Second Session, 42nd Parliament (2021)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, May 18, 2021
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 73
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
| Proceedings in the Birch Room | |
TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2021
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: P. Alexis.
Introductions by Members
H. Sandhu: Today my beautiful niece Avneet, who lives in Abbotsford, turned 12 years old. Avneet is so kind, lively, caring and an intelligent girl. She’s like a daughter to me. May I ask members of this House to join me to wish a very happy birthday to Avneet.
Happy birthday, Avneet. Massi loves you so much.
M. Dykeman: It is Donald Craig’s and Dorothea Craig’s 70th wedding anniversary — constituents of my riding in Langley East. I was wondering if the House could please join me in wishing Donald and Dorothea a happy 70th wedding anniversary.
M. Elmore: I’m pleased to introduce my friend from Vancouver-Kensington, Yohan Pathmayohan. He’s very active with the National Council of Canadian Tamils and he’ll be out with an event today at the Vancouver Art Gallery at noon marking the 12th anniversary for Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day.
I just ask everybody to please give him a very warm greeting. Thank you very much.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
INTERNATIONAL MUSEUM DAY
T. Wat: Today is International Museum Day, an exciting day to note the importance and contribution of small, local and large museums in British Columbia. Museums play such an important role in showcasing our history and culture and providing fun and interesting education to all.
Here in British Columbia we have the wealth of history showcased in museums provincewide — museums dedicated to First Nations languages and cultures, our province’s complex biodiversity, the storied history of gold rushes; art galleries filled with beautiful artistry and local municipal museums telling the tale of cities across B.C.
There is the Royal B.C. Museum, a proud institution which showcases the depth of our past, the diversity of Indigenous language and First Nations people, the early industry and the settling of the land now known as B.C. Barkerville is an iconic landmark in British Columbia’s north. It is an excellent example of the trails of the gold rush, a notable chapter in the province’s history. The heritage town has welcomed hundreds of thousands of visitors for generations, inspiring and educating.
On International Museum Day, I ask all the members of this House and those listening at home to support their local museums and archives, especially since COVID-19 has had a tremendous impact on these important institutions. Tourists and locals alike have been unable to access the educational opportunities provided by museums, whose important revenues have been dramatically reduced.
Museums have been hit hard, and we must all do our part in ensuring that these vital museums survive and that they are ready to invite and educate once more when we return to normal.
INVASIVE SCOTCH BROOM
A. Walker: Every year around this time, volunteers all over Vancouver Island come together, loppers in hand, on a crusade to protect our natural environment. Rain or shine, along busy roadsides and abandoned clearings, they cut broom, in bloom, to make way for native species and natural revegetation.
In 1849, Walter Colquhoun Grant, the first western landowner on Vancouver Island, purchased 100 acres of land in what is now known as Sooke Harbour. That spring Grant left Scotland by ship via Panama. Upon his arrival at Clover Point, here in Victoria, he shot what he believed to be a wild buffalo, to the consternation of locals who’d recently lost their cow. This was the first of his several miscalculations.
Another notable error was that Grant introduced Scotch broom to his farm in memory of his homeland. This plant is incredible. Broom is drought-tolerant. With the help of rhizobium bacteria, it fixes its own nitrogen in the soil. It thrives in poor soil, lowering the pH and depleting it of phosphorous, which dramatically impacts the ability of native species to recolonize. One plant can produce 18,000 seeds, which can last for up to 30 years in the soil, and it spreads quickly.
This month of May is Invasive Species Action Month. In my hometown, BroomBusters is taking action. Volunteers have taken up the challenge to rid our natural environment of this scourge and are having fun in the process. The trick to cut broom is to cut it in bloom, just below the soil level, killing the plants and preventing the further spread of seeds.
Would the House please join with me in congratulating BroomBusters, who have successfully eradicated 99 percent of the broom in Qualicum Beach and worked so hard to create space for our native species.
PETER BOYD AND
PETER’S YOUR INDEPENDENT
GROCER
R. Merrifield: Recently the city of Kelowna awarded their 43rd Annual Civic and Community Awards. This year’s Corporate Community of the Year recipient was Peter’s Your Independent Grocer.
This is not the first time Mr. Peter Boyd has been recognized for his work in our community. In 2017, he was recognized nationally by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship with an Employer Award for Newcomer Employment for his work in tackling the challenges and obstacles faced by newcomers and striving to make them feel more at home in Canada through people-focused hiring practices. Peter’s employs about 200 staff members, of which more than 22 percent have immigrated to Canada.
“Every day I feel happy to go to work,” said Peter. “Opening my mind and doors to people of all backgrounds has allowed me to grow, my team to grow and our store to be known as a place of welcoming neighbours.” In 2018, Mr. Peter Boyd was also recognized as Kelowna’s man of the year. But this is not about past awards. This is about the current one, which was just given at the end of April.
In 2020, Peter’s was a crucial community fixture, as grocery stores became an essential service. They organized specific shopping hours for elderly and vulnerable shoppers, ensured that staff were available for translation services, arranged delivery service to local farms, and so much more. Kelowna and the Okanagan are better, more diverse and more welcoming because of business people like Peter Boyd.
When he won, he acknowledged that whether it was welcoming newcomers and making a way forward or supporting the community through a pandemic, he followed a simple motto. “My mom said, ‘Nobody gets left behind.’ I’ve tried to live that.”
Today I ask for the House to join me in celebrating Mr. Peter Boyd, Peter’s Your Independent Grocer, and his successes in leaving no one behind.
KARYSSA McLEAN AND DAMIAN DUTRISAC
B. Banman: I rise in the House today on behalf of a young woman who works in my riding. Her name is Karyssa McLean. I’ve known her for a number of years now, and I have to say she lights up a room when she enters it. I and many others followed her falling in love with a handsome young man named Damian Dutrisac — he, her prince, and she was clearly his princess.
Their love for each other was, to put it mildly, deeply infectious. Both share the love of the outdoors, adventure, and busily planning their future. I was not alone in watching them get engaged, her saying yes to the dress, planning the wedding and dreaming of the family they would soon start, she and he about as deeply in love as a young couple could and should be.
Then, in the blink of an eye, on May 7, tragedy struck. Damian and a friend were fishing on the Fraser River near the mouth of the Vedder River when the boat suddenly capsized. Both men were tossed overboard. One of the two men made it to shore. Damian, sadly, did not. He has not been seen since. Karyssa has been doing everything she can to find him but, as of yet, has not been able to bring the love of her life home.
I would ask those whose ridings are along or near the Fraser River to reach out to those they know who work or may be on the Fraser River to help in the search for Damian. Karyssa has also asked me to mention the importance of wearing a life jacket when on or near the water.
Let us join today to take a moment to reflect, to pray, to do whatever we can to aid, to find Damian and return him to his family and the love of his life.
B.C. ACHIEVEMENT FOUNDATION
COMMUNITY
AWARD
A. Singh: Thank you, member for Abbotsford South. That is touching.
I’m filled with gratitude this morning to be able to speak about the B.C. Achievement Foundation’s Community Awards and two of the awardees this year. The B.C. Achievement Foundation celebrates the spirit of excellence in our province and serves to honour the best of British Columbia.
This year among the awardees are Amber Anderson and Harbhajan Singh Athwal. Harbhajan Singh Athwal — or Uncle Athwal, as many of us know him — has been a pillar in the community of Queensborough since his arrival to Canada in 1968.
After retiring from working in a sawmill for over 38 years, Harbhajan Singh took on a volunteer position as president of the non-profit Khalsa Diwan Society Gurdwara Sukh Sagar in 2006 in Queensborough. Through the society, Harbhajan Singh contributes to the spiritual, educational and social services available to the community. Amongst many other things, in 2007, he spearheaded the creation of the Guru Nanak Free Kitchen program, providing meals for thousands of homeless community members in the Vancouver Downtown Eastside.
Amber Anderson is the executive director of Hope Action Values Ethics (HAVE) Culinary Training Society. Amber has impacted countless lives in the Downtown Eastside. In 2007, Amber was asked to develop a school and a café in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside to offer culinary training to some of the province’s most marginalized people.
Through HAVE, Amber fosters community, instilling confidence in each of her students as they work towards graduation and beyond. Amber’s empathy and generosity of spirit has helped more than 1,300 people shift their story to a more hopeful one. Amber also has another connection to this glorious House. Her partner is my good friend and former MLA for New Westminster, Chuck Puchmayr.
I ask that this House rise in recognition of these two amazing people.
INTERNATIONAL DAY AGAINST
HOMOPHOBIA, TRANSPHOBIA
AND BIPHOBIA
B. Anderson: Yesterday was International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia. Today I’m thinking of a friend who came to Canada as a refugee because his home country has draconian laws against homosexuality.
Today I’m also thinking of my second cousin, who is transgender, and I’m thinking of all my friends, colleagues and community members that are part of the LGBTQ2S+ community.
When you look up the term “phobia,” the definition is “extreme or irrational fear of or an aversion to something.” How can people have a fear of someone who just wants to be themselves or just wants to love who they love? We have come a long way on this journey from tolerance to acceptance to embracing LGBTQ2S+ and non-binary people, but we still have further to go.
