to very capable staff and so on — to come together very quickly to find a new way of operating in an emergency, both for the 23rd but also with, now, video conferencing capacity, doesn’t that mitigate the need for a broad special warrant capacity in this regard? Can the minister point to another jurisdiction that has similar capacity for special warrants?

Hon. C. James: I think the first piece that the member talked about, the powers under this section…. I think it’s important to recognize that these are very limited powers. You obviously have to meet the criteria that is here around the emergency. This doesn’t provide the opportunity for any government to be able to simply utilize special warrants. There’s a very tight case around those special warrants that has to be approved by the LG. It has to be made public. So I think that’s the first, most important piece — that, in fact, they are limited powers that can be utilized and limited powers that expire and then have to be debated as well.

Around jurisdictions, it’s hard to compare jurisdictions because every jurisdiction has a different suite of laws in place. They have different powers to be able to look at special warrants and funding. So it’s very hard to look at comparisons. Perhaps it’s being a Victoria MLA. I think the example I would certainly point to would be earthquake. Many of the challenges that we’re facing and the ability for all of us to meet in this Legislature and to do the work we’re doing in this Legislature rely on electricity, rely on power, rely on technology. If all of that went down…. I think we just need to look at Christchurch, New Zealand, and other places where we’ve seen massive earthquakes occur to know that that is a situation we could face.

So I think that it’s putting in place very limited powers, very structured powers, that last for a period of time to provide that just-in-case support. It’s not as a reason for the Legislature not to come back. I think we’ve shown over this past year the commitment that we all have in this Legislature, regardless of who is government, to bringing democracy and the opportunity for democracy together. But there are extreme circumstances, and I think that it’s important to recognize that.

S. Cadieux: So the language in the act, and to my knowledge it hasn’t been changed with the amendment, says anticipated emergency. Can the minister explain why the word “anticipated” is being used? How are we defining the word “anticipated”?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I think it’s always interesting to listen in to the lawyers and the legislative drafters as they put together legislation. I see one of our colleagues across the way smiling at the discussion around lawyers — around “anticipated” versus “imminent” and what the terminology is.

Certainly, “imminent” is a very narrow time frame, according to legal discussion. “Anticipated” is we know it’s coming, and we have an opportunity to prepare — again, a short time frame but not as crunched as imminent would be.

The example would be…. We know that a second wave is coming. We’ve started seeing the signals. We need to make sure that we have enough PPE, or we need to make sure we anticipate that there’s some cost that needs to occur.

This gives us the ability to be able to address that. Perhaps it’s as we have seen, where the shift was made in the hospitals, for example, to be able to provide enough support, emergency support, in case you saw that occur. Those kinds of things provide the word “anticipate.” It gives us the ability to be able to do that, still, within a limited frame.

S. Cadieux: I appreciate that. I guess I’m questioning why, though, we would use a new term rather than a term that’s already defined in the Emergency Program Act, like “imminent,” especially when we’re talking about circumstances, again, as the minister referenced, that are, perhaps, things like an earthquake, which clearly couldn’t have been anticipated.

Can the minister square that circle for me?

Hon. C. James: Just to expand, I guess, a little bit on the discussion that occurred with the drafters around this….

The member is quite right. “Imminent” is in the emergency act, which often is…. An emergency is imminent, very close, and is coming.

“Anticipated” gives that, yes, narrow time but provides us an opportunity to do the planning for something like a pandemic. I think the pandemic is a good example of that. You see your numbers. You know that there are challenges coming. You know, perhaps, that an outbreak in a particular area might be coming.

[4:15 p.m.]

It’s not imminent. It may not be happening tomorrow, but you anticipate that it’s coming. Therefore, you need to make sure that you’re putting in place the supports for isolation or for those kinds of costs. If you haven’t had the ability to be able to come together, this ensures that that’s recognized. So that’s really the purpose.

S. Cadieux: Then, in that case, what about weather-induced incidents like blizzards or forest fires? We anticipate forest fires quite readily every year. How do we know that that kind of a situation isn’t going to be now brought into this special warrant circumstance as an opportunity for government?

