British Columbia Hansard — 24 March 2021, p.m., Issue 40 (42nd Parliament, 1st Session)

20210324pm-Hansard-n40

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

First Session, 42nd Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (HANSARD) Wednesday, March 24, 2021 Afternoon Sitting Issue No. 40 THE HONOURABLE RAJ CHOUHAN, SPEAKER ISSN 1499-2175

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Janet Austin, OBC First Session, 42nd Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Raj Chouhan EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................... Hon. John Horgan Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Training...........................................................................................................Hon.

Anne Kang Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries......................................................................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Housing .............................................................................................Hon. David Eby, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ....................................................................................................................Hon.

Mitzi Dean Minister of State for Child Care...................................................................................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Minister of Citizens’ Services.....................................................................................................................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Minister of Education .................................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Jennifer Whiteside Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation ........................................................................................Hon. Bruce Ralston, QC Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy............................................................................................. Hon. George Heyman Minister of Finance .......................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Selina Robinson Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development ................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Minister of State for Lands and Natural Resource Operations................................................................................. Hon. Nathan Cullen Minister of Health and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs.............................................................................Hon.

Adrian Dix Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation .......................................................................................... Hon. Murray Rankin, QC Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation....................................................................................................... Hon. Ravi Kahlon Minister of State for Trade...............................................................................................................................................Hon.

George Chow Minister of Labour ...................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Harry Bains Minister of Mental Health and Addictions.............................................................................................................. Hon. Sheila Malcolmson Minister of Municipal Affairs ............................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Josie Osborne Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ........................................................................................................... Hon. Mike Farnworth Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction........................................................................................... Hon. Nicholas Simons Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport .................................................................................................................. Hon.

Melanie Mark Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure................................................................................................................... Hon. Rob Fleming Minister of State for Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Bowinn Ma LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition...................................................................................................................................................Shirley Bond Leader of the Third Party .......................................................................................................................................................... Sonia Furstenau Deputy Speaker..........................................................................................................................................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Assistant Deputy Speaker..............................................................................................................................................................Norm Letnick Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole .......................................................................................................................... Ronna-Rae Leonard Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ...........................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel.............................................................................................................................. Seunghee Suzie Seo Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services........................................................................................................................... Artour Sogomonian Clerk of Committees.......................................................................................................................................................................

Jennifer Arril Clerk Assistant, Committees and Interparliamentary Relations ..............................................................................................Susan Sourial Senior Research Analyst ................................................................................................................................................................... Karan Riarh Acting Sergeant-at-Arms..................................................................................................................................................................Greg Nelson

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Alexis, Pam (BC NDP) ............................................................Abbotsford-Mission Anderson, Brittny (BC NDP) .........................................................Nelson-Creston Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal Party) ............................................................... Penticton Babchuk, Michele (BC NDP)...............................................................North Island Bailey, Brenda (BC NDP).................................................. Vancouver–False Creek Bains, Hon. Harry (BC NDP).........................................................

Surrey-Newton Banman, Bruce (BC Liberal Party) ............................................ Abbotsford South Beare, Hon. Lisa (BC NDP) .......................................

Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Begg, Garry (BC NDP).................................................................Surrey-Guildford Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal Party) ...............................................Peace River South Bond, Shirley (BC Liberal Party).................................Prince George–Valemount Brar, Jagrup (BC NDP) ................................................................Surrey-Fleetwood Cadieux, Stephanie (BC Liberal Party) .............................................

Surrey South Chandra Herbert, Spencer (BC NDP).................................Vancouver–West End Chant, Susie (BC NDP) ..............................................North Vancouver–Seymour Chen, Hon. Katrina (BC NDP) ............................................... Burnaby-Lougheed Chouhan, Hon. Raj (BC NDP).................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Chow, Hon. George (BC NDP) ..........................................Vancouver-Fraserview Clovechok, Doug (BC Liberal Party)........................Columbia River–Revelstoke Conroy, Hon.

Katrine (BC NDP) ....................................................Kootenay West Coulter, Dan (BC NDP) .......................................................................... Chilliwack Cullen, Hon. Nathan (BC NDP) ................................................................... Stikine Davies, Dan (BC Liberal Party)................................................. Peace River North de Jong, Michael, QC (BC Liberal Party)....................................Abbotsford West Dean, Hon. Mitzi (BC NDP) ...............................................

Esquimalt-Metchosin D’Eith, Bob (BC NDP) .........................................................Maple Ridge–Mission Dix, Hon. Adrian (BC NDP) ................................................ Vancouver-Kingsway Doerkson, Lorne (BC Liberal Party) ........................................Cariboo-Chilcotin Donnelly, Fin (BC NDP) .......................................... Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Dykeman, Megan (BC NDP)............................................................... Langley East Eby, Hon. David, QC (BC NDP).......................................

Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (BC NDP) ..................................................Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Hon. Mike (BC NDP) .................................................Port Coquitlam Fleming, Hon. Rob (BC NDP) ...............................................

Victoria–Swan Lake Furstenau, Sonia (BC Green Party) .............................................Cowichan Valley Glumac, Rick (BC NDP) ..................................................Port Moody–Coquitlam Greene, Kelly (BC NDP) ........................................................Richmond-Steveston Halford, Trevor (BC Liberal Party) .........................................Surrey–White Rock Heyman, Hon. George (BC NDP) .........................................Vancouver-Fairview Horgan, Hon. John (BC NDP) ......................................... Langford–Juan de Fuca Kahlon, Hon.

Ravi (BC NDP) .............................................................. Delta North Kang, Hon. Anne (BC NDP) .................................................. Burnaby–Deer Lake Kirkpatrick, Karin (BC Liberal Party) ........................West Vancouver–Capilano Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal Party)....................................................................Shuswap Lee, Michael (BC Liberal Party) ..............................................Vancouver-Langara Leonard, Ronna-Rae (BC NDP)...............................................

Courtenay-Comox Letnick, Norm (BC Liberal Party) .................................. Kelowna–Lake Country Lore, Grace (BC NDP)........................................................... Victoria–Beacon Hill Ma, Hon. Bowinn (BC NDP).....................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Malcolmson, Hon. Sheila (BC NDP)........................................................Nanaimo Mark, Hon. Melanie (BC NDP).................................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Mercier, Andrew (BC NDP) ........................................................................

Langley Merrifield, Renee (BC Liberal Party)......................................... Kelowna-Mission Milobar, Peter (BC Liberal Party) .......................... Kamloops–North Thompson Morris, Mike (BC Liberal Party) ................................. Prince George–Mackenzie Oakes, Coralee (BC Liberal Party).................................................. Cariboo North Olsen, Adam (BC Green Party)............................ Saanich North and the Islands Osborne, Hon.

Josie (BC NDP)........................................Mid Island–Pacific Rim Paddon, Kelli (BC NDP) ................................................................Chilliwack-Kent Paton, Ian (BC Liberal Party) ............................................................... Delta South Popham, Hon. Lana (BC NDP)........................................................ Saanich South Ralston, Hon. Bruce, QC (BC NDP) .............................................Surrey-Whalley Rankin, Hon.