I want to read a quote from Dan Levy, the creator of Schitt’s Creek. “In Schitt’s Creek, we are writing a world that examines the transformational effects of love when the threat of hate and intolerance have been removed from the equation. While that’s not a reality for many, our goal is to shine a light out there and ask: ‘What if it was? Wouldn’t we all be happier if we were able to love out loud?’”
I would like to expand on those thoughts and say: wouldn’t we be happier if we were able to be embraced for being ourselves and able to love out loud? I think it’s extremely important that we must stand in solidarity and embrace our LGBTQ2S+ brothers and sisters. Everyone deserves to be themselves and to be free to love who they love. Let the light shine.
I also want to remind all of my constituents that my office is a safe space where everyone is welcome.
Oral Questions
POLICY ON DECLARATION OF
COVID-19 OUTBREAKS IN
LONG-TERM-CARE FACILITIES
S. Bond: On Friday, after a devastating report about deaths in long-term care, the Minister of Health issued a statement. He said: “We take these reports very seriously. We will look into this important matter and have more to say once we have completed this work.”
But yesterday the Premier had no answers for the families impacted by the decision to delay declaring outbreaks. The minister brushed off questions and said: “Not supported by the evidence.”
That response seems in stark contrast to the statement that the minister issued just last Friday. The 192 families who lost loved ones deserve answers. They deserve to see the evidence for themselves. They deserve full accountability.
To the Premier, what are the terms of reference for the review announced last Friday, will they be made public, and when can families expect a report, as promised, on what went wrong?
Hon. A. Dix: The member will know — because the issue here is the declaration of outbreaks in long-term care, but the declaration of outbreaks in general — that those decisions are made under the Public Health Act.
The authority is delegated to the provincial health officer and to medical health officers. They make the very difficult decisions as to whether to proceed or not to proceed with outbreak declarations, which have, of course, serious implications. They are very well trained to do it, with five years of training in public health.
That doesn’t mean that their decisions can’t be and, certainly, won’t be reviewed or questioned. What it does mean is that it’s important in these times when, of course, there’s a desire to second-guess those decisions depending on the results, after the fact. We have to, I think, reflect on that authority.
This is not, by the way, an avoidance of accountability by me. I strongly support our public health teams around B.C., who have acted consistently — not just consistently but courageously — to respond to the very difficult challenges in long-term-care public health.
I think all of these issues will be subject for questions in the future, but for the moment what we’re doing in public health is a vaccination program designed to protect those most vulnerable. That program is having a very positive effect. That is our focus now, as well as ongoing measures to prevent infection.
I hope all members of the House will recognize that while decisions can be questioned, our public health teams are doing an excellent job, giving it everything they have, and that their authority to make these decisions is founded in the best principles of having science guide our response against the spread of communicable diseases.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental question.
S. Bond: While I appreciate the lengthy answer from the minister, that’s not at all what I asked him.
On Friday, this minister went out of his way to issue a statement in response to what was a serious concern expressed about the deaths of 192 people in long-term care, after a specific policy decision was made.
We’re well aware of the vaccination numbers in British Columbia. We’re well aware of the incredibly hard work of front-line workers and public health officials. This is about a specific policy decision that was made.
On Friday, the minister seemed pretty willing to step up and talk about doing a review. Today the answer missed the mark. What’s changed since Friday? The answer today completely ignores the concerns of 192 families who lost their loved ones following the implementation of a specific policy. The minister promised a review and accountability last Friday.
Let’s be clear: asking legitimate questions on behalf of British Columbians is important, is necessary, and we’re going to continue to do just that. Let’s start with this one.
The Premier needs to stand up and he needs to explain what his government knew about the policy, when he knew it, and this minister needs to outline for 192 families and British Columbians exactly what the review will entail and when they can expect answers. That’s the least this minister can do today.
Hon. A. Dix: Nobody…. I don’t believe one time in a public briefing or a private briefing have I suggested that anyone doesn’t have the right to ask questions. I think that is an absolutely legitimate role for the Leader of the Opposition to play. So I think the suggestion that I’m saying they can’t ask questions is just incorrect. What I’m saying is that the challenge of declaring outbreaks, which is something that public health has taken on throughout this, is based on their authority under the Public Health Act. They are constantly and consistently addressing that question and refining those policies.
What I said yesterday, and this is clearly a response to those questions, is that I think the suggestion to link and to make a causal link is not supported by the evidence. That’s what I’m saying, and that’s certainly the response of public health.
That said, all of these decisions, of course, will be the subject of questions in the future. They absolutely will be. The response and detail, the analysis and detail, the response of public health to these questions and, indeed, my response and the ministers’ will be the subject for review. But for the moment, what our job is, is to keep British Columbians safe. What our job is, is to pursue a vaccination program that is already having a positive effect and that we’ll continue. Our job is ensuring that British Columbians are safe across the province, and that’s what we continue to intend to do.
R. Merrifield: Hindsight is 20-20. It does help us actually examine what happened and move forward, and I’m encouraged by the minister saying all of these issues will be examined. But yesterday the minister said that there was no evidence to support the reports of government mismanagement. Unfortunately, we haven’t actually seen the evidence, and he has yet to answer the question as to what he’s actually looking for.
You see, the public is concerned that the minister and the Premier are just simply trying to wash their hands of this story. But let me read from the policy document issued by the government. “Notification of all residents, families, staff and other service providers is not required.” The same goes for restrictions on admissions and visitation and asymptomatic testing — not required.
Will the Premier tell families why this disastrous policy was implemented at long-term-care homes?
Hon. A. Dix: With great respect, the member is conflating what I said yesterday. She made some specific, I think, allegations yesterday, which I disagreed with, and I said so. I think that’s a reasonable way to respond to those things. To conflate that with the suggestion that I don’t think questions can be asked is just simply incorrect.
There was a series of issues raised by the member, from rapid testing to the declarations of outbreaks. Well, what we’re doing in British Columbia — and it is different than other jurisdictions — is giving the authority and the responsibility on issues that are fundamentally medical issues, based on the experience of public health, to public health professionals and then supporting them when they take action.
We are not on issues such as testing, as the opposition, I think, is suggesting we do. It’s a legitimate approach, overruling them on some of these questions. Instead, we are providing the resources, the means and supports necessary to ensure that public health does its work.
It is very challenging work. Dozens and dozens, for example, of Vancouver Coastal Health employees went in to support people at Little Mountain. They did so in good faith and with great dedication, showing their commitment. Nobody, I think, is washing their hands of anything.
Not an hour, not a day, not a minute goes by when people in public health and myself, as Minister of Health, aren’t concerned about what’s going on in long-term care in a pandemic.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Kelowna-Mission, supplemental.
R. Merrifield: Ultimately, the responsibility is this government, this minister and this Premier.
The government’s decision to delay declaring outbreaks came at the same time a peer-reviewed study was published, showing that B.C.’s earlier precautions were actually working. After safety measures were relaxed, we saw 42 outbreaks and 192 deaths of seniors — cause, effect. But there has been no explanation from the Premier about who signed off on this policy and how it was justified.
Will the Premier give these families those answers that they so desperately want and deserve?
Hon. A. Dix: Well, the member is right to this extent. Studies that have compared the response of British Columbia in long-term care to other jurisdictions have said that British Columbia has done, relatively speaking, a good job.
I think, though, and I think this is important to recognize, the costs and the consequences in the care homes mentioned by the hon. member and in care homes across B.C. are significant. The cost, for example, of the limitations on visits, which we changed — to use the member’s term, we “weakened” — on June 30 to allow social visits…. We again changed — in the term of the hon. member, “weakened” — in March of 2021 to further allow visits in long-term care.
This was not, however, in my view, a weakening of those provisions. Instead, this was a response by public health and by the government to ensure that people were allowed to understand the consequences of the measures in long-term care and to ensure that people, to the maximum possible extent, were allowed social visits, which have an extraordinary positive effect.
All of these decisions, whether those are the right decisions or not, will be the subject of discussion. But we are in the middle of a pandemic, and our goal right now, I think, is to keep people safe, to get people vaccinated and to continue to do the work that public health needs to do, with the support of this Legislature and of the government to the maximum degree, to deal with the pandemic that has, of course, harmed people around the world.
PROTECTION OF OLD-GROWTH FORESTS
AND PRACTICES OF B.C.
TIMBER SALES
A. Olsen: Last week we saw the results of this government’s damaging and short-sighted approach to managing our forests. Today the RCMP are starting to remove protesters at Fairy Creek, and what is unfolding is an unacceptable failure of this B.C. NDP government. The lack of leadership is causing economic, social and environmental consequences.
It’s not just Fairy Creek. Last week a damning report from the Forest Practices Board found that B.C. Timber Sales is failing to protect old growth and biodiversity in the Nahmint Valley. Their report reveals deep flaws in our management of old growth. They found that these failures are “creating real risks to ecosystems.”