I am not trying to cast aspersions on the motives of the minister or the government. I am just trying to be a responsible legislator and ask why. If we have operated without this for the many, many years that we have operated, why now, all of a sudden, do we decide that this is necessary? Frankly, it gives a significant amount of power and authority on spending to a government. I think that realistically, in an emergency and in a circumstance that was unforeseen, like an earthquake, as the minister used as an example….

Frankly, in this example, with the pandemic, we found a way to come together and provide the authority to the minister that was necessary and did so responsibly for the people of British Columbia. There are other ways we could prepare the Legislature to be available in all sorts of circumstances.

The earthquake example is one because of the circumstances of the Legislature being located in Victoria. However, given that everybody now has the ability to work virtually, we could be proactively setting up circumstances whereby, in an emergency, we would operate the Legislature differently. We could be looking at a piece of legislation that says that in an emergency, we will operate differently, and this is how the standing orders will work or what have you.

I guess this is one way to approach the circumstance and the one that is being proposed by government. I still see a great deal of ambiguity around how this will be used and how it will be argued that it was appropriate. Bringing it back to the Legislature after the fact for approval provides transparency, but it doesn’t provide the Legislature an opportunity to argue against or to not approve, essentially, the funding that, in this sense, would already have been spent. So I am struggling, still, with this expansion of power.

Can the minister explain why the expansion extends after the state of emergency?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I think there are a couple of pieces just to remember about this section. I think the first one is…. And I appreciate the member’s questions. I think that’s exactly why we’re having this conversation — to make sure that we’re looking at providing the support for the people of this province during an emergency but doing it in a way that is responsible. I think that’s critical.

I think we need to remember that this special warrant section only applies when the House isn’t in session. That’s the first piece that I think is really important. It also provides…. The member asked: “Why this, when we have emergency acts?” Well, in fact, this is a stopgap where other acts don’t address pieces.

The member used the example of forest fires. The Forest Act provides support, covers the fire, covers the state of emergency while the fires are going. It doesn’t consider the pieces afterwards. There may be a circumstance — again, in a rare case — where there are supports that are critically needed.

If we look at COVID, it is a good example. Each time we look at the state of emergency, we consider the state of emergency and whether it needs to be extended. But there are also things that we need to continue to provide support for. If we were in an emergency where technology wasn’t working, where we weren’t able to bring people together, whether it was on the Island or whether it was somewhere else, this provides that support.

So in a very limited way, when the House isn’t sitting, when there’s a state of emergency, when it has been recognized by the LG that this fits, then that piece will move forward.

I appreciate the member’s issues. I appreciate her concerns about this, because I couldn’t agree more. I don’t think there is a government, regardless of what government is in place, that would take a look and say, “Let’s just use the special warrant for this disaster,” if it wasn’t critically needed, if you weren’t in the position of having to provide this kind of support.

This isn’t something that I expect…. I hope it will never be used in our province. But I think COVID has shown us — the waves of COVID, the challenges of COVID — the supports that are needed to be put in place before a state of emergency is put in place, after a state of emergency is there. I think to ensure that we have that flexibility in case something does occur in our province is the responsible thing to do within the limitations that we’ve put in place for this section of the bill.

S. Cadieux: Well, I guess the minister’s own response is providing me with greater discomfort here — suggesting that it’s only when we’re not sitting. Well, we’re not in session for at least two-thirds of the year. We are out of session more than we are in session. So this is providing authority for, theoretically, more time than it’s not. That, again, provides me with a level of discomfort, even though I understand and appreciate what I believe drafters and staff are intending to provide here in a level of flexibility for government. Just as a legislator, I can’t feel overly confident that it is necessary, given that we have found a way to manage this time.

This comes on the heels of a special warrant expansion in Bill 4 that relates to government’s decision to move the election date. So there are concerns that I’m not sure the minister can adequately put aside for me here.

At this moment in time, at the state we are in…. We’re still in a state of emergency. We are in session. There is a fall sitting of the Legislature scheduled. We know today that if we can’t sit all together in the Legislature, we can sit virtually. Does the minister expect or anticipate that a special warrant will be required when the COVID state of emergency is lifted?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: No. In fact, as I’ve said, when the member asked about the March getting together of the Legislature…. Did I imagine that that would be utilized? Yes, I did, because that is your first direction — to look at: can you bring the House back? Can we get the House together? Can we provide the opportunity for the House to come back together?