Murray, QC (BC NDP) .............................Oak Bay–Gordon Head Rice, Jennifer (BC NDP) ...................................................................... North Coast Robinson, Hon. Selina (BC NDP)...................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Ross, Ellis (BC Liberal Party)......................................................................... Skeena Routledge, Janet (BC NDP) .............................................................Burnaby North Routley, Doug (BC NDP)...........................................

Nanaimo–North Cowichan Russell, Roly (BC NDP).................................................... Boundary-Similkameen Rustad, John (BC Liberal Party)......................................................Nechako Lakes Sandhu, Harwinder (BC NDP) .................................................Vernon-Monashee Sharma, Niki (BC NDP)..........................................................Vancouver-Hastings Shypitka, Tom (BC Liberal Party) .................................................... Kootenay East Simons, Hon. Nicholas (BC NDP).........................

Powell River–Sunshine Coast Sims, Jinny (BC NDP) ................................................................. Surrey-Panorama Singh, Aman (BC NDP) .............................................Richmond-Queensborough Singh, Rachna (BC NDP)...................................................Surrey–Green Timbers Starchuk, Mike (BC NDP) ......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Stewart, Ben (BC Liberal Party) .......................................................

Kelowna West Stone, Todd (BC Liberal Party) ...............................Kamloops–South Thompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal Party) ............................. West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal Party)....................................................... Fraser-Nicola Walker, Adam (BC NDP) ....................................................... Parksville-Qualicum Wat, Teresa (BC Liberal Party) ....................................... Richmond North Centre Whiteside, Hon. Jennifer (BC NDP) .........................................

New Westminster Wilkinson, Andrew, QC (BC Liberal Party)......................Vancouver-Quilchena Y ao, Henry (BC NDP) ..................................................... Richmond South Centre LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission................................................................................. Pam Alexis Abbotsford South...............................................................................Bruce Banman Abbotsford West......................................................................

Michael de Jong, QC Boundary-Similkameen........................................................................ Roly Russell Burnaby–Deer Lake....................................................................... Hon. Anne Kang Burnaby-Edmonds......................................................................Hon. Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Burnaby North .................................................................................

Janet Routledge Cariboo-Chilcotin ..........................................................................Lorne Doerkson Cariboo North.................................................................................... Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ...............................................................................................Dan Coulter Chilliwack-Kent .................................................................................... Kelli Paddon Columbia River–Revelstoke .........................................................

Doug Clovechok Coquitlam–Burke Mountain...............................................................Fin Donnelly Coquitlam-Maillardville ...................................................... Hon. Selina Robinson Courtenay-Comox................................................................... Ronna-Rae Leonard Cowichan Valley ............................................................................. Sonia Furstenau Delta North................................................................................... Hon.

Ravi Kahlon Delta South ..................................................................................................Ian Paton Esquimalt-Metchosin .................................................................... Hon. Mitzi Dean Fraser-Nicola .........................................................................................

Jackie Tegart Kamloops–North Thompson .............................................................Peter Milobar Kamloops–South Thompson..................................................................Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country .....................................................................Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission ...........................................................................

Renee Merrifield Kelowna West ..........................................................................................Ben Stewart Kootenay East.......................................................................................Tom Shypitka Kootenay West........................................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Langford–Juan de Fuca .............................................................. Hon.

John Horgan Langley .............................................................................................Andrew Mercier Langley East....................................................................................Megan Dykeman Maple Ridge–Mission.............................................................................. Bob D’Eith Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows............................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Mid Island–Pacific Rim............................................................ Hon.

Josie Osborne Nanaimo.............................................................................Hon. Sheila Malcolmson Nanaimo–North Cowichan............................................................... Doug Routley Nechako Lakes........................................................................................ John Rustad Nelson-Creston ............................................................................. Brittny Anderson New Westminster.............................................................. Hon.

Jennifer Whiteside North Coast ........................................................................................... Jennifer Rice North Island................................................................................... Michele Babchuk North Vancouver–Lonsdale......................................................... Hon. Bowinn Ma North Vancouver–Seymour...................................................................Susie Chant Oak Bay–Gordon Head..................................................Hon.

Murray Rankin, QC Parksville-Qualicum........................................................................... Adam Walker Peace River North ................................................................................... Dan Davies Peace River South ................................................................................ Mike Bernier Penticton ................................................................................................. Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam...................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam.......................................................................Rick Glumac Powell River–Sunshine Coast..............................................Hon. Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie....................................................................Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ..................................................................

Shirley Bond Richmond North Centre..........................................................................Teresa Wat Richmond-Queensborough..................................................................Aman Singh Richmond South Centre .......................................................................... Henry Y ao Richmond-Steveston ............................................................................

Kelly Greene Saanich North and the Islands .............................................................Adam Olsen Saanich South .............................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Shuswap...................................................................................................... Greg Kyllo Skeena........................................................................................................... Ellis Ross Stikine........................................................................................ Hon.

Nathan Cullen Surrey-Cloverdale .............................................................................. Mike Starchuk Surrey-Fleetwood.....................................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey–Green Timbers........................................................................Rachna Singh Surrey-Guildford......................................................................................Garry Begg Surrey-Newton ..............................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ...................................................................................... Jinny Sims Surrey South ................................................................................ Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Whalley ................................................................. Hon. Bruce Ralston, QC Surrey–White Rock .......................................................................... Trevor Halford Vancouver-Fairview.............................................................. Hon.

George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek...................................................................... Brenda Bailey Vancouver-Fraserview...............................................................Hon. George Chow Vancouver-Hastings ..............................................................................Niki Sharma Vancouver-Kensington....................................................................... Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..................................................................... Hon.

Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara................................................................................ Michael Lee Vancouver–Mount Pleasant..................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Vancouver–Point Grey ............................................................Hon. David Eby, QC Vancouver-Quilchena........................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Vancouver–West End .....................................................Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee .....................................................................

Harwinder Sandhu Victoria–Beacon Hill............................................................................... Grace Lore Victoria–Swan Lake.................................................................... Hon. Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano...........................................................Karin Kirkpatrick West Vancouver–Sea to Sky................................................................Jordan Sturdy Party Standings: BC NDP 57; BC Liberal Party 28; BC Green Party 2

CONTENTS Wednesday, March 24, 2021 Afternoon Sitting Page Routine Business Introductions by Members....................................................................................................................................................... 989 Statements (Standing Order 25B) ........................................................................................................................................... 989 Fleetwood Business Improvement Association J. Brar Mike Benny S. Bond Medical contributions of Clive Duncan R. Leonard Girls hockey program in Williams Lake L.

Doerkson Y outh mental health and collaborative action on issues R. Russell Access to health care services in Alberta for East Kootenay residents T. Shypitka Oral Questions........................................................................................................................................................................... 991 Government action on opioid crisis and mental health and addiction issues S. Bond Hon. J. Horgan T. Halford Hon. S. Malcolmson Protection of old-growth forests on Vancouver Island and economic options for Indigenous communities A. Olsen Hon. K.

Conroy Access to health care services in Alberta for East Kootenay residents T. Shypitka Hon. A. Dix Rent increases for tenants on Crown land J. Sturdy Hon. D. Eby Hon. K. Conroy J. Rustad Tabling Documents................................................................................................................................................................... 996 Office of the registrar of lobbyists for British Columbia,Investigation Report 20-02, lobbyist: Dave Cyr, January 19, 2021 Office of the registrar of lobbyists for British Columbia,Investigation Report 20-03, lobbyist: Adrienne S.