B.C. Timber Sales needs to be reined in, and we need systemic change in this ministry. One of the recommendations of the old-growth review panel, from last year, was part of implementing immediate protections for high-risk ecosystems. It’s for this government to direct B.C. Timber Sales to cease auctioning off old-growth timber.
My question is to the Minister of Forests. Will the minister follow through on the Premier’s promise and instruct B.C. Timber Sales to immediately cease development and defer selling timber in high-risk, old-growth areas?
Hon. K. Conroy: I thank the member for the question. I also want to thank the Forest Practices Board for the report that they undertook. As the member knows, the board plays a really key role in helping B.C. to develop sound forest and range practices. B.C. Timber Sales is addressing the board’s recommendations in its operations. They’ve already begun this important work and are working towards completing the recommendations.
I just can’t stress enough how our government understands how critically important old-growth forests are to British Columbians. That’s why we have already undertaken to complete the recommendations that were made by the old-growth report. We have already protected hundreds of thousands of hectares of old growth. We know that there is more work to be done. We are going to do just that.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands, supplemental.
GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT OF FORESTS
AND CONSERVATION LANDS
PROGRAM
A. Olsen: The minister has certainly risen in this House on a regular occasion to stress how important it is, but the lack of action is what the people of British Columbia are seeing. The fact that recommendation No. 6, which was immediate action from this government, has yet to be completed is proof that the action side of this equation has not been followed through on.
You know, a second damning report came out last week. The Auditor General of British Columbia slammed B.C.’s management of our conservation lands program. He found that the B.C. government failed to protect species at risk and critical habitats that they rely on. The ministry lacks strategic direction. They lack data. Their plans are decades out of date. This is an embarrassing list that is very extensive.
This government says the right things. This minister says the right things. She promises changes. They accept recommendations. Yet over and over again, nothing changes — status quo in the forests. Lots of talk in here, not a lot of action out there. We need an overhaul of this ministry, and we need a minister who is seized with the urgent need to create substantial change on the ground.
My question is to the Minister of Forests. Will she acknowledge that despite the rhetoric, despite the empty promises, her own ministry is systematically failing to manage our forests responsibly and sustainably? Will she accept that urgent, systemic change is needed within this ministry? Will she commit today to doing this work with the urgency that is needed?
Hon. K. Conroy: Our ministry is doing the work that’s needed to be done. I want to thank the Auditor General for their report as well and point out to the member that B.C. actually leads the country, with the highest percentage of protected areas of all provinces and territories in Canada.
But we know there is more work to do. The Auditor General’s report that the member references has made some helpful recommendations on how we can do better, which we accept. That’s what our ministry does. We look at what we need to do, and we accept that and move forward. Work is already underway to accept those recommendations.
We are doing the work that needs to be done. We have been doing the work for the last four years, since we’ve been government. We accept those responsibilities. We accept that there’s more work to do, and we are doing it. We are doing it in collaboration with the ministry that is working hard to ensure that we get the work done.
For many years — many years — the previous government refused to take action to protect old growth. They refused to take action to ensure that unique ecosystems and critical habitats were protected. We are working to fix that reckless approach. We are prioritizing reconciliation. We are prioritizing environmental protection again. We are doing the work that needs to be done, because we accept the responsibility.
So stay tuned, Member. We are doing that work.
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO
U.S. LEGISLATION ON
CRUISE
SHIP INDUSTRY
T. Wat: The Premier said: “Don’t worry.” The Minister of Tourism had to be shamed into getting a briefing. Now a bill that threatens our cruise ship sector has been unanimously passed by the United States Senate.
This has forced the Premier to belatedly take the minimum action possible so he can be seen as doing something. Meanwhile, the threat to Victoria, Vancouver and Prince Rupert is growing, and there’s a small chance to stop our ports from being bypassed.
Has the Premier asked the federal government to support technical stops in B.C. waters, where anchors are dropped but no passengers disembark?
Hon. M. Mark: Thank you to the member opposite for the question.
This is a bill that has come forward from the Alaskan government. We’re actively in discussion with our federal counterpart. The most important thing I want to emphasize is how valuable the cruise ship industry is to our tourism ecosystem. All hands are on deck. The Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure is working with his colleague in the federal government. I’ve had active conversations with Minister Joly. The Premier is meeting with the Alaskan senators in the coming days.
I just want to make it really clear for members at home that the proposed bill is a temporary measure. I just have to call out the opposition for trying to drive home this narrative that this is going to be a permanent measure, when it’s proposed to be temporary.
The ban will be lifted when the restrictions are lifted from the federal government. The most important thing we need to focus on right now is the vaccination rollout, people being safe. We’re going to welcome back tourists right to our ports, because we’re a magnet for visitors all across the world.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond North Centre on a supplemental.
T. Wat: It is so hard to take the answer from this minister seriously. She should really listen to the stakeholders and also listen to the U.S. politicians. They are trying their best to make it permanent.
The Premier said there was no way the bill would pass. He was wrong. The minister said: “The opposition is fearmongering. It is a proposal that hasn’t gone anywhere…. The possibility of the legislation passing is very unlikely.” So dismissive.
It’s not just us. The head of the Association of Canadian Travel Agencies, Wendy Paradis, said: “We are very concerned that this temporary change to the U.S. Passenger Vessel Services Act could become permanent.”
Again to the Premier, has he written to the federal government asking them to consider B.C. waters for technical stops?
Hon. M. Mark: As I said, our government is all hands on deck with the federal government. We’re paying close attention to the issue. But I want to just correct the misinformation that the member is sharing.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s listen to the answer, please.
Hon. M. Mark: First of all, the bill may have passed. It still has to go through the House of Representatives. It still has to be signed off by President Biden. It still needs to be approved by the U.S. Centre for Disease Control. There are steps that need to be taken.
Shame on the member for coming in here, trying to suggest that there’s a permanent measure when the bill is very clear: it’s a temporary measure. Let’s quote the senator: “While we have sought a temporary legislative fix to the domestic laws that require a port call in Canada, our long-term goal is to keep the system of mutually beneficial tourism between our two great nations intact.” Those are the facts.
The member opposite can come in here, drumming up all the fear that she wants. We are working with the sector. We’re advocating with the federal government. We are going to do our level best to defend our ports and make sure that we’re a destination of choice for our cruise ships as soon as those bans are lifted.
T. Stone: Well, if the minister truly valued this industry, she and the Premier would have taken action many, many months ago when concerns were first raised.
B.C.’s cruise ship sector is responsible for $2.7 billion in economic impact every single year. It accounts for 20,000 jobs. The cruise ship sector has no confidence in this Premier, in this minister. I quote: “The likelihood, the feasibility of this being passed right now in the middle of a global pandemic…is pretty slim.” That was the minister explaining why she wasn’t making this a priority months ago.
Now, while the Premier and the minister don’t see a threat, the industry does. There is significant worry that temporary will become permanent. I quote: “The severity, if it were to happen, really ratchets up the concern.” Those are the words of Ian Robertson of the Greater Victoria Harbour Authority. And it’s no wonder that he’s concerned. Cruise ships are responsible for $180 million of economic impact every year right here in Victoria.
Can the Premier please tell us today what specific steps he’s taken to ensure that B.C.’s cruise ship industry has a future here in our province?
Hon. M. Mark: Victoria’s port, Vancouver’s port — we’re a magnet for tourists, for international tourists, and our industry is going to continue to thrive. But right now there is a travel ban. Right now there are limitations for our port. There is a proposal for a temporary measure.
The official opposition are coming in here, acting as though somehow they have a looking glass into the future, drumming up fear that there’s a permanent measure, when the bill is unequivocal: it’s a temporary measure. It will be lifted as soon as the ports are open. We are relentless in our advocacy. The Premier is meeting with the Alaskan senators. We’re in active conversations.
The Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure — Friday, Monday, on the phone with transportation. They are alive to our concerns that we are the west coast. We are the best coast. And we’re going to ensure that we have a thriving industry.
But to speak to Ian Robertson, we were on the phone with him yesterday. He is a valued partner. We respect his leadership. We are listening, and we’re acting, and we’re going to do that advocacy with the federal government to ensure that we have a thriving cruise ship industry.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson on a supplemental.
T. Stone: Well, with all due respect to the minister, and to the Premier for that matter, they said that the United States would not pass this legislation. The United States has passed the legislation. So excuse me if we don’t trust the minister on her word here.
Then again, when we raised concerns….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, order.
T. Stone: When we raised concerns two months ago, we were dismissed. When our critic wrote to the minister a month ago, she was dismissed. When questions were asked in estimates last week, we were dismissed again. While the Premier waits, he’s putting at risk $3 million of economic impact in the Port of Vancouver. Every ship that comes in is at risk — the $3 million of economic impact in Vancouver.
Let’s be clear. The United States are defending themselves, and they’re doing so with rare, unanimous, cross-party support. You know, Sen. Mike Lee, who represents that obviously dominant cruise ship state of landlocked Utah, is blunt that the changes should be made permanent. He has said that on the record multiple times. This would cost B.C.’s tourism sector billions of dollars.