If there was a massive outbreak of COVID and it was not possible to bring us together or technology was down and it was not possible to bring us together…. But certainly, we have proven that there are opportunities for us to be able to have a legislative session in a safe way. That could shift, depending on the kind of disaster.

So no, I do not expect that this will be used. I hope it will never be used, as I said. It is not intended to be utilized. It is intended to be there as a backstop in an emergency where supports are needed. That’s the critical piece. This is not about giving government authority to spend money. This is about making sure that critical supports can be in place and that they can be there quickly for people to be able to help during an emergency. That’s the critical piece of all of this.

S. Furstenau: This conversation is of great interest to me. I think that, as somebody who has studied the origins of western parliamentary democracy and now participates in it, it’s a very important conversation for us to be having. I appreciate both the minister’s comments and the questions from the member of the opposition.

I have a couple of clarification questions based on that conversation, and then a few more. The minister cited both examples of if we’ve had a catastrophic earthquake and the power was out or if there was, for example, a massive outbreak of COVID and we weren’t able to bring the House back. My expectation is that, in both of those kinds of cases, we would be in a state of emergency, which would therefore not necessitate any need for special warrants, as we are currently in a state of emergency.

Can the minister just clarify on that? In those cases of very extreme disasters or very significant impacts from a pandemic, would we not be in a state of emergency, which would not necessitate the use of special warrants as proposed by this?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I think the first piece I just want to remind all of us, in looking at the special warrant section, is that this section only applies when other sources of revenue aren’t available. If you have a voted appropriation in health, for example, and you’ve utilized the voted appropriation and there aren’t other sources of revenue available, then you could look at the special warrants — again, with all the parameters in place.

The member of the Third Party asked about the state of emergency. Could you be in a state of emergency? Yes, then that would cover a portion of requirements as per that law around the state of emergency. I mentioned earlier the example of the Forest Act that covers the fire and the time of the fire but doesn’t necessarily cover some of the aftermath that might be there in a state of emergency.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

There may be a lead-in to the state of emergency, where the state of emergency has not been put in place yet, but PPEs, for example — I guess coming back to the pandemic — might be critically needed. Or you might need the ability to be able to move beds in a hospital to be able to deal with an outbreak, for example, and the state of emergency might not be in place.

Those are the kinds of extreme examples that I think are important to recognize through this section.

S. Furstenau: I think that one of the things that we have to really consider here…. I appreciate that the minister is very clear in reinforcing that this would be very exceptional circumstances, in very limited circumstances. However, what we have to be considering in any kind of decision-making we’re doing is that we’re not only talking about this government and this administration and this set of public servants; we’re talking about the next government and the government after that and the government after that and after that.

I recognize that we can change the legislation as we go. However, one of the foundations of democratic systems is that there is this wrestling with the decision-making and there is this oversight that exists in this building and by the people who are elected. While this minister…. I fully accept that she sees this in exactly the way she’s identifying it — that it would be a highly unusual circumstance. I don’t know what a future government might say. I don’t know what governments five, ten or 15 years from now might feel about this.

One of the things that I’ve been so proud of, in terms of how this Legislature has worked through COVID, is that sense of urgency — not only to get back here on March 23 to approve the $5 billion in funding to deal with the emergency we were in but the urgency that we felt as members of this place, along with our incredible staff, to make our Legislature work almost exactly the same as it would work if we were all here. That urgency comes from a recognition that this is how we’re supposed to be doing things. This is how our government is supposed to be working.

I fear that with the introduction of the capacity for special warrants after a state of emergency — and again, we remain in a state of emergency right now — it would relieve some of that sense of urgency amongst government and legislators to say that we have to get here and do our job. We have to get here. Not just government, but everybody in the Legislature has to get here to do their job.

I guess the other worry that I have with this is that we are going to see more and more emergencies. We’ve had several states of emergency even in the course of the three years of this government, some of those driven by climate change — the wildfire seasons that we had in 2017 and 2018.

We can fully anticipate that there will be more climate change–driven emergencies. According to experts in zoonotic diseases, we are going to see more pandemics coming. I think that we need to feel a proactive urgency right now to say: how do we ensure that government does continue to work, that democracy does continue to work through all of this?