Smith, February 2, 2021 Orders of the Day Committee of the Whole House.............................................................................................................................................. 996 Bill 5 — Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2021(continued) M. Morris Hon. M. Farnworth M. Lee S. Furstenau Bill 10 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2021(continued) A. Olsen Hon. S. Robinson M. Bernier P . Milobar Bill 5 — Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2021(continued) Hon. M.

Farnworth Reporting of Bills..................................................................................................................................................................... 1016 Bill 5 — Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2021

Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 1016 Bill 10 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2021(continued) Hon. S. Robinson

WEDNESDAY , MARCH 24, 2021 The House met at 1:33 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Prayers and reflections: L. Doerkson. Introductions by Members Hon. K. Conroy:Today I’ d like to ask everyone to join me in wishing a very happy birthday to our oldest daugh- ter, Jennifer. I also want to acknowledge that last year was a very diffi- cult year for so many families, including ours, but Jennifer had even more to deal with. She was diagnosed with breast cancer in late December 2019 and spent 2020 in treat- ment and dealing with all the issues that COVID brought.

Then in December, her husband and son tested positive for COVID, and they had to spend two weeks at Christmas quarantined — her and her daughter upstairs, and her son and husband downstairs. [1:35 p.m.] Through it all, she stayed positive, and I’m really happy to say that she returned to work a few weeks ago and wel- comed back as a much-loved EA in her local high school. Please join me in wishing her a really happy birthday. R. Russell:I have the privilege today to welcome in the House my son and daughter, Gabriel and Juno Russell, as well as one of their friends, Thomas Mitchell.

They come all the way from Grand Forks, B.C. Of course, I expect that question period will be a shining example of civility and humility, as always. Statements (Standing Order 25B) FLEETWOOD BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION J. Brar:In March 2020, our lives were turned upside down by the COVID-19 pandemic. Many organizations came forward to support and guide the community and local businesses during this extremely difficult journey through unknown parts, with unknown ends. One such guiding light in Surrey-Fleetwood is the Fleet- wood Business Improvement Association, or BIA.

Rep- resenting roughly 350 businesses, the Fleetwood BIA has worked diligently throughout this time to support small businesses and connect them with the local community. The BIA designed programs to educate businesses and shoppers on the public health guidelines and worked tire- lessly to issue newsletters and communications to their membership to provide valuable information on access to government resources.

During the early part of the pandemic, the BIA launched the open4business marketing campaign, a shop- local initiative, to inform the public of the local businesses ready, able and eager to serve the public. In recognition of its contribution, the open4business marketing campaign won a Business Improvement Areas of B.C. Excellence Award. The Fleetwood BIA reports that at the beginning of the pandemic, roughly half of the 353 businesses had closed. But upon entry into phase 2 of the plan, almost all Fleet- wood businesses reopened in accordance with the public health guidelines.

In fact, Fleetwood has actually seen a net increase of 12 new businesses that opened during the pandemic. Job well done. A huge thanks to the Fleetwood BIA board members led by president Sandeep Gill, and to the executive director, Dean Barbour, for their creativity, hard work and commit- ment to make the Fleetwood community a success story. MIKE BENNY S. Bond: Well, he was the voice in our heads in the morning. He had an amazing sense of humour, and our community loved waking up with Mike Benny.

Mike moved to Prince George in 1986 and started work with CKPG radio on the afternoon drive and eventually settled into his role as the morning man on 101.3 the River. It’s not an exaggeration to say that Mike was a legend. He was a mentor for young broadcasters, his colleagues loved working with him, and he genuinely cared about people. Mike was well known for his love of craft beer, bacon and computers. He did a joke of the day for years and ended up having them published in a book calledThe World’s Punniest Joke Book. Mike cared about what was happening in our com- munity.

He was amazing at getting people to donate to countless organizations and events. I was always on the list, and who could say no when Mike Benny was calling you out by name on the radio? One of my favourite vis- its every year was visiting Mike on the roof of the Coast Inn as he helped to raise money for the Christmas tree of lights. Mike was diagnosed with lung cancer in the summer of 2019. We were so deeply saddened to learn that on Febru- ary 11, 2021, Mike lost his courageous battle and left us all far too soon. Mike loved his family so much.

We are grate- ful to his wife, Laurel, and his four children — Katherine, Claire, Alex and Colin — for sharing him with all of us. [1:40 p.m.] March 13, which would have marked his 35th year in our city, was declared Mike Benny Day in the city of Prince George. While I will miss starting my mornings with Mike Benny’s voice in my head, I will always be glad that I got to know this very special person. 989

Mike, we miss you, but you will never be forgotten. MEDICAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF CLIVE DUNCAN R. Leonard:It’s my honour to pay tribute to Dr. Clive Duncan, the orthopedic surgeon who, to our benefit, moved to B.C. to practice in the subspecialty of hip recon- struction. He’s grown an international reputation over 52 years as a researcher and innovator, and over 40 years as a globally sought-after teacher and mentor. He’s a professor emerit- us of medicine at UBC. He served over ten years as chair of the department of orthopedic surgery and as head of orthopedics at VGH and UBC hospitals.

Seeing 500 patients a year, he’s given so many people’s lives back, including my own. With surgical precision, he’s carved out time to publish 350 full-length works and deliver 675 key- notes and honorary presentations in 22 countries. He has received dozens of recognitions for his contri- butions in primary and revision hip replacements in B.C., Canada and internationally, not least B.C. ’s David Bachop and America’s Harris gold medals, Britain’s Sir John Charnley award, twice; the Frank Stinchfield Award, twice; and the North American Hip Society’s Lifetime Achieve- ment Award. Some of his accomplishments. Dr.

Duncan developed the world’s first Centre for Hip Health and Mobility in Vancouver, revolutionized treating infected joint replace- ments, known as the Vancouver approach. He’s designed new hip replacements and helped develop minimally invasive hip surgeries as well as limb-sparing treatment for bone cancer, the Terry Fox disease. His brilliance has shone with his compassion, curiosity, collaboration and commitment. Please join me in thanking him for his phenomenal con- tributions and wish him well. Hip, hip, hooray. GIRLS HOCKEY PROGRAM IN WILLIAMS LAKE L.

Doerkson:On behalf of my constituents of the Cari- boo-Chilcotin, it’s both a pleasure and an honour to rise today to talk about how central amateur hockey is to people of my riding, this province and to just about every Canadian from coast to coast. So it gives me great pleasure to name just a few of our hockey legends from our girls hockey program in Williams Lake. The dedication of these young female players at all ages increases as they improve their skills and begin to move past one accomplishment after another.

This is truly remarkable because of all of the restrictions these players face during the pandemic. Allow me to name a few of those who now shine as examples of new and younger players starting out. Paige Outhouse graduated in 2020 and was signed to the Uni- versity of Prince Edward Island and is now a star with the Panthers. Brette Kerley, three seasons with the Northern Capitals, will graduate in June and is signed to the Uni- versity of Calgary, playing with the Dinos.