The Premier prefers to bungle along. The minister chooses to bury her head in the sand. And the 20,000 men and women whose jobs depend on the cruise ship sector are going to pay the price. The Premier has terribly botched this file. What is he going to do to ensure that B.C.’s cruise ship sector has a future? When is he going to stand up and fight for these British Columbians’ jobs?
Hon. M. Mark: I mean, it’s no surprise that the official opposition are going to come in here drumming up fear, as they always do. It’s not as though the tourism industry isn’t already affected by a global pandemic. To add extra fear, they’re adding salt to the wound. So shame on the members opposite.
Let’s go to the facts. They talked about the law. You know, they talk about being experts. A bill was passed through the Senate. It has to go through the House of Representatives to become a law. It has to be signed by the President of the United States, and it needs the approval of the CDC.
So you know what? There are some steps that need to be taken, but for right now, all hands are on deck. We are working with the sector, because we know and we are confident — we are arrogant in our confidence — that we are a port of choice. There’s a mutual interest for visitors to our port here in Victoria and Vancouver.
We want to do the same in Alaska. There’s mutual interest. That is the signal that the senators of Alaska have sent in a proposed bill which is intended — I’m going to say this very slowly — to be temporary. It is not a permanent measure. If the members opposite are advocating for that, shame on you. Have the backs of British Columbians and the tourism industry that need us right now.
More good news to come.
M. de Jong: Two months ago, when we brought this issue to the minister’s attention, she didn’t even know about the legislation. She wonders why people don’t have confidence in her answers today. It’s because, as my colleagues have said, she and the Premier were openly dismissive when the warnings were fired two to 2½ months ago. A mere “blip,” the Premier said. “It hasn’t got a chance of passing in the U.S. Congress. It won’t ever pass,” said the minister just two months ago.
Well, it passed. It passed unanimously. It might not have been unanimous, because there were members in the U.S. Senate who didn’t want to stop at making it a temporary measure. There were members of the U.S. Senate that wanted to make it a permanent repeal of the legislation that helps protect the tourism sector in British Columbia.
The minister pretends all will be well. And now, as the bill shifts to the House of Representatives….
I don’t know if the minister is reading the Hansard, or if she is….
Mr. Speaker: No props, Member. No props.
M. de Jong: If she is, she’s missing the parts where members of the U.S. Congress are now aggressively advocating to make this a permanent repeal of the legislation.
There is a solution. If the minister wants to demonstrate that she actually cares about those tens of thousands of workers, about the impact of the cruise ship sector on tourism, she will stand up in the House today and indicate that she and the government are supportive and will advocate for the solution that has been offered — that they will ensure that everyone is aware that British Columbia supports a technical stop that will preclude the need for any of these legislative changes in the U.S. Congress and that the protection of British Columbia workers will be paramount.
Will she do that, stand in the House today and support technical stops for these cruise ships?
Hon. M. Mark: What I will do is I’m going to stand up for an industry that’s been impacted by a global health crisis. And what I’m going to do is continue, all hands on deck, with my colleagues, including the Premier and the Minister of Transportation, advocating with the federal government. And nothing is off the table. Technical stops aren’t off the table.
We are working around the clock to ensure that we defend our ports, our cruise ship industry and our tourism sector, and to remind everyone at home that this is a temporary measure. We are going to ensure that we go back to status quo as soon as the borders are open.
[End of question period.]
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued Committee of the Whole on Bill 13, Employment Standards Act. In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call the estimates for the Ministry of Citizens’ Services. In Section C, the Birch Room, I call continued estimates debate on the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 13 — EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2021
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 13; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.
The committee met at 10:55 a.m.
On clause 3.
G. Kyllo: Happy to continue debate and the line of questioning with respect to Bill 13.
Is the minister able to provide any clarity with respect to the actual terms of this piece of legislation? The Premier had indicated that this bill was ready to go, shelf-ready, last summer. Can the minister confirm that the provisions of section 3 are the same as what the Premier had indicated having ready to go last year during the summer?
Hon. H. Bains: Thank you. To start with, the debate on this very important bill again today, the third day…. What I’d like to say in response to the member is that all along, ever since the pandemic hit us, our focus was to make sure that our population is healthy, workplaces are safe, the workers at workplaces are safe and their health and safety is protected. That was the intent then, and that is the intent now in this piece of legislation.
Again, what this bill does is allow workers to stay home when they are sick so that they are protected themselves, their families are protected, and, at the same time, that the workplaces are safe because they’re not going to work sick and transmit the virus at workplaces, putting that operation in danger of shutting down. That is the intent in this bill, in this particular section of the bill, and that was the intent when the Premier spoke earlier.
G. Kyllo: Can the minister explain or share with this House if WorkSafeBC will be responsible for any of the administrative costs with respect to providing the reimbursement to employers?
Hon. H. Bains: The answer is no.
G. Kyllo: Thank you to the minister for that response.
If WorkSafeBC will not be incurring any administration charges with respect to the reimbursement for employers, could the minister provide any further clarity to this House on what the anticipated administration costs will be of administering the reimbursement program for workers, which ministry will be responsible for approving those charges and how those transfers will be provided back to WorkSafeBC for the costs that they will incur?
Hon. H. Bains: We estimate the administration cost at $1.4 million, between now and until the end of this year. It will be the Ministry of Labour that will be responsible for overseeing the program and working with WorkSafeBC.
G. Kyllo: Thank you for that response. So the Ministry of Labour will be providing the funding to offset the administrative costs overseen by WorkSafeBC in administering this program.
Can the minister share with this House which ministry the budget for the $320 million cost of the program…? Which ministry will actually provide the funding required for the reimbursement?
Hon. H. Bains: As I said before, the Ministry of Labour will oversee the delivery of this program. The funds come from the Ministry of Finance, as I am advised. It will be our ministry working with WorkSafeBC to put the program together, provide the funding and oversee the program till the end of the year.
G. Kyllo: I believe the leader of the Green Party has some further inquiry. So at this point, I’d like to turn it over to her.
S. Furstenau: Thank you to the official opposition critic.
My first question on this section for the minister is just: can he describe exactly how this sick leave will bridge the federal benefit? Can he just lay that out for us?
Hon. H. Bains: As the member will know, we canvassed this issue at great length previously when we were debating this bill before the House. As we said, our province, our government, starting with the Premier, always believed that this is a national emergency and that we need to find a national solution. We were successful, because the federal government listened to us, and they came down with a Canada recovery sickness benefit program.
Now, we brought to their attention that there are gaps in that program. They listened, and they made changes. Originally, that program was only for two weeks, and then they extended it to four weeks. But then a couple of other areas were still there.
One was that the worker must miss at least 50 percent of income or work in a week in order to qualify for the federal program. So if you miss two days…. For example, you work three days. On Thursday morning, you wake up, and the worker feels symptoms and feels that they may have contacted the virus and need to go get tested. They will go for testing, and they’re waiting for the result until, say, late Friday. Then they’ve missed two days, and they will not qualify for any money, any funds or any benefit from the federal program, because they have not missed more than 50 percent in that particular week.
This program will fill that gap, and it will pay them for those two days. That’s the way this will work in order to fill that one particular gap so that the worker does not lose any wages in that particular week, where they lose only one or two days. Then they could go onto the federal program after that.
S. Furstenau: Just to be really clear here. People receiving benefits from this provincial sick pay program will not see their eligibility for the federal program affected or diminished because they haven’t seen the 50 percent reduction in their pay? So just to make sure the minister….I’m very curious about the answer to this.
If the federal program relies on a 50 percent diminishment in earnings before a worker is eligible for that, does the three days of sick paid leave count as income, and therefore, people would not be eligible for another several days? Or does this not count as income and, therefore, doesn’t affect the ability for someone to apply to the federal program?
Hon. H. Bains: Maybe we’ll try one more time.
Staying with the same example. The worker becomes ill, or they feel that they have signs — feverish, cough — Thursday morning. They miss Thursday; they miss Friday. Perhaps they have gone for a test, and they are waiting for the result in those two days. They receive the results.
Now, look at that particular week. They had already worked three days. The employer pays them for those three days, because they have worked those three days. Next two days, Thursday and Friday, they stayed home because they had COVID symptoms. The employer, under this program, will continue to pay them for those two days.
Now, come the following week, if they miss more than 50 percent of the following week — if they continue to stay sick the following week and they miss the entire week — they will be entitled to the federal program.
S. Furstenau: Okay. So the worker stayed home day 1. Day 2 they test positive. Now the expectation under our health advice is that you stay home until you’re no longer infectious and that is a ten- to 14-day period. So the three days of sick pay from this legislation is there. Then the worker has to wait until they’ve missed 50 percent of their next week, and then they can apply for the federal program, which is less than minimum wage.
My question, then, is: if the worker is positive and is looking to at least ten days away from work, how does this actually bridge that gap? That worker may well be working, as we spoke about earlier, paycheque to paycheque and may not be able to accommodate a decrease in their income. How does this bridge that gap? We can agree that that worker is going to come out financially behind. They’re going to see less revenue in that month that they have had to be away from work because of COVID. So how does this bridge that gap?