[4:35 p.m.]

Sharing the anxiety as expressed by the member opposite, the question that I have at this point is…. Initially, this bill would have the special warrant period be six months after a state of emergency. The minister has brought an amendment to three months. Can she give us some insight into the decision to go from six months to three months?

I know that the opposition had put in a proposed amendment as well. But if it was from six months to three months, what was the original reason for six months? If it can be reduced to three months like that, is there really the necessity to have this? Can we accept that if we are in a state of emergency we have the capacity for government to do what it needs to do within that state of emergency?

Hon. C. James: Appreciate the conversation. As I said, this was a conversation that we had, prior to committee stage starting, with the opposition and the Third Party, around where that balance is. That’s really what this is about. Where is that balance within a structure — within the special warrants structure — which, again, requires the fact that there aren’t any other opportunities for dollars to be able to be found through voted appropriations within the fixed requirement of the state of emergency and the timelines and the requirements around that.

We looked at six months. We looked at COVID and the structure of COVID of six months. We heard the discussions from the two parties to recognize that they felt that that wasn’t striking a balance, that there was a better balance to be found, which is why it was reduced down to three months. But it’s providing that protection and assuring that protection is there for the people of British Columbia. We felt that that was a critical piece that was needed.

S. Furstenau: I also do appreciate the conversation. I think that given that we’ve been able to navigate this crisis the way we have…. And I’m very proud of how we’ve navigated this crisis. I think we have demonstrated that under the current circumstances, we’ve been able to do all that we needed to do to ensure that the people of British Columbia could be served as best they could.

I think that we should continue to operate in the same way, recognizing that there are enormous powers granted to a government when a state of emergency is declared and that we should be mindful of those powers and very aware of them.

Also, we want to be as protective and mindful of the role of the Legislature, even in our most challenging times, which is, in fact, when democracy really does matter more than ever.

I move a subamendment to the amendment to section 21 that is in possession of the Clerk.

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

21 Section 24 of the Financial Administration Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 138, is amended

(a) in subsection (1) by adding the following definition:

“state of emergency” means a state of emergency declared under section 9 of the Emergency Program Act. ,

(b) in subsection (2) by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (a) and by adding the following paragraph:

(a.1) during a state of emergency, and for the ensuing period ending 3 months after the expiry of the state of emergency, a matter arises for which an expenditure is required, or , and

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

(b) a disaster or emergency occurs or is anticipated and a matter arises for which an expenditure is required, or for the ensuing period ending 3 months after the occurrence of the disaster or emergency, a matter arises for which an expenditure is required, .]

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

The committee recessed from 4:40 p.m. to 4:49 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

On the subamendment.

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I appreciate the member bringing forward the subamendment.

I certainly continue to be concerned about the risk that stays for the people, given what we’ve learned from COVID. But I also understand and, certainly, as I’ve said all along, feel that there is certainly no intent, nor do I want the bill to read from the public’s perspective or from the perspective of the members in this House that there would be any opportunity for a future government or governments to utilize this section for purposes other than providing support to people during an emergency.

With that spirit, I would speak in support of the subamendment.

Subamendment approved.

Amendment as amended approved.

Section 21 as amended approved.

Section 22 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. James: First, huge thank-yous and appreciation to staff. We have gone through two very complex bills over the last couple of days, and I think it’s important to recognize the additional support and work that is required doing this through technology. So I just want to express my appreciation to the staff for the extraordinary work.

Thank you to the members who have taken part in this discussion and debate. I think we’ve had some very good questions, some very good discussion and a very good opportunity to go through committee stage.

With that, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:53 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 18 — ECONOMIC STABILIZATION
(COVID-19) ACT

Bill 18, Economic Stabilization (COVID-19) Act, reported complete with amendment, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. C. James: I call committee stage for Bill 23, Workers Compensation Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 23 — WORKERS COMPENSATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2020

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 23; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 4:56 p.m.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

J. Martin: Section 4 is the section on search and seizure. How does this differ from the portion of the Occupational Health and Safety Act which was used as an example for this section in the 2019 Helps report?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: The provisions are based on recommendations in the recent review by Lisa Jean Helps and are based on similar provisions in the Ontario Occupation Health and Safety Act and on the existing non-warrant search and seizure provisions in the B.C. Workers Compensation Act, or section 75.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

J. Martin: On the courts granting injunctions, how does this small change clarify how the court may grant the injunction as listed in the section in the Workers Compensation Act?