Pyper Alexan- der has spent three seasons with the Northern Capitals, graduates in June and is signed on, belonging to the South- ern Alberta Institute of Technology, the SAIT Trojans. Cadence Petitclerc Crosby is currently in grade 11. She has played two seasons with the Northern Capitals and is now with the Okanagan Hockey Academy. Keira Ver- meulen is currently in grade 11, and she’s playing her first year with the Northern Capitals, and Rachel Loewen, who is currently in grade 10, is playing her first year with the Northern Capitals.

As you can see, Williams Lake has certainly done its part to contribute to great hockey across this country. We’re very grateful to the volunteers, the parents, the coaches that keep this great girls hockey program run- ning in Williams Lake. [1:45 p.m.] YOUTH MENTAL HEALTH AND COLLABORATIVE ACTION ON ISSUES R. Russell:On a Friday morning last October, I exper- ienced one of the most emotionally powerful moments of my campaign. My two friends Clint and Edie and I had woken at 4:30 in the morning in order to get across my rid- ing in time for an outdoor morning meeting in Princeton.

Somewhere near Bromley Rock, we were slowed down behind a police cruiser with someone walking up ahead. The walker turned out to be Anishnaabe sergeant Kevin Redsky, at that moment supported by his wife, Harmony. I’m sure many here have heard about their Hope in the Darkness Walk for Y outh Mental Health across Canada. I rather abruptly jumped out of the car to walk with Kevin, thrilled that some serendipity had brought our paths together. Our conversation covered a lot of ground while we walked, but today I want to highlight one theme.

We talked about the work of creating space for different people to come together, including faith-based organiza- tions, police, educators, Indigenous leaders, social workers and beyond, all with an eye to listening, connecting and then doing — doing the things that we need to do so that youth don’t get lost in the reductionist and siloed colonial- ist system that we have inherited.

Especially in rural com- munities, those spaces to bring people together for good, whether for youth mental health, for watershed steward- ship or for anything beyond, are critical to our success and often not easy to create, nor to maintain. As a concrete example, I reflect on the new situation table funding in my riding, spearheaded by the town of Oliver and supported by our government.

These tables, to borrow the words of Sheila Malcolmson from last Septem- ber, help our communities “problem-solve one case at a time so at-risk individuals don’t fall between the cracks. ” I applaud this good work and look forward to more. 990 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, March 24, 2021

I’m proud to be a part of this House, and I hope to be proud of what we, as a group of 87, can accomplish togeth- er by doing some hard work ahead and breaking down the artificial barriers that limit the potential of our commun- ities. ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE SERVICES IN ALBERTA FOR EAST KOOTENAY RESIDENTS T. Shypitka:No two-minute statement I have ever given is as immediately important as the one I’m giving today. By now most members in this House know the dilemma the constituents of my riding have with access to health care in our neighbouring province to the east.

With 1,000 kilo- metres and six mountain passes to the Lower Mainland, travel is unaffordable, unsafe and, in most cases, without family support. Many people are making life-and-death decisions based on the feasibility of such travel. The plight for medical access continues to worsen in Kootenay East. In my riding, we have one ophthalmologist to service over 60,000 residents. Our one ophthalmologist has spent the past two decades giving outstanding care to his patients. He has built a strong referral network to include specialists in Calgary. Those relationships are now being dissolved.

The Albertan surgeons he refers patients to are willing to take his patients. However, the Alberta Health Services administrators are turning our B.C. patients away. I have a constituent in dire need of access to tertiary ophthalmology eye care in Alberta. Going to Kelowna is not a viable option because an interocular gas will be placed in his eye that does not allow for travel at high elev- ations. Driving back from Kelowna over mountain passes or flying are not options. To keep himself in Kelowna post- surgery for about six weeks, as the gas dissipates, is a fin- ancial burden, to say the least.

To make the situation even worse, my constituent also receives dialysis three times a week. If he could go to Calgary for the procedure, he could come home shortly after with no disruption to his dialysis treatments and carry on with his daily life. Let me be clear. From all of the work that I have done on this file, it is very certain that this is not a capacity issue. It is my contention that this is a billing issue between the two provinces. We as a province must all work together in finding safe, reliable health care for everyone in our province.

Oral Questions GOVERNMENT ACTION ON OPIOID CRISIS AND MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION ISSUES S. Bond: In 2020, 1,724 deaths. In January of this year, 165 deaths. And now, in February of this year, we get the news of another 155 deaths. Each month it’s the same story — a new record, another heartbreaking milestone reached in a deadly health crisis.

The government’s response in the chamber and beyond remains the same every month. [1:50 p.m.] Earlier this month the Premier said: “To focus on the societal disaster is the responsibility of all of us — not just the minister, not just families who are grieving, but every- one in our community. ” Perhaps the Premier can get up today and tell us what specific steps he is taking to ensure that next month and the month after that and the month after that, we are not having the same conversation. Hon. J. Horgan:I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her question and the spirit with which it was offered.

I agree, and I know all members of this House agree, that the persistent opioid crisis has affected families in every corner of British Columbia. Unacceptably high numbers have been exacerbated by the global pandemic. We’ve not been able to have people gathering and congregating, so more and more users are finding themselves alone and isolated and not having someone at their side when they most desperately need it. As we see public health orders relieved over the next number of months, I think we’re going to see a positive outcome when it comes to the unacceptably high opioid deaths.

But there’s a whole host of other initiatives we can and have been working on, and I’ll inventory some of them for the member. Firstly, of course, we want to make sure that simple pos- session is not a crime. We all understand, and I think we all agree. We can debate the edges on these questions, but ultimately, if someone has an addiction challenge, they are a patient, not a criminal. We need to make sure we disag- gregate those who are preying on vulnerable populations for criminal intent and those that are just trying to get by, riddled with an addiction. We’re putting resources into treatment.

The member and I will be talking more about that after question period. We’re putting money into resources. We’re putting money into housing. We’re trying to build up the capacity within communities, large and small, to address these challenges in a compassionate way, not in a crime-fighting way, which had been the approach, as all of us know, for many decades prior to the turn of the century.

It’s only now that I think many communities are com- ing to terms with the fact that a four-pillars approach does involve enforcement, but it involves also making sure that harm reduction is in place, making sure that the services that people need are there and, most importantly, treatment.

I’m hopeful that as the questions continue through this question period, we all burrow down and get to that focus that we’re going to need to make new investments in com- munities while we grapple with COVID, to come through this stronger than we went into it and make sure that all Wednesday, March 24, 2021 British Columbia Debates 991

of us redouble our efforts as individual legislators and as people, as part of communities, that we’re doing what we can to reduce stigma and focus directly on the challenges these people face. Mr. Speaker:The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental. S. Bond:I appreciate the answer from the Premier. The loss of 155 lives in February represents a 107 percent increase over the same month in 2020. This is a situation that continues to get worse. It’s taking people from all age groups and economic situations, and nearly 60 percent of the deaths are occurring in private residences.