Hon. H. Bains: I think we canvassed this issue. I’ll try to go back there again.
There are two gaps that were identified in the federal program. One was the initial two days, 2½ days a worker must miss in order to qualify for the federal program that particular week. Then, when they qualify, they are paid $500 minus the taxes. Some calculated that it comes to about $450 after taxes, which is the minimum wage.
The best solution was that we were trying to work with the federal government, that we will deal with the first 2½ days with this three-days leave. That means that gap is filled, which we are doing now, but also the remainder gap which is to top-up the federal program from $500 to a higher level. The federal program will not allow us to top-up without clawing back that particular amount from the federal program.
I think their failure to understand, their failure to act on that, is that particular gap that still exists. The first gap that was in order to get there, the first 2½ days, is the one that we’re trying to fix here with this particular section of the bill.
S. Furstenau: I’m honestly not trying to be sticky or difficult here. In the previous answer, the minister, I think, indicated that the three days from the provincial program would actually delay the eligibility for the federal program. I just want to make sure that I’m totally understanding that clearly.
Does that mean that a person would have three days covered by this provincial legislation and then have to wait 2½ more days before being eligible for the federal program or does this not delay that eligibility? I’m just really trying to get clarity on this.
Hon. H. Bains: The understanding that we have of how the federal program works, that you must lose 50 percent of work in that week for you to qualify. The example that I gave, I will go back to that again, using that example. You work Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and then Thursday morning you feel ill and you stay home, go for a test and Friday you got your results. If it comes positive, that requires you to take the next week off, you would be entitled to, the following week, benefits.
Yes, technically speaking, I’m not an expert on the federal program. In that particular following week, you must miss 2½ days of work, which means that you can apply on Wednesday in order to qualify. That remains. That always was the case. That will be the case this time as well.
S. Furstenau: Thank you to the minister for clarifying that. I think I’m there. It would then mean that, under the federal program, the provincial payment counts as income. That’s correct?
Hon. H. Bains: Yes. It would be considered income. But in order to qualify for the federal program, you must, 50 percent of the work…. Again, I go back to the example. In the second week we are talking about, on Wednesday, they find out that they have missed more than 2½ days. It could be Wednesday afternoon, depending on what shift they were on. You could apply, knowing that you have already missed 2½ days, and then you would qualify for that particular week for the federal program.
S. Furstenau: I guess this brings me back to the very beginning of my line of questioning, which is: does this actually bridge those gaps? Does this actually solve the problem for workers who are in a position where losing time from work can be quite financially devastating?
To that end, I have brought an amendment. It’s in my name with the Clerks. I will move that amendment and give time for that to be distributed, and then I will speak to that amendment once that is done.
[CLAUSE 3, in the proposed section 52.121 (2) and (3) by striking out “3 days” and substituting “5 days”.]
The Chair: Sorry, hon. Member. I believe you’re moving an amendment. Is that correct?
S. Furstenau: I am moving an amendment. Yes, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you. I’ll ask the Clerk if the Clerks have the amendment.
Maybe we’ll take a five-minute recess to ensure that the amendment can be distributed to all and sundry. This House is in recess for five minutes.
The committee recessed from 11:27 a.m. to 11:35 a.m.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
The Chair: Would the mover of the amendment like to speak to it?
S. Furstenau: I’m delighted to speak to this.
In plain English, obviously, this would extend the number of paid sick days in this legislation from three to five.
Given the conversation we’ve had back and forth, and the answers that the minister has provided about some of the gaps that still remain in how this legislation interacts with the federal sick pay program, I think that this is an imperfect solution to some imperfect legislation, but it does improve it somewhat. I would hope that in the permanent paid sick leave legislation there is a much more thought-out and nuanced approach to this that really does protect workers but takes into account the differences between businesses in British Columbia and the capacity for some businesses to afford the burden of this cost and others to not.
The five days being provided provincially would mean that should someone feel unwell on a Friday and go for a test and discover that they are positive, they would have Saturday, Sunday, Monday to Friday. That’s seven. And then Saturday, Sunday — that’s nine days during which they could stay home and then be able to access the federal program as needed.
As we’ve discussed here, this doesn’t solve that gap between the eligibility of the federal program — needing to have the 50 percent decreased wages. But obviously, we’ve also discussed that the three days, in and of itself, seems to create a delay for eligibility for that federal program anyway. By extending this to five days, it would give people that capacity to know that they are getting full salary for those five days, full wages, so that they can have that ability to begin to get better and have the time and space to be able to get the application for the federal program underway.
I will leave it to that. I think my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands would also like to speak to this. I know that there were many proponents who were asking for quite a bit of a lengthier number of days. I can understand that and recognize the need for there to be, in the permanent paid sick leave, a recognition that three days or five days really is not sufficient. What we are talking about right now is the emergency that we are in because of COVID-19 and the need for people to have that security to be able to stay home if they’re sick.
But in terms of a permanent program…. This is why the amendment that I proposed yesterday to clause 2 would allow for there to be committee discussion of this. But in a permanent program, there needs to be a recognition that people cannot plan their lives around only having three days of paid sick leave in a year — that is wholly insufficient — but also that businesses need to know how they are going to manage under a permanent program.
I will leave it at that. I hope to have support for this amendment.
A. Olsen: To the comments that I raised in second reading and also in support of the comments that were raised by my colleague from Cowichan Valley.
I think what we’ve seen as the government has attempted at this late stage, 14 months into this pandemic, to address what is not only, I think, a responsibility that the federal government could address but also a large responsibility that the provincial government has when it comes to both workers and to the business community — to put in place a program that supports workers to make the decision that they need to make, and supports workers for the amount of time that they need to be away, should they test positive for COVID-19.
What we’re dealing with specifically in this amendment is providing, I think, what would be equivalent to other jurisdictions close by are providing, in terms of support for workers. As well, it addresses, I think, the reality that when this government, when the minister, put this legislation on the table with three paid sick days, it was largely…. The response was that it didn’t go far enough, and there was a desire — and I think, arguably, one that we can support — to extend the support that this provincial government is providing those workers as, especially in those early days of struggling with COVID-19, just getting out of bed is difficult for many people who are experiencing the most devastating symptoms of this terrible disease.
With that, I support my colleague’s amendment to expand this program to five days. Again, I think that it’s important to acknowledge that this is an imperfect response to, probably, a challenge that this provincial government had with the federal program. However, that doesn’t absolve us of our responsibility to do everything that we can to support workers to make that decision.
We’ve known for months that we needed a program. We’re now here at this stage, 14 months into this pandemic, with a program. I think that what my colleague is offering is a good solution to increasing the amount of support that a worker will get when they make the decision to stay home.
G. Kyllo: I’ve had an opportunity, obviously, to review the amendment. Concerns that I certainly have, have to do with the lack of data and rigour that was put behind developing the actual cost of this program, as I’ve shared with this House over the last number of days. There really has not been a lot of work undertaken — or any work undertaken at all — by this minister or this ministry to fully understand the breadth of workers that are actually not covered under a sick pay program.
When the minister was asked with specificity on how they even determined the number of workers who may not be covered by a sick pay plan, the minister referenced the B.C. Federation of Labour — an estimate of 50 percent that they had come up with. But that particular reference had nothing to do with British Columbia. It was a Canadian approximation.
The fact that there’s limited data to deal with or to understand what the actual cost of the program would be — both to government and borne by employers…. I certainly have some considerable concerns and reservations about the support, and I believe the minister may also have some further comment about the applicability of this particular amendment that’s brought forward today.
Hon. H. Bains: I want to thank the member. I think she has good intentions and I do not question her motive behind it, but I certainly have to speak against the amendment, because it is not going to be practical if we are going to work with the federal program.
I have used examples before, that if the worker worked three days — Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday — and takes Thursday and Friday off, then if this amendment was to pass, they are entitled to another three days. Then if you go into the next week and they take those three days, the employer paid, which means that they will not be entitled to the federal program for the second week under that scenario. Then they will be waiting for the third week in order to apply to see if they have lost more than 50 percent of work.
I think, practically speaking, it’s not going to work either. I would ask the House, the Chair to…. I need a ruling on this, because this will certainly add to the cost to the government. We are talking about, in the bill, three days, paid sick days, which will be reimbursed to the employers up to a maximum of $200 per day. If you add five days, that certainly adds to the cost to the treasury and to the government.
My request to the Chair is whether this is out of order.
The Chair: I’ve been reviewing our trusty Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, and based on my review, I do believe that this proposed amendment does create an impost for the government. It would affect Crown revenues. Thus, I must rule that the proposed amendment is not in order.
Amendment ruled out of order.
On clause 3.
Clauses 3 to 6 inclusive approved.
The Chair: Just to reindicate, we will deal with clause 2, the proposed amendment and anything after that, including the title, once we get there. I think we are ready to report progress.
Hon. H. Bains: I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. S. Robinson moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m.
The House adjourned at 11:51 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CITIZENS’
SERVICES
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Yao in the chair.
The committee met at 11 a.m.
On Vote 21: ministry operations, $604,304,000.
The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks?