Hon. H. Bains: This amendment is designed to ensure that the act reflects the original intent of this provision, which means that it permits the court to grant any three types of those injunctions that are mentioned here: a restraining order, a compliance order, or prohibiting a person from carrying on an activity for a certain time.

This will clarify and it will actually reflect the original intent that was in the act: that any one of those three, or all three areas, is an area where the injunction can be granted.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

J. Martin: Thank you, Minister, for that response. On section 6, the 2019 Helps report and the more recent Parr report recommended the repeal of section 214(2) of the Workers Compensation Act.

The question is: what are the purposes of removing the need for approval through section 99(2) instead of the recommended section?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: Actually, we are amending 214, but now it’s called 99. I think it’s a renumbering, but it’s the same thing.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

J. Martin: The Parr report said, “However, upon consideration of current provisions in the act on court orders for publication, the proposal appears to add little benefit,” later suggesting: “No amendments to the act are recommended.” So what is the purpose including such an amendment to the act?

Hon. H. Bains: This actually came from recommendations by Lisa Helps, who concluded that the potential for an order to publish facts related to the offence would act as a deterrent and publication would help educate other employers about workplace safety issues. So this one, actually, is expanding on the sentencing power of the court by adding a power to direct that the convicted person, not WorkSafeBC, publish the facts relating to the commission of the offence, at that person’s expense.

J. Martin: Can the minister please share with the House: where would be an appropriate place for the publishing of facts related to the commission of an offence?

Hon. H. Bains: The example, Member, would be that the court may choose to order that WorkSafeBC publish the facts at the expense of the convicted person. Alternatively, the court may find it more appropriate to order publication in a company newsletter or other material produced by the employer and distributed to the employees.

[5:10 p.m.]

It is something that they could be required, at their own expense, to publish in the company’s newsletter, or it could be a memo to employees — that sort of thing.

J. Martin: Can the minister share…? What is the cost of publishing the facts relating to the commission of an offence, please?

Hon. H. Bains: There’s no prescribed cost attached to this. A court may decide that a company must publish in a community newspaper, which would be a little more costly, or they may decide that it’s appropriate for them to publish within the company newsletter, a leaflet or a memo to the employees. So it varies. There’s no actual prescribed cost attached to this particular area.

J. Martin: One more question on this section from myself. How many cases does the minister anticipate will be ordered to be published by the courts?

Hon. H. Bains: I think, Member, it all depends. I think in an ideal world, there will be none. But things happen. Violations do occur. When there is a violation and a person is prosecuted, that’s when the court could require them to publish the facts. I have already suggested in what different places that can happen.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

J. Martin: Turning to the subject matter in section 8 on victim impact statements. While these statements were widely supported by all the groups consulted, the Parr report noted: “One representative also expressed caution that victim impact statements should not outweigh the hard facts of the case when courts determine penalty levels.”

What does the bill do to ensure that such a balance between hard facts and victim impact statements will be maintained?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: It is the court’s discretion. As you know, decisions are made based on the facts, even today, in the court system. The judge weighs the victim impact statement and the facts of the case and makes a decision.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

J. Martin: Thank you, Minister. Can the minister please share the range or average costs of a charge that has been levied by way of an assessment?

Hon. H. Bains: This is, I would call it, a housekeeping, technical amendment to clarify the current practice that exists today. It’s just to provide explicit authority to WorkSafeBC to change a class or subclass of the employers — the cost of investigation, inspections and other services — through the assessment process. That happens today.

This just clarifies the intent of what already exists. I think this is why it was recommended that we clarify the language.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

J. Martin: Can the minister please share how this section will affect penalties?

Hon. H. Bains: This one, again, is a housekeeping amendment. It further clarifies the current practice and the original intent of the provision.