Earlier this month the Premier said: “If we keep our shoulder to the wheel, keep focused on that and have respectful dialogue, as we’ve done today, on this important issue, we will make progress, the progress that all of us demand not just now but in the future. ” Well, the numbers paint a tragic picture. We’re not making progress. Can the Premier tell us specifically whether his delayed budget will include a significant increase in badly needed resources for mental health and addiction services? Hon. J. Horgan:I’ll have to take a step back to fully answer the member’s question.

We did see a significant decline in opioid deaths in 2018-2019, as a result of a concerted effort by front-line workers, first responders, the availability of naloxone, the ability for us to work in congregate settings to make sure that people were getting the care that they needed. With the advent of COVID-19, those congregate settings no longer were available to people, and we saw more and more people isolating, as I said in my first response. We’ve also seen an increase in the toxicity of the drug supply, because the borders have been slammed shut.

That means that those that are preying on the vulnerable are using more toxins to spread their supply out and do dam- age to human beings.

That is beyond reprehensible, but it is a challenge that we’ve tried to address, working through Public Safety to make sure law enforcement has the tools they need to continue to stamp out the flow of toxins into the supply and also working with the federal government to make sure that we can have initiatives. [1:55 p.m.] The Minister of Mental Health and Addictions has been at the vanguard on this, to make sure that we do have safe supply and safe alternatives for people using street drugs that can help them through their challenging time so we can get them into treatment, as all of us want to do.

But it is a multi-pronged approach. I fully agree with the member. We all get this. The numbers are going up because we cannot congregate together as we did in the past, because we cannot regulate the drug supply. There are initiatives underway. We need leadership from both orders of government and from communities. As the member full knows — and I look at the regional distribution of my colleagues across the way — this is not a downtown Vancouver issue. It’s a B.C. issue.

That’s the first order of business: that we all go back to our communit- ies — me in suburban, rural Victoria, and the Leader of the Opposition to her community of Prince George — and talk about this as not someone else’s problem. It’s our prob- lem. It’s our brothers, our sisters, our moms, our dads. It’s people who find, through no fault of their own, addicted to an insidious substance that requires intervention — med- ical intervention, not criminal intervention. T. Halford:Y esterday the minister said it was a dis- service to question the closing of much-needed services.

Today we sadly see why we are asking those questions, when we see the closure of services in Penticton, Keremeos and Vancouver. Y oung people are struggling with mental health and addictions. Two Victoria teens who needed services des- perately — and, I think we can all agree, were let down by the system — met with the Premier and the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. This is what they had to say: “They say ‘reach out, ’ but where? And to who and how? Because you can’t. Y ou really can’t.

It’s a great phrase to say, but unless there’s stuff actually in place to support people reaching out, it’s empty promises. ” My question is to the Premier. We need less words and more action. Will this Premier put forward a budget that actually supports people with mental health and addic- tions? Hon. J. Horgan:We do need action, but we also need words.

We need to talk about this openly and candidly not just in this Legislature but in our schools, in our health care settings, so that Emma and Ella, the two young women who I had the good fortune of engaging with a week or so ago, had received what they charac- terized as positive, affirming services when they were youth, but when they aged out and became adults, the situation changed. That was news to me. Of course, the minister was aware of this, and she is taking steps. And I’m sure in subsequent questions, she can answer directly the member’s question.

What I took away from a discussion with two young women, living in suburban Victoria — not the Downtown Eastside, not in a far and remote part of British Columbia, but in, basically, the capital city of British Columbia — were satisfied with their services as youth and appalled by the services that they were presented when they became adults. That’s a challenge for us to fix. That’s a challenge for the health authority and practitioners. This isn’t about throwing people under the bus. What those young women did was what we’ve asked them to do. They wanted help.

They asked for help, and when they went to receive it, it wasn’t up to their expectation. So that 992 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, March 24, 2021

means we all do better. That means practitioners have to do better. We need to make sure we’re preparing young people through our K-to-12 system to meet the realities of an increased challenge of mental health, as a result of COVID and a whole host of other challenges that modernity pres- ents for all of us. Y ou know, this is notLeave It to Beaver any more. This is a complex world that we’re asking young people to come into with little or no expectation of how they’re supposed to act. We need to be there as adults to help steward them from their childhood into their adult- hood.

When it comes to addressing mental health issues, I believe we put some $3 billion into mental health services through our health authorities across the province, and if we need to do more, we will do more. This is the challenge of our times. It’s not just the addiction challenges that the Leader of the Opposition raised, but it is mental health for young people, regular people walking down the street that need help, and they need compassion, not stigma. Mr. Speaker:The member for Surrey–White Rock on a supplemental. T. Halford:Thank you to the Premier for the response.

The Premier rightly issued a challenge to all of us today, when we go back into our communities and advocate for the support we need. I just don’t know how we do that when we’re seeing what we’re seeing in something like Penticton. We need to be focused on the present. [2:00 p.m.] Here’s a quote: “The province should provide more comprehensive and wraparound services to youth using drugs and their families, particularly in their communit- ies. ” Those were the words of the Representative for Chil- dren and Y outh. We’ve seen this government close services that are com- munity-based.

It’s the wrong approach, and this govern- ment knows it. We need more services, not fewer, to the point the Premier just previously made. For the Premier, as we see these numbers grow tragic- ally, will he commit today to putting the resources that British Columbians need and deserve for mental health and addictions? Hon. S. Malcolmson:Thank you to the member for the question. Good ideas can come from all sides of the House. I look forward to the member’s support for our budget. We have been on a path of committing unprecedented increased supports in every form since we first formed government in 2017.

There was no system of care in place at that time. We’ve been working day and night in every way to build that system up. The challenge of fighting now two public health emergencies has put tremendous strain on the health care system in British Columbia. I’m encouraged to hear the support across the aisle for increasingly deeper spending. That’s certainly something that we committed to British Columbians again in our second election, both in 2017 and 2020. That’s something that we are working hard towards. Over the last five years, we did commit almost $750 million.

PROTECTION OF OLD-GROWTH FORESTS ON V ANCOUVER ISLAND AND ECONOMIC OPTIONS FOR INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES A. Olsen:The satellite images don’t deceive. No matter how the Minister of Forests chooses to organize the dev- astation in her mind, it’s hard to unsee the fact that there are no valleys remaining on southern Vancouver Island that are like Fairy Creek in the Premier’s riding. Y ou don’t even need to bother counting trees; just look at the pic- tures. Y ou can’t miss the reality that the government of British Columbia has already laid waste to most of the monumental, high-productivity old growth in our region.

This government, like previous provincial governments, signed revenue-sharing agreements with Indigenous nations and industry — in this case, logging. They’re often very narrow conversations to facilitate logging above all else, without putting forward other economic opportun- ities. Let be me be clear: an approach of take it or leave it without alternatives to logging does not provide real options for economic development. My question is to the Premier.

Will he direct the Min- isters of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, Finance, and Forests to develop a package for our relatives in Pacheedaht that includes conservation financing and a buyback of the cutblocks in order to provide real options to save Fairy Creek? Hon. K. Conroy: I thank the member for the ques- tion. The member needs to know that we are dedicated to bringing in a fundamental shift in forestry to make sure that we are working with Indigenous nations and to make sure that we are protecting and preserving forests for people today and for years to come.