Hon. L. Beare: Thank you, Chair. I will take a few minutes to just do a couple of brief remarks.
It is an honour to be here today with everyone on the territory of the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-speaking people, including the Songhees and the Esquimalt First Nations.
Joining me today is my Deputy Minister of Citizens’ Services, Shauna Brouwer. Now, she leads an incredible team at the Ministry of Citizens’ Services, who are dedicated to improving services for people and making life better for British Columbians.
Our executive team is joining us virtually today. We have CJ Ritchie, associate deputy minister and the chief information officer; Hayden Lansdell, ADM of digital platforms and data division; Susan Stanford, ADM of connectivity division; Alex MacLennan, the ADM of enterprise services; Kerry Pridmore, the ADM of the chief information records manager office; Dean Skinner, ADM of the corporate services division and executive finance officer; Beverly Dicks, ADM of Service B.C.; Teri Spaven, the ADM of the procurement and supply division; David Hume, the ADM of the government digital experience division; Sunny Dhaliwal, ADM of the real property division.
I’d also like to acknowledge the dozens of executive directors in the ministry who are supporting us today. The Ministry of Citizens’ Services is often referred to as both the face and the engine of government. We’re responsible for ensuring that people can access government services when, where and how they need it. That means having large multi-talented teams of public servants. Our job is also to ensure that government has the technology, the resources and the space it needs to deliver those services.
In terms of being the face of our government, our team is on the front lines, helping people access government programs and services at 65 Service B.C. centres. Now, during the pandemic, these centres remained open. We were able to connect more than 1.5 million people to critical services and supports. These include more than 500,000 wellness checks for returning travellers and temporary foreign workers.
Making sure people that have access to the information and services they need during the COVID-19 pandemic has been a key focus of our ministry. We help deliver the health gateway and the returning traveller program. We set up more than 30,000 B.C. public service employees to work remotely. Our government digital experience team was instrumental in the creation and launch of the provincial COVID-19 website, which is updated daily.
Our procurement specialists and our GDX team also supported the development and operations of the COVID-19 supply hub to get critical supplies to our front-line health care workers. Thanks to the success of this tool, we were able to expand the hub to non-health organizations so that they could safely continue to deliver the services to British Columbians that they count on.
Our ministry works to maintain government IT networks to keep people’s information safe and to ward off cyberattacks. On any given day, our ministry fields about 372 million unauthorized attempts to access B.C. government networks, systems and data. Managing and ensuring the safety of government-owned and -leased real estate is another important area of what my ministry does. That includes about 1,800 properties, such as office buildings, warehouses and courthouses.
Improving Internet access and highway cellular services for people in rural and Indigenous communities is another key focus of our ministry’s work. I’m delighted that the connectivity file has returned to Citizens’ Services, after it took a brief tour at Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation for part of last year.
Building on the province’s recent one-time investment of $180 million, Budget 2021 does provide $10 million this year as part of $40 million, over three years, in stable base funding to support connectivity. The connecting British Columbia program is making record investments to help people in rural and Indigenous communities and businesses succeed through the pandemic and into the future.
We’re expecting the connecting British Columbia–funded projects to expand cellular services along highways, which will more than triple our initial goal. Finally, through our procurement strategy, we’ve also made it easier for companies of all sizes to work with government. We’re using government’s buying power to create jobs, help rebuild our economy, provide benefits to people and harness made-in-B.C. technology.
I’m very proud of the work and the team at Citizens’ Services and the important work that they do. I want to thank our front-line Service B.C. workers, warehouse staff and all my ministry employees because it’s their expertise and guidance and dedication that helped us all fight COVID-19 and keep British Columbians safe and back on track.
I know we’re not going to recover overnight, but by focusing on these things that matter, we’re going to keep making progress so that we can see brighter days ahead. With that, I’m looking forward to answering the member’s questions.
The Chair: I now recognize the member for Abbotsford South.
Would you like to make any opening remarks?
B. Banman: Well, thank you very much. I agree with the minister. We are living in incredibly challenging times. COVID-19 has literally turned everything upside down, but it also has brought out the importance of this ministry to those that are now forced to work from home.
It’s a very, very challenging portfolio, and I acknowledge the work that the ministry is doing. I do have a couple of questions. Time is precious, so I’m going to get straight into that. Minister, could you please tell me how many current employees of government are working from home or have worked from home due to COVID?
Hon. L. Beare: There are 30,000 government employees here in British Columbia. Dr. Henry did ask, at the beginning of the pandemic, that those who could work from home should work from home. That does change on any given day. We’re not able to give an exact number of what today would be, for example, but upwards to potentially 25,000 people could be working from home on any given day, depending.
B. Banman: Thank you so much for that. That’s quite helpful. Of that approximately 25,000, could you please tell me how many are working from personal home computers and how many have been actually provided with government devices?
Hon. L. Beare: There are a couple things I’m going to give the member right now, too, because I think it might help on this line of questioning. I’m sure the member has a few questions that he might actually get answered in this.
As I said to the member, up to 25,000 could be working remotely. That’s not the number. We’re not saying 25,000 are. It’s up to, could potentially be working.
Since March of 2020, we’ve been instrumental in supporting that work. Prior to the pandemic, working remotely had not been a standard practice across B.C.’s public service. Most employees worked from a permanent office location. Prior to the pandemic, an average workweek had fewer than 4,000 people using a VPN. Anecdotally, fewer than 1,000 people worked from home on any given day. After the B.C. government declared the state of emergency on March 18, 2020,VPN was expanded to support up to 35,000 employees if they needed to, to connect remotely.
The office of the chief information officer is continuing to work with ministries to ensure that employees have the tools they need and that all members who need them have been provided laptops and access to that VPN. So members have access to government devices who need them, and they have access to the VPN to make sure they’re connecting from home safely to do their government work.
B. Banman: To the minister, thank you for that. Can you please tell me whether or not anyone is working from a home device, or have all of those been government-issued?
Hon. L. Beare: My team is advising me that they estimate that 75 percent of employees have access to a government device. They’re working from home on a government device. We are providing the employees who have access to the government devices — or those who may be working at home otherwise — access to those secure tools to make sure that they are working safely, remotely from home. They have access to the VPN and the other tools that are needed.
B. Banman: Thank you so much, Minister. It’s incredibly helpful. I’m sure that makes a whole bunch of people feel a lot better.
Along that line, there have been 1,743 confirmed privacy violations. I guess my question, then, is: how many occurred at home, or on personal equipment?
Hon. L. Beare: Privacy incidents can happen in a number of ways — those reports and those complaints. It doesn’t necessarily attach to a device. For example, a public citizen could raise a concern. They have a concern about how they feel their data or personal information might have been handled. That could trigger that incident. It’s not necessarily attached to a device, or the working from home. This can happen in a number of different venues.
B. Banman: Have any of those breaches, then, happened either on home or on personal devices?
Hon. L. Beare: Regardless how a data incident happens, we have robust tools and procedures in place to make sure that there are protections and procedures to follow. We do not have a data field that captures whether or not one of the incidents is being claimed due to a home device or working from home. That’s not something we currently capture.
B. Banman: Privacy breaches, I’m sure you’re aware, have been happening with more regularity and are expected to continue, according to the B.C. Auditor General. British Columbians are rightly concerned about identity theft, especially. LifeLabs and TransLink are now working with the Privacy Commissioner’s office, which has also noted the increase in breaches in the last year.
My question to the minister would be: have ICBC or StudentAid B.C. also reached out to the minister?
Hon. L. Beare: Yes, both ICBC and the student services security team reached out, and we worked with both of those agencies to ensure that we provided support.
B. Banman: If they’ve reached out, then, what information was actually impacted? And have those impacted actually been contacted?
Hon. L. Beare: It is best to provide those questions to the ministries responsible for those agencies. I do know Advanced Education has already answered questions. They’ve gone through estimates. I can let you know our information is that it was web files only for StudentAid and that no personal information was released through that data breach.
For ICBC, the member should bring the question to either PSSG, the Solicitor General, who holds the ICBC file, or the Ministry of Finance, who has the Crown agency board secretariat. The questions would be better placed there.
B. Banman: I thank you for that. I’m sure that those, including my grandchildren, who attend post-secondary will be relieved that their information is still secure. That answered a couple of them.
What about LifeLabs and TransLink? May I add to that? Has the cause of the breaches actually been determined in each of those cases?
Hon. L. Beare: I just do want to let him know that overall reports of breaches, actual breaches, are down and that the incidence of significant breaches remains very low. So that’s good news for British Columbians and for the member to know.
Again, LifeLabs, a question best posed to the Minister of Health; and TransLink, to the Minister of Environment, who has TransLink still in the file. I believe it’s the Minister of Environment. But for the member’s information, we do always provide support. We always make sure that we’re reaching out to these agencies to provide any technical support that our government can help with and that our data and technical team can support. But the agencies themselves and the ministries responsible are responsible for those questions and for answering the member.