It clarifies that WorkSafeBC may prescribe regulations that meet the conditions in both paragraphs (i) and (ii). That’s why it is replacing “or” and adding “and.” If you look at this, it was the legislative counsel that advised that the word, “or,” at the end of subparagraph (i) may restrict WorkSafeBC to prescribing regulations that meet the conditions set out in (i) or (ii) but not both (i) and (ii). I think that’s just clarifying, as was the case in the first section.

J. Martin: Prior to these potential changes, did the board have challenges with prescribing penalties, especially in the instance of frequent penalties?

Hon. H. Bains: The answer is no.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

[5:20 p.m.]

J. Martin: Can the minister please define for us an “obvious error” and “omission,” as it pertains to this section of the bill?

Hon. H. Bains: The intent is to permit WorkSafeBC to correct an obvious error that is not supported by the law, policy or facts. Examples of obvious errors and omissions that could be corrected under this provision include: assigning an employer to an incorrect classification group, which could require the employer to pay a higher premium than they should be paying; using an incorrect wage rate for a workers compensation benefit, which could result in a lower benefit for the worker than they should be receiving; or relying on a policy that is not applicable to a case.

Then, I think I would finish by saying that the intent is not to address situations where workers, employers or different WorkSafeBC officers disagree with the decision-maker’s judgment or weighing of the evidence in a decision order. The review and the appeal process will remain as the process for the workers and employers who disagree with the judgment exercised in a decision or order.

J. Martin: So will the power to reconsider a decision apply to only administrative types of errors and omissions?

Hon. H. Bains: The Ombudsperson has been requesting these legislative changes for over a decade now and contacted the ministry as recently as 2018, asking about the status. The Ombudsperson considers it important to allow WorkSafeBC to correct obvious errors and omissions, even if the 75-day reconsideration time limit has passed.

If you look any further, WorkSafeBC already has authority to correct administrative errors, such as clerical, typographical or computational errors or errors in agreed statements of facts at any time and makes these types of corrections when necessary. As such, an amendment for correcting an administrative error is not necessary. The correcting of clerical, typographical or computational errors is not a reconsideration, because such corrections do not change the intent of the decision or the order.

Therefore, putting an explicit provision for the administrative corrections does not properly belong in section 123, which deals with the reconsiderations. The purpose of this amendment is to streamline the process for correcting obvious errors and omissions that are more than simple administrative errors. This requires permitting WorkSafeBC to consider a decision for this purpose after 75 days.

[5:25 p.m.]

J. Martin: Could this section also extend substantive decisional errors or omissions?

Hon. H. Bains: I think the intent here is to permit WorkSafeBC to correct an obvious error that is not supported by the law, policy or the facts.

J. Martin: Thank you. So why then are errors and omissions not defined as they are in regard to WCAT’s powers?

Hon. H. Bains: I think the reason is that there could be so many different scenarios. You cannot contemplate every one of them. So we are allowing, with the language here, WorkSafeBC to come up through policy to determine what or how they would deal with such a situation.

Again, I want to restate to the member, the intent is not to address a situation where a worker or employer or a different WorkSafeBC office disagrees with the decision-maker’s judgment or weighing of evidence in a decision or order. The review and appeal process will remain as the process for workers and employees who disagree with the judgment exercised in a decision. I think it is very clear. We are allowing WorkSafeBC discretion to come up with a policy to deal with the errors and omissions. Again, what I have just restated is the real intent of this change.

J. Martin: So what is the minister’s view of the previous purposes of the review and appeal process, which was previously used to adjudicate such errors?

[5:30 p.m.]

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister of Labour.

Hon. H. Bains: Thank you, hon. Chair, and welcome to the chair.

Member, let me give you a scenario. When an obvious error is discovered, say, after 90 days, even if WorkSafeBC discovers it, the time period to request a formal review of the decision has passed. That’s 90 days.

This means that the affected person must first spend time and resources to apply for an extension to the 90-day period for the filing deadline for the formal review. Then the person, as well as WorkSafeBC, must spend time and resources to review the decision through the formal review process.

The proposed amendment provides a more streamlined process to permit WorkSafeBC to correct an obvious error directly at any time. The provincial Ombudsperson has recommended this streamlined change, as I said before, for correcting obvious errors and omissions.