We’re going to do this important work while supporting forest workers and communities. I know that the member has expressed concerns in the past. I will agree with him in that for too long, communit- ies did not have a say in how their forests were managed. For too long, the people in the region did not have a say, and definitely Indigenous nations did not have a say. We are taking a different approach. We were the first province in Canada to bring in the declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, that all people in the House sat and supported.

This legislation creates a path forward that respects the rights of Indigenous Peoples. We are committed to working forward on this path and commit- ted to working with nations and ensuring that we can all Wednesday, March 24, 2021 British Columbia Debates 993

move forward to ensure that we have a sustainable, well- managed forest industry for years to come in this province. Mr. Speaker:The member for Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental. [2:05 p.m.] A. Olsen:Let’s be clear. The declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples isn’t an end point. It’s a path that we’re walking on today. That Fairy Creek watershed is the very definition of the high-risk ecosystem. The old growth stra- tegic review panel recommendation 6 called for immedi- ate deferral while an old-growth strategy is developed. The Union of B.C.

Indian Chiefs is calling on this gov- ernment to provide critical funding needed to fulfil its obligations to Indigenous people to implement the recom- mendations of that old-growth panel. They say: “The current landscape of old-growth logging has been exacer- bated over years by successive B.C. governments working to com- mercialize all old-growth timber and foster an economic depend- ence on old-growth logging in First Nations communities.

They have achieved this by arranging agreements for revenue-sharing, employment, joint ventures and tenures for old-growth timber in contentious areas for First Nations, who face limited economic op- portunities as a result of years of colonialism and racism. ” Tomorrow the courts will hear an injunction request by Teal-Jones to remove blockades from Fairy Creek and gain access to logging in this valley. My question, again, is to the Premier.

Will he direct his ministers to develop a package for our relatives in Pacheedaht that includes conservation financing and a buyback of the cutblocks in order to provide real options to save Fairy Creek? Hon. K. Conroy: We are moving forward with the report that the member has referenced. We already took that first step where we discussed and engaged with Indi- genous Nations to ensure that we could defer nine areas across the province to defer old-growth forests right across the province.

We recognize that the number one recom- mendation in the report was to engage on a government- to-government basis with Indigenous Nations, and we are moving forward to do that — to ensure that we have those discussions with the nations. We are starting to do those discussions, but reminding the member that it is critically important that we have those discussions, that we have the time to do it, but that we also make sure that we are having those discussions with industry, with working people, with the communities that are affected, as the member has mentioned.

I want to make it clear that the Gorley and Merkel report, the recommendations that they brought for- ward…. It said to make sure that we have that discussion with Indigenous Nations. It’s critically important we do that, and we are committed to doing that. ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE SERVICES IN ALBERTA FOR EAST KOOTENAY RESIDENTS T. Shypitka:As per my two-minute statement today, communities along the eastern B.C. border have been forced to travel long distances to Vancouver for health care needs instead of what has been historically received treat- ment in nearby Alberta.

Six mountain passes and 1,000 kilometres make a 12-hour trip into 14 or more hours in the winter, sometimes impossible due to mountain pass closures and dangerous winter driving conditions that can happen in a moment’s notice. For example, in my riding, an eight-year-old child with reoccurring epileptic seizures, as well as a family needing neonatal care for 14 weeks, were forced to travel 12 hours to travel to Vancouver in the middle of winter instead of three hours to Calgary. These trips are costly, unsafe and stressful for families.

To the Premier, what has the Premier done to ensure families can get urgent care in Alberta when it is the closest and safest place to go? Hon. A. Dix: The member will know, because we’ve talked about this on a number of occasions, that we work closely with the Alberta government to ensure that care is provided. The reality is that wait times in many clinical areas, the majority of clinical areas, are less in B.C. than they are in Alberta.

That’s a challenge, of course, for our friends in Alberta as well, although the member will agree with me that we appreciate the ongoing work of the gov- ernment of Alberta accommodating, especially, emer- gency B.C. patients and to work with us to try and solve these problems. So we’re in regular contact with them. This is not a technical issue. We have done, I think, an excellent job, and the Interior Health Authority has done, in providing services. But we clearly have to con- tinue to do this work with the government of Alberta, and we will.

Their decisions, the decisions that they make about their health system, obviously have some impact on people in British Columbia and people in the Kootenays who get care. We’re going to continue to work with the government of Alberta to help resolve some of the concerns that the member has with respect to local issues while we continue to improve wait times for services in British Columbia. Mr. Speaker:The member for Kootenay East on a sup- plemental. [2:10 p.m.] T.

Shypitka:It’s very disappointing to hear this minister sing from the same song sheet that he has for the past two years on capacity issues, when it clearly is not. I have sworn testimonials from physicians in B.C. and in Alberta that have a great referral system. The space is there. But once it gets to Alberta Health Services it gets shut down. 994 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, March 24, 2021

This is more of a billing issue than anything else. I think the minister should be really concerned about it, because it’s really costing a lot of families some very tough times and hardships. The lack of action — or misaction — from this Premier is concerning. Right now I have a constituent in dire need of tertiary eye care in Alberta. In surgery, an interocular gas is placed in the eye that does not allow for travel at elevated heights. Driving over mountain passes or flying are no option.

If he could go to Calgary for the procedure, he could come home shortly after with no disruption to his dialysis treat- ments, which he gets three times a day, and carry on with daily life with his support systems in place. My office has made many pleas to the staff in the Health Minister’s office since February 12 with no response what- soever. There are other jurisdictions in Canada — Lloydminster, for example…. They have memorandums of understanding between Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Ott- awa and Hull, Quebec, have memorandums of under- standing between those two provinces to allow health care to pass seamlessly between the provinces — yet no action on this, Minister. Maybe the Premier can take a shot at it, since the Min- ister of Health is not helping out much. Will the Premier commit today to ensuring my constituents can get needed care in Alberta when it is the closest option? Hon. A.

Dix: Well, with great respect to the member — and I think members of the House will know that they always get great respect when issues of constituents are brought to my office — we are going to continue to work with the government of Alberta to resolve issues. Some of these issues, remember, are made in another jurisdiction. Some of the decisions are made in another jurisdiction.

But we work closely with the government of Alberta not just to provide and ensure that British Colum- bians have access to service but, often, as well, that citizens of Alberta receive access to care both while in British Col- umbia, which they frequently are, and when they need to travel here. These are issues we worked out, as the mem- ber knows. I regularly do this with his office and his team. I’m happy to work on any individual case with his office or anyone else. I would say that the fact is that British Columbia in many areas of care has lower wait times.

This has been a subject of concern, as the member will know, in Alberta, where we also seek access to care, especially for emergency care of the type the member talks about. We’re going to work on it. We work on it all the time. We work on it every day. I don’t think it’s an issue of disrespect or commitment by people in the Ministry of Health, as the member suggests, but rather some real challenges that are faced in Alberta and in British Columbia that we need to always make improvements on. I think people in the Koo- tenays deserve that…. Mr. Speaker:Thank you. Hon. A.