B. Banman: The second part of my question, which I did not hear an answer to, was: has the cause of the breaches been determined? I’m curious. The minister has answered with regards to student services but not with regards to ICBC. I would think that for all breaches, concerning the importance of what’s going on, the minister would actually have some answers. I guess the citizens of British Columbia are curious to make sure that the proper measures are being put in place.
I’ll go back to: was the cause of the breaches actually determined?
Hon. L. Beare: I did provide the member a little bit of information for Advanced Education because I know that they have already been up in estimates. So I wanted to provide the information I have. It’s practice in this House to redirect the questions to the ministers who are responsible for those agencies, to make sure you’re getting those fulsome answers.
The member will have ample opportunity during that time to either pass the member’s questions to the appropriate critic on the file, or the member has the ability to come in the House and ask the questions himself as well, because I want to make sure that the member gets everything that he needs.
Thank you, Member, for the concern.
B. Banman: Thank you for the answer. I’ll definitely be doing that and following up, so thank you so much.
Along the lines, and maybe I’m…. Can you answer whether the government has ensured that the right measures are now in place to help prevent it happening again? Like you said, the breaches are down, but have we actually put the right measures in place to ensure it won’t happen again? Are you able to answer that, please?
Hon. L. Beare: For the member’s question, it is important to start off by saying that the protection of government data and our networks is absolutely a priority — top priority — for this government, especially when it does concern the personal information of British Columbians. We need to make sure that British Columbians have faith that their systems and their information are safe.
We do have the office of the chief information officer, who provides government with strategic leadership in IT security. She leads that team of experts where we have those systems in place to protect our networks. That does operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, all year. We have everything that’s required and more, making sure that we have firewalls, anti-intrusion prevention systems, anti-virus software, vulnerability scanning programs in there.
What the member wants to know is that…. Each year, government invests $25 million, actually, in security and cybersecurity tools so that we are preventing, detecting and responding to cyberattacks. That number increases every year, to make sure that we are investing in it.
We do work in collaboration with each of those agencies to make sure that there is a post-review done, that there are lessons learned. Then there’s a report-back done throughout those agencies. We help with that. We do work in collaboration and provide our expertise within government. For the member, there are those lessons learned that happen and those reports-back, and we move from there.
B. Banman: We’ve recently watched ransomware go rampant. As a matter of fact, if we take a look at the eastern seaboard and what chaos that has caused with regards to a pipeline…. I think that British Columbians would want to know, especially when it comes to some of our infrastructure, that we have done a thorough assessment. Have we identified any weak spots? If so, what was done to plug those weak spots and improve the security for British Columbians?
Hon. L. Beare: Government and agencies are constantly scanning and looking for ways they can improve their digital services and looking for ways that they can protect the clients and the members and the public. Here in government, we share our significant tools and resources to assist other organizations, like those agencies that the member has talked about, and individuals so that they know how to prevent cybercrime and how we can work through potential incidents.
Government does publish the defensible security framework to help organizations know what to do and how to do it, and we can work with them.
We do provide education as well. Government holds conferences and publishes information and videos on our government website to share the significant tools and resources and knowledge that government has.
We have invested $2.4 million in IMIT — additional. This year’s budget has an additional $2.4 million in IMIT security. So government is making sure that we have the people, that we have the processes, we have the technology in place to not only do the work in looking for these incidences and trying our best to prevent them, to detect them and then to respond to them. We can be confident that our government is working hard.
We do have a routine practice to assess both privacy and security of government programs. Government programs are put through a privacy impact assessment and security threats and risk assessments as part of the proactive role that we do in making sure that we’re looking for what the member was asking about.
B. Banman: Minister, thank you so much. I know that it seems that the hackers are always one step ahead of us. I’m sure that British Columbians will feel better that we’re actually trying to be proactive versus reactive, as difficult as that may be.
The government digital experience division has a notice of intent on B.C. Bid to renew their contract with Looker analytics, which is now being bought or purchased by Google. There is clear language in the terms of the agreement to say that data owned is the customer’s and not to be used for ad targeting or marketing. So the upside is Google is not using the data. However, it’s my understanding the B.C. government clearly is.
We know this because the notice of intent mentions on the main government webpages and 150 other government sites, plus other government sites that are integrated with Looker technology…. For those that are at home, Looker technology is predictive analytics — analytics that help populate the COVID-19 dashboard. Given the leaks that have recently occurred, which demonstrated more information than was in the dashboard is actually being gathered, can the minister please explain her mandate in the letter directive?
Hon. L. Beare: Just for the member, this question will take a couple of minutes to go source the answers. If he would just please standby for a moment.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister.
Hon. L. Beare: The analytics tool that the member was referring to does not drive any of the health dashboard data or those dashboards that the member was referring to. We focus on using the tool for measuring digital services and websites to improve experiences and to improve the services. That’s where that information is being used.
We’ve ensured, of course, as well, that it’s fully compliant with our security protocols and any privacy legislation that we have in place.
B. Banman: Thank you for that. Do the predictive analytics by Looker give digital GDX or GCPE broader authorities than previously existed? Could you answer that question, please?
Hon. L. Beare: No.
B. Banman: Oh, interesting. Thank you so much.
Can you please tell me, then: is more information being collected than was previously collected? Which program stores it, and which program has access to it?
Hon. L. Beare: Wow, our time has gone quickly here this morning. Excellent.
I just want to make sure that we don’t blur GDX and GCPE. GCPE is entirely separate — the communications area of government. GDX is the government digital services. That does rest in my ministry. So there is no blurring of the two in there. I just want to make sure that is clear.
Government doesn’t collect any more information than is required to understand the programs. Very specifically to the member’s question, the volume has increased because the volume of engagement has increased on our government websites, but the type of information has not increased. We have an increase in volume because we have many more services now that we’re offering, such as the affordable child care benefit. So we’re collecting information about how people use that tool, how they’re navigating through the website, and there is an increase in that volume.
I know the member is going to have more questions, but we need to take a pause here. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT
AND
CLIMATE CHANGE STRATEGY
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); M. Dykeman in the chair.
The committee met at 11:02 a.m.
On Vote 24: ministry operations, $250,105,000 (continued).
M. de Jong: I wanted to take a little bit of time. I’m not sure how long this will take, and I may impose myself upon the committee a little bit later in the proceedings on another matter.
I wanted to ask a few questions today about an issue that began before the minister assumed his ministerial duties in this ministry in 2017 but has very much continued since that time. It involves the saga of one of the employees within the ministry. When I say the name Bryce Casavant I expect that will trigger some awareness on the part of the minister and the staff.
I will begin merely by asking for confirmation of some rudimentary facts around what I will call the Casavant situation.
Mr. Casavant, as I understand, was hired as a conservation officer, and in 2015, I believe it was, there was an incident that attracted some public attention, some media attention involving Mr. Casavant and the discharge of his duties in the Port Hardy area, a call regarding a bear and two cubs that led to the killing of the mother bear and the relocation of the two cubs. That provoked, as I understand it, disciplinary action that then provoked a whole bunch of other proceedings, both before the labour board and, ultimately, in the courts.
Maybe I will stop there and merely ask for the minister to confirm that he is familiar with the situation and the circumstance that I have described so far.
Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. I want to say two things. One, I am familiar with the circumstances, but I also…. I’m sure the member will appreciate, due to previous roles he’s played in previous governments, that he may be straying very close to human resource discussions that will not be appropriate to discuss as part of spending estimates.
M. de Jong: I do want to assure the minister that in terms of the limitations around human resource matters or other limitations that are imposed upon ministers, I am fully aware and have no intention of straying beyond what would be appropriate questioning.
I say that because my understanding of the process that has been followed is that following reference to the labour board, then judicial review before the Supreme Court of British Columbia — we can certainly discuss the various findings that occurred in those public forums — the matter ultimately ended up in the B.C. Court of Appeal, where a decision was rendered that the Crown sought to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Leave to appeal was denied. So what we have is a decision of the Court of Appeal that, following the Supreme Court of Canada decision not to grant leave to appeal, represents the definitive statement on the matters involved. It is that decision — now the definitive decision, that very public decision — that forms the basis of the questions going forward.
I do want to ensure that the minister understands that that does form the basis for the questions I want to ask. I also want to ensure that my very quick summary of the matter and its history through the labour board, through judicial review and to the now definitive decision from the Court of Appeal is also his understanding of what took place.
Hon. G. Heyman: It is my understanding.
M. de Jong: The situation takes place, and there is the individual, Mr. Casavant. Following a decision that he made not to euthanize the two bear cubs, he was disciplined and ultimately dismissed from his position as a conservation officer. He chose to grieve that, and that engaged the involvement of his union. The matter ended up before the labour board, and the sanction was imposed. Ultimately, the union, on his behalf, entered into a settlement agreement. Have I got that right? Is that what took place?
Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member. To the extent that I’m privy to human resource matters, which, as the member will know, ministers are not routinely directly involved in or perhaps ever directly involved in, that is my understanding — that it was a settlement agreement. My understanding is actually based on news reports at the time.
M. de Jong: Maybe that’s a good segue to a question that I did want to ask the minister. As Minister of Environment, did he ever have specific conversations with representatives of the BCGEU, any representatives of the BCGEU, about this matter specifically?