It just cuts a lot of red tape and also saves WorkSafeBC, the worker and employer the resources and the research to get the extension — first, the application, then to go through the appeal process — when there is an obvious error made that can be corrected by WorkSafeBC and save so many people so much red tape, time and resources.

J. Martin: So if this section is passed, just to clarify, can it be used to correct decisions that have been previously made?

Hon. H. Bains: At WCB’s discretion, if they feel that an obvious error or omission has been noticed, they can correct that.

J. Martin: How will the minister balance the ability to exercise or to not exercise discretionary authority with the stability and consistency in WorkSafeBC that workers and the employers rely on?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: WorkSafeBC strives, as the member will know, for quality decisions and orders in the first instance but, on occasion, acknowledges that obvious errors do occur. We anticipate that the change will not create a flood of new reconsiderations. There’s no intent to expand WorkSafeBC’s current reconsideration powers in any broad way.

The expansion is limited to correcting obvious errors and omissions discovered after the existing 75-day reconsideration limit has passed, which is intended to capture aspects of the decisions or orders that are not supported by law, policy or facts, as I’ve stated before. So it’s not intended to address situations where a worker or employer or a different WCB officer disagrees with the judgment made in a decision or order.

M. Lee: Could I ask…? He mentioned that under the act, there is jurisdiction for correction for a clerical or typographical error, accidental or inadvertent error, omission or similar mistake or arithmetical error made in a computation. That is the wording that’s set out in section 307.

What other provisions of the act have provided similar jurisdiction to the board?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: There is no other section that has similar language, except section 307. That applies to WCAT. That does not apply here.

M. Lee: Just to clarify what the minister was indicating earlier, there is no other ability of the board to do what is provided under section 307 for WCAT. So the consideration then is to provide some ability for the board to do that.

The minister spoke in response to questions from my colleague, the member for Chilliwack — that this provision, section 11 of this bill, will provide and enable WorkSafe to develop a policy in respect of the application of this section. Could the minister just elaborate further on what the minister’s expectation is for that policy?

Hon. H. Bains: If this will help, Member, the discretion will be left with the board to determine through a policy. But let me restate what I have been saying earlier on a similar question.

The board currently can’t correct administrative errors after the expiry of 75 days, such as clerical, typographical or mathematical errors. This change will allow the board to correct an error that is more substantial than an administrative error.

Examples I have mentioned before — I could read them again — could include where the board applies a wrong wage rate in calculating a worker’s compensation benefit, assigns an employer a wrong classification in determining the premium to pay or applies a policy that was not applicable to the case.

This change will enable the board to correct obvious errors in a streamlined manner if identified after the 75-day reconsideration time limit, while not undermining the general purpose of the 75-day limit.

[5:45 p.m.]

M. Lee: Just to have the minister bring us back to section 123 of the act, which is what this section of the bill is amending, of course. If we could go back to that, then. Under subsection 123(1) or even (2), what limitations, if any, are there in terms of the types of reconsideration that the board can do under this section?

Hon. H. Bains: The board has the authority to address obvious errors, typographical and otherwise, now, within 75 days. This will expand their authority past 75 days. The purpose, again, is explicitly to give discretion for WorkSafeBC to change the decision for an obvious error at the board’s initiative. This, therefore, required WorkSafeBC to recognize and acknowledge that there is an obvious error.

[5:50 p.m.]

The provision does not give the parties a formal right to apply for such correction. If the parties disagree with the decision, they must continue to go through the review and appeal process. The existing restrictions, that WorkSafeBC cannot consider a decision once formal review has been requested or a notice of appeal filed, will continue. As such, WorkSafeBC will not be correcting obvious errors if a decision is already in the review or appeal process. In this situation, errors will continue to be addressed through the review and appeal process.

M. Lee: I would suggest that this provision, between section 123 of the act and section 307…. They are balanced, in terms of the process that’s available. There are reasons for which, presumably, under the current act, the board has a limit around its jurisdiction of 75 days.

Obviously, the government would expect, like any other member of this House, that the board would operate in a way that it doesn’t make obvious errors and omissions. If it does, the board would discover that on its own initiative, as per section 123, within 75 days. If that’s not the case, there is certainly the framework that’s set out over several provisions in this act for a very comprehensive, balanced review and appeal process, including what’s set out in section 307.