Dix:And that’s the care that we try and provide every day. RENT INCREASES FOR TENANTS ON CROWN LAND J. Sturdy: Despite a residential rent freeze, some renters in British Columbia are still seeing rent increases of as much as, believe it or not, 300 percent. This is for one reason and one reason only, and that is because their landlord is the province of British Columbia and they live on Crown land. For some reason, the government excluded itself from its own rent freeze rules. The Premier is holding himself and his government to a different standard than is applied to every other landlord in British Columbia.

Can the Premier please explain why he’s charging ren- ters on Crown land rent increases of as much as 300 per- cent at any time, let alone in the middle of a pandemic? Hon. D. Eby: Obviously, our government is incredibly proud of our [audio interrupted] to protect and support renters and also to recognize the important role that land- lords play in providing housing. The issue that the member raises is an interesting one. I’m not familiar with it. I look forward to speaking to him about it. I’ll point out to him that our commitment is really clear.

We want to make sure that all British Columbians can find affordable, safe housing in our province. We’ve dedicated billions to it. We passed legislation around it, sometimes over the objection of the members across the way, including around renovictions. [2:15 p.m.] This doesn’t have to be partisan. I’m thrilled to hear the member bring forward a question about how we ensure affordability for people, and I look forward to working with him about it. I look forward to hearing more. Mr. Speaker:The member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky on a supplemental. J.

Sturdy:That is good to hear — although we have been corresponding with the FLNR for two years now on this particular issue. Clearly…. We understand that there is yet another review under- way that has been going on for some four or five years now in the FLNR without any progress. While that review is nice, it’s of cold comfort to Joan Amotsen, whose rent has gone from $5,650 last year to potentially $19,650 this year, and who knows where next year. This rent increase is unconscionable and, frankly, would be illegal if govern- ment didn’t have its own set of rules for being a landlord.

Will the Premier cancel this over 300 percent rent hike Wednesday, March 24, 2021 British Columbia Debates 995

and change the rules so the government must play by the same rules as every other landlord in British Columbia? Hon. K. Conroy:I thank the member for the question. I ask and advise him to please reach out to me, and we can discuss this further. It’s an issue of people who live on Crown lands. The assessment is being done to ensure that they are charged a rent based on the assessment. As we know, assessments are going up across the province in some areas. I believe in the member’s own area — they’re going up there. There’s a formula that’s used. I know the ministry is looking into this and seeing what we can do.

I appreciate the member raising it. J. Rustad:Well, 300 percent or 86 percent. Can you ima- gine that? It’s pretty good if you’re the landowner, certainly not very good if you’re the renter. I, quite frankly, think the Premier and everybody on that side of the House would agree. That is completely unacceptable, to see that kind of an increase at this time. Melanie, who is in the Cheakamus Valley, says: “I am a single mom on disability with a special needs son. My mom is sick and in care.

I’m struggling to keep up with the lease. ” This increase is unacceptable, and I know the Premier has implemented a rent freeze. Why will he not extend that rent freeze to his own government, and tell Melanie that he is cancelling this 86 percent increase? Hon. K. Conroy:Well, I thank the member again for the question and for bringing this one to my attention. I’ d be only too happy to discuss with the MLA responsible for the Cheakamus area. I encourage them to reach out. Mr. Speaker:The member for Nechako Lakes on a sup- plemental. J.

Rustad:Well, it might be fine and dandy for the mem- bers to engage and the ministers to want to engage. I accept that. That’s good that they want to engage, because this is a serious issue. But it is a serious issue, and it’s a real simple answer. The compassionate thing to do is to just cancel these increases. This is a very difficult time. Melanie goes on: “ An 86 percent increase in rent is unacceptable anywhere, especially during COVID. I think especially by government that has the power to be consid- erate and reasonable. ” Melanie and her family have lived on this property for generations.

She is trying to figure out how she can stay on this property. It’s unacceptable that this should go forward, and she is legitimately worried about her future. To the Premier, cancel this increase. Tell Melanie today that she doesn’t have to worry and that she has a place to live and she doesn’t have to be worried about being turfed out by an unreasonable rent increase. Hon. K. Conroy:Again, I’ll say the ministry is looking at this. This is a policy that was brought in place under the previous government — the previous Liberal govern- ment, just to clarify. It’s done with B.C.

Assessment, which looks at the price of property around the area and makes those adjustments based on that. We are looking into, as I said. I would be only too happy to discuss it with the MLA responsible for the constituents who are raising the issues. [2:20 p.m.] [End of question period.] A. Olsen:I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members A. Olsen: I’ d like to introduce Pacheedaht Elder Bill Jones and Hereditary Chief Victor Peter, as well as Friends of Carmanah-Walbran’s Erika Heyrman into the House this afternoon.

They were here to hear the questions about the territory in their community that I was asking during question period. HÍSW̱ ḴE SIÁM. Thank you. Tabling Documents Mr. Speaker:Hon. Members, I have the honour to present Investigation Report 20-02 and Investigation Report 20-03 from the office of the registrar of lobbyists for British Columbia. Orders of the Day Hon. M. Farnworth:I call committee stage, Bill 5. Committee of the Whole House BILL 5 — INSURANCE CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2021 (continued) The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 5; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair. The committee met at 2:21 p.m.

The Chair:Members, we will be taking a five-minute recess before we resume. Thank you. The committee recessed from 2:21 p.m. to 2:28 p.m. [S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.] 996 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, March 24, 2021

On clause 2 as amended(continued). M. Morris:It’s been quite a disjointed affair as we work our way through this particular bill here. The first question I have. Maybe the minister can list the improvements that he sees to the accountability and the transparency, in comparison to the current system that we have, within ICBC, with the fairness commissioner. [2:30 p.m.] Hon. M. Farnworth:I appreciate the question. There are a number of areas where there is improvement. First off, there’s increased independence with the fact that the position is now a Lieutenant-Governor-in-Coun- cil appointment.

It is appointed by cabinet. The budgeting process is better in that it allows for, if there are issues between the fairness commissioner and the board, those to be resolved — with my involvement, for example. There’s increased transparency through better report- ing. Currently, the fairness commissioner only reports to the board. Now, not only do they report to the board but also to myself and to this House, and also the reports have to be made public. M. Morris:I was under the understanding that the reports that the fairness commissioner had rendered before were available to the public.

Was that an incorrect assumption? Hon. M. Farnworth:I would note that while, yes, reports were made public, they were not required to be made public. Now they are required to be made public. Also, the board is now required to report to me, as Minis- ter, as well. M. Morris:Does the Minister know how many reports over the last dozen years or so from the fairness commis- sioner have not been made public? Hon. M. Farnworth:I can’t give you the exact number, but I’m happy to find that number out for the member.

I would expect most of them have been made public, but the fact that they are required to, I think, is an extra level of rigour. A reporting requirement ensures that a report, for whatever reason, isn’t delayed — or just somehow fails to be made public. This ensures that, in fact, all reports will be. M. Morris:I guess it raises a bit of a concern here. Are you suggesting that perhaps sometime in the past, the fairness commissioner has not made the report public for some unknown reason? They wanted to keep something from the public or keep something from public view? Hon. M.