Hon. G. Heyman: I don’t recall having any. Genuinely, I don’t think I did.
M. de Jong: The issue ultimately evolved when Mr. Casavant became aware of several documents that he had not had an opportunity to review and that were prejudicial to his position. The matter ultimately ended up before the labour board, and Mr. Casavant’s attempts to reopen the matter and revisit the sanctions that had been imposed on him, including the dismissal from his position as a conservation officer, were unsuccessful at the labour board. Is that the minister’s understanding?
Hon. G. Heyman: To be perfectly honest to the member, I wasn’t paying attention to whether Mr. Casavant went to the Labour Relations Board or not. I would assume, because of my knowledge of labour relations, that if he went to the court, he either did not go to the Labour Relations Board or was unsuccessful, but I have no direct or indirect knowledge of that.
M. de Jong: In fact, Mr. Casavant and his union found themselves in a fairly significant disagreement about whether or not to proceed to the labour board. In fact, the union, the BCGEU, opted to oppose his application, which prompted Mr. Casavant to proceed on his own and through the subsequent judicial reviews. The issue there, as I understand it, related to the union’s view that it had exclusive jurisdiction to pursue matters of this sort on behalf of employees, that its decision on such matters was final and that Mr. Casavant as an employee or, in this case, former conservation officer, had no independent or personal rights to pursue these matters.
Is that an issue that the minister had any conversation with representatives of the BCGEU about?
Hon. G. Heyman: No. It is not.
M. de Jong: Mr. Casavant ultimately ended up before the Supreme Court of British Columbia, seeking a judicial review of the labour board decision, where he was again unsuccessful, and then proceeded to appeal that decision to the Court of Appeal, which heard the matter. Now we are squarely within the period of time when the minister was on task as Minister of Environment.
The Court of Appeal rendered a decision on whether or not the judge at the B.C. Supreme Court employed the wrong standard of review and whether the judge at the Supreme Court erred in declining to consider this jurisdictional issue that I’ve just summarized for the committee about the arguments around exclusive jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal decision was rendered in 2020, I believe.
Is that a matter that was brought to the minister’s attention — that decision involving a former member of the conservation office?
Hon. G. Heyman: I’m wondering if the member could clarify, because he outlined a series of events and then asked me a question if I was aware of a decision. I’m wondering if he can narrow it.
The Chair: Member, are you able to provide some clarification?
M. de Jong: Yes, of course. Thank you, hon. Chair. I’m now talking about the Court of Appeal decision itself, which I’m going to suggest represents an unusual event in the life of a ministry, where an employee is challenging proceedings to the highest court in the province, an employee from within the Ministry of Environment, around circumstances that took place within the Ministry of Environment.
Was the minister briefed on and did he become aware of the Court of Appeal decision at the time it was rendered?
Hon. G. Heyman: I first became aware of the Court of Appeal decision through a news report. I was subsequently shortly thereafter informed of the decision by staff. I wouldn’t call it a briefing. I was given the information. I was told that there were legal issues and human resource issues that would be pursued. At some point, I was informed that Mr. Casavant was being represented by a former colleague of the member, Mary Polak.
M. de Jong: I’m curious to know, specifically, what the minister would have been told about the actual decision. We’ll discuss that in a moment. I’m certain he will need or want, and I understand, to refresh his memory. By the way, in asking these questions, I understand there’s a lot on a minister’s plate. The fact that he would need or want to consult with his staff in no way offends me at all. I think that’s perfectly understandable.
But I am curious to know what the minister would have been told about the decision which, as we’re about to explore, is significant both in terms of its impact on the ministry — certainly in the case of the individual employee who pursued this matter through to the highest court. Let’s start there. I’d like to know what the minister was told about the decision itself from the Court of Appeal.
Hon. G. Heyman: As I said, it was more informational than a briefing. What I was told was largely what I already knew — that Mr. Casavant had gone to court to establish that the Police Act applied and had precedence and that he won his case and that there was consideration being given as to whether or not to appeal.
M. de Jong: That answer is helpful. It sounds like the minister was advised at the time that the court had found that the disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Casavant were brought in the wrong forum entirely and that the minister was also told that the court found that the employer, the ministry, bears some of the responsibility for that. Is that correct? Was that explained to the minister?
Hon. G. Heyman: I was aware and told, as I knew from news reports, that the decision was that the forum for discipline that had been chosen was the wrong forum for discipline. With regard to other matters that the member began to probe with his questions, those are actually, I’m informed, currently before the courts, so further comment by me would be inappropriate.
M. de Jong: Well, I think we’re getting to what I believe is the nub of the issue here. Was the minister made aware…? In fairness to the minister, I have known him for some time, and if I harbour suspicions, I should articulate them. The minister is, I think, leaving the impression that the sum total of his knowledge of this derived from media reports that he received.
I do want to be clear, and I want to give the minister the opportunity himself to be clear. Is he advising the committee that in this case…? On a high-profile matter that involved a lot of publicity at the time of the original issue that gave rise to discipline and the Court of Appeal, as the minister said, finding in favour of the employee, is the minister saying that the only information he received was a quick verbal report and what he read in the newspaper?
Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for asking the question in a way that I think enables me to offer some useful clarification.
Certainly, I’m not intending to leave the impression that the only understanding I had about the case was through media reports, although it is fair to say that I listen early in the morning to the news and I often hear things before I have a chance to meet with staff.
Staff came in to ensure that I was aware of the case, and why the court had…. Well, I think that why the court makes a decision is always speculation. But the basic rationale of the decision…. I think that both my staff and I felt that to delve directly into the human resource implications with respect to a particular employee was not appropriate for me to do, so we didn’t.
I did ask some questions of staff, because there were potentially some other implications of the decision that concerned me more greatly, in the sense that it made me think how we should proceed on some initiatives that we’d been talking about and I’d been urging — for instance, with the conservation officer.
Generally, there was a certain public appetite for more transparent oversight of the conservation officer service, perhaps some independence, not exactly like we see independent oversight of police forces but something more than just an internal oversight. That had been raised on more than one occasion by their people. We’d been working on what appropriate mechanisms would be to do that.
The court decision called into question whether the avenues we were pursuing would be appropriate any longer. Basically, the discussion was about whether and how we went back to the drawing board to do what we wanted to do and what the public expected us to do, in light of that court decision.
M. de Jong: Well, that’s helpful — I’m obliged to the minister — and speaks to some of the broader, higher-level public policy issues that derive from findings on jurisdictional issues.
But the underlying point about the case and the decision at the Court of Appeal, of course, relates to this. And I’ll read…. This is from the final page of Madame Justice Fenlon’s decision for the court: “…the best that can be done in these circumstances is to declare that the proceedings before the arbitrator and Board were a nullity, to confirm that Mr. Casavant’s dismissal should have been addressed under the Police Act, Special Provincial Constable Complaint Procedure Regulation and to leave the parties to sort out the consequences of those declarations, if any, on the settlement agreement.”
The highest court in British Columbia declared the proceedings involving the discipline action a nullity. Was that communicated to the minister?
Hon. G. Heyman: I can’t remember the exact words that were used to communicate the essence of the decision, but I know enough about labour relations and a little bit about the law — although we’re all told that a little knowledge of the law is a dangerous thing — to know that that would effectively be the meaning of the decision, by what I was told and reported. So I would say that it was communicated to me. I simply can’t say whether the words were quoted to me or not.
M. de Jong: It won’t surprise the minister to know what those words meant to the individual who, I should add, on a self-represented basis had pursued this matter through, I think, two labour board hearings, the B.C. Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, to be told by the Court of Appeal that the disciplinary procedures taken against him were a nullity.
I can ask the minister now. What does that mean to the minister now?
Hon. G. Heyman: I’m not sure if the member is aware of this or not, but the interpretation of those words is one of the matters that is currently before the court. So I will not comment further on that.
M. de Jong: Can the minister explain what steps the ministry took to abide by the ruling of the Court of Appeal? After declaring the proceedings before the arbitrator and board a nullity, the court went on to order the parties to sort out the consequences of those declarations. What steps did the ministry take to abide by that order of the court?
Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. I was told on a couple of occasions that discussions were ongoing with respect to the court decision and implementation. As I’ve mentioned previously, I was told that a representative of Mr. Casavant was the member’s former colleague Mary Polak.
This is essentially a human resource issue to be dealt with as a human resource issue by management in the ministry, working with the Public Service Agency, which the member, as a former Minister of Finance to whom the Public Service Agency reports, will know full well.
The Chair: With an eye to the clock, this will be the last question, Member, ahead of lunchtime.
M. de Jong: In a circumstance where the Court of Appeal has rendered a decision declaring disciplinary proceedings and nullity, does the minister feel there is any obligation whatsoever on the part of the ministry and the Crown to offer the individual, who has secured that decision after a lengthy legal battle…? Does the minister believe there is any obligation on the part of the Crown and the ministry to offer that individual his job back?
Hon. G. Heyman: There were discussions and negotiations about implementation of the decision of the court. Again, the matter is now before the courts once more.
Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.