To the minister, how many times did WCAT — say, in the last year, 2019-2020; April 1 to March 31, 2020 — have to exercise its authority under section 307(1) of the act, as a point of reference, in terms of clerical, accidental or arithmetical error?

Hon. H. Bains: Section 307 applies to WCAT, which works totally independent of WorkSafeBC. Through 307, they can correct their own decisions, but they cannot correct the decisions made by WorkSafeBC and the review system that existed in WorkSafeBC.

What this does, Member, is…. Let’s think about this. WorkSafeBC can correct those obvious errors on the 74th day, but not on the 76th day. Now you have to go through the appeal process. I think it’s just to streamline the process.

[5:55 p.m.]

If there is an obvious error which could hurt the employer when they’re assessed in a wrong class — it clearly shows that they’re in the wrong class — once they acknowledge that that was the decision that was made, that there was an error made, they could correct it. But under the current system, after 75 days have passed, you have to go through the appeal process. That’s very expensive for everyone.

I think this is something that is to streamline the process, save a lot of money and resources for many people and correct the decision that they have made, which they acknowledge — obviously, they made some errors in calculating the wages for the worker or placed the employer in a wrong class.

M. Lee: Just to understand the way that an obvious error or omission…. Obviously, this is an important term, which is a new threshold to give authority to the board without a time limit beyond the 75 days. Just as the minister is suggesting that it might be favourable to all parties to be able to correct an error, it is also important for all parties to have certainty, finality. To suggest that without the appeal and review process that’s in place under the other provisions of the act…. This open-ended definition that is being set out in the act is something that is important to understand here on this particular section.

Coming back to this, perhaps I can ask this question in another way. Under section 123 of the act, the minister has referred to the jurisdiction of the board to reconsider its decisions or orders within 75 days. So to the minister: in the last year, between April 1 and March 31, 2020, how many instances or occasions has the board had to reconsider its decision based on, in the first case, a clerical, accidental or arithmetical error, versus what is termed, under this section, an obvious error or omission?

Hon. H. Bains: We don’t have the exact numbers, but I can tell you this, as I’ve said before. WorkSafeBC always strives to have quality decisions and orders in the first instance, but on occasion has acknowledged that obvious errors do occur. These cases have ended up before the Ombudsperson as well. The Ombudsperson, for almost a decade, has been asking and reaching out to the ministry and to WorkSafe to fix this problem, and as late as 2018 has asked the ministry again — requested legislative changes.

We could get you the numbers, Member. I think they’re not in the dozens, but there could be a handful.

Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Schedule of Estimates

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure to table the schedule for Committee of Supply, the budget estimates for Thursday, July 30 and Friday, July 31.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we have a deferred division now on Bill 4, third reading.

This House stands recessed until 6:10.

The House recessed from 6:02 p.m. to 6:10 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker: Members, I call the House back to order.

[6:15 p.m.]

Members, we will now proceed with the deferred division. The question is third reading of Bill 4, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2020.

[6:20 p.m.]

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 4 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2020

(continued)

Bill 4, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2020, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 44
Bains	Beare	Begg
Brar	Chandra Herbert	Chen
Chouhan	Chow	Conroy
Darcy	Dean	D’Eith
Dix	Donaldson	Eby
Elmore	Farnworth	Fleming
Fraser	Furstenau	Glumac
Heyman	Horgan	James
Kahlon	Kang	Leonard
Ma	Malcolmson	Mark
Mungall	Olsen	Popham
Ralston	Rice	Robinson
Routledge	Routley	Simons
Simpson	Sims	Singh
Trevena		Weaver
NAYS — 39
Barnett	Bernier	Bond
Cadieux	Clovechok	Coleman
Davies	de Jong	Foster
Gibson	Hunt	Isaacs
Johal	Kyllo	Lee
Letnick	Martin	Milobar
Morris	Oakes	Paton
Polak	Redies	Reid
Ross	Rustad	Shypitka
Stewart	Stilwell	Stone
Sturdy	Sullivan	Sultan
Tegart	Thomson	Throness
Wat	Wilkinson	Yap

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:24 p.m.