Farnworth:No, I’m not suggesting that, hon. Member. Y ou asked me a question: if I could tell you right now how many…. But I can’t. I said I’ d get the number for you. I also said that it’s my expectation that they all would. [2:35 p.m.] I think what’s really important is that what was pre- viously policy is now becoming a legal requirement. I think that is important, and I think that’s a significant improvement. M. Morris:Thank you for that. The question I initially asked is if the minister could list the improvements to accountability and transparency under this new system being proposed by this bill.

Again, what he’s listed really isn’t any different than what has been done before under the fairness commissioner’s office, which has been in place now for a number of years. Now we want to enhance the process itself by establishing an OIC process in order to allow cabinet to pick the position itself. I’m just curious. Perhaps the minister can explain why they’re suggesting cabinet needs to choose the fairness officer. Has there been some problem in the past with the fairness commissioner’s office that has led this government to believe that cabinet needs to appoint that position? Hon. M. Farnworth:No.

On May 1, there is a sig- nificant change taking place with ICBC as they shift to enhanced care. The fairness commissioner is a critical part of ensuring that that shift takes place and that the fairness commissioner has the resources, the skills and the staff to do the job that they will need to do. I have every confid- ence that they will do that. By making it a Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council ap- pointment, it just elevates that profile. It lets the public know that this is an important position, that government believes it’s an important position. That’s why it’s being done that way.

It also does reinforce that issue of inde- pendence. It does not reflect in any way, shape or form on the practices and the procedures on how the fairness com- missioner, as it’s currently structured, has operated in the past. I think it has done an extremely capable and a very good job. Rather, it’s a reflection of the importance that we attach to the changes that are taking place on the first of May. M. Morris:To establish the importance of the position, is the position predicted to become more important than it is in the current form?

Will the new fairness officer have additional duties that complicate the process to the point where they need this added rigour through an OIC appointment? [2:40 p.m.] Hon. M. Farnworth:I think what I’m…. My answer is based on…. On May 1, there is a significant change tak- ing place. We go to the enhanced care model. We want Wednesday, March 24, 2021 British Columbia Debates 997

to make sure…. I think there will be a heightened aware- ness around the importance of ensuring, both within ICBC and outside ICBC, from the customer, that (1) people are treated fairly and that (2) procedures and policies are followed and implemented in the way that they’re meant to be. I fully expect that the fairness commissioner will be very much aware of this. I think the fact that we’re making it a Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council appointment also sends a message that the province understands and recognizes this.

We want the public to know that this is a key part of that change, that this legislation is there to ensure that key part takes place and that they will be able to do the job they’re required to do. M. Morris:So do I understand correctly, then, that because of the enhanced care model that is starting within the coming weeks…? Does the minister expect the num- bers of complaints to the fairness officer’s office to increase and the complexities of these complaints to increase to the point where they require that OIC appointment? Hon. M. Farnworth:There’s a new change taking place.

I think there is an expectation by everybody. Y ou want to make sure it goes smoothly. Y ou want to make sure it goes properly. So whether it’s within the corporation, going with policies and procedures that we want to make sure are being implemented and followed properly…. Likewise, the fairness commissioner is going to be acutely aware that they will be making sure that that, in fact, takes place. And that’s not unusual, whether it’s here at ICBC or, I could say, if there was a change coming in the House. I know there’s a heightened awareness. Y ou want to make sure everything is right.

The position of fairness officer, as we’ve said, is a key part of ensuring that British Columbians have confidence that they will be treated fairly. Part of that is sending that message. This is now going to be a Lieutenant-Governor-in- Council appointment, which means that cabinet has appointed this individual and that reports, while they were made public before, are now legally required to be made public. That’s what this is about. I think it’s basic- ally that simple. M.

Morris: Listening earlier to questions that were asked by my colleague from Vancouver-Langara with respect to the numbers of complaints handled by the fair- ness commissioner…. I believe it was 44 — the number that was handled by the fairness commissioner previously, last year. With this new model of insurance being brought to bear against British Columbians, is the minister pre- dicting that the numbers are going to significantly increase beyond 44 or be significantly greater than that? With the complexities associated to them….

Y ou just stated that British Columbians need to have the confidence that this position is going to look after their concerns around fairness with this new model coming up. Does the minister predict there might be problems with that? Does the minister predict that there are going to be substan- tially more files for the fairness commissioner to handle as the result of these new changes to the legislation or to the insurance model? [2:45 p.m.] Hon. M. Farnworth:I appreciate the question.

No, I’m not saying that I’m expecting an increase in the number of complaints or the number of times the fair- ness officer has to deal with them compared to the way the current system operates. What I’m saying is that there is a significant change coming on the first of May, and we want to make sure that everything runs and goes as smoothly as possible and that the fairness officer will have a job to do. We want British Columbians to know that we take this very seriously.

I can tell you that prior to May 1 and prior to that change, there has been significant work taking place, in terms of ICBC, as they move to the enhanced care model, to ensure that staff are aware of the policies and procedures and that they are trained in those policies and procedures, because there’s a significant interest for ICBC to ensure that everything moves and goes smoothly. What I know is the corporation is working as hard as it can. Its employees and staff are working as hard as they can.

We as government are working as hard as we can to ensure that May 1, the implementation goes the way that it is intended. A key component of that implement- ation, obviously, is the fairness commissioner’s position. We want British Columbians to know that that position is there. M. Lee: I just wanted to follow on from the member for Prince George–Mackenzie in that line of inquiry. Of course we recognize the significant change that is going to be happening on May 1. This is the reason why we’re spending a considerable amount of time, in fits and starts, in committee stage on this bill.

Put another way, in the course of a year, 100,000 Brit- ish Columbians are, unfortunately, regrettably, involved or injured in car crashes, every year. With this change, this will mean that…. Usually, typically, in any given year, there are about 40,000 to 50,000 disputes. Under the former system, before no-fault, if they had to go for- ward, they would be handled potentially by a lawyer or in the courts with ICBC.

To put this in perspective, of the 411 complaints that have been raised in any given year, at least in 2019-2020, that’s in the context of knowing that there has been anoth- er avenue to pursue disputes with ICBC, through the courts. That is now being cut off. I will get back to the CRT discussion that we had at the last committee stage, but just to put this in per- spective, with 40,000 or 50,000 potential disputes with 998 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, March 24, 2021

ICBC previously being handled by the courts, what is the assessment that ICBC has done as to the potential number of disputes or complaints that the fairness officer will need to handle? [2:50 p.m.] Hon. M. Farnworth:I thank the member for the ques- tion. I’ll make a couple of points. First, about 20,000 claims a year are filed in the Supreme Court of B.C. involving auto accidents. But only about 100 go to trial. The rest are settled out of court. While the tri- al process is no longer part of enhanced care, the reality is that the CRT process is still very much there.

They are involved in terms of the determination of benefits. M. Lee: I know that in the course of many debates and opportunities to discuss bills of reform to ICBC that the Attorney General has brought forward to this House, I’ve had numerous opportunities to go through the numbers — the number of disputes, the impact, the legal costs and all of that. I don’t think we need to retread that discussion here, but I do think the points noted, at least acknowledged by the minister, that the quantum, the volume of disputes that, potentially, a fairness commissioner is facing, is cer- tainly higher than 411.

It could be in the thousands. It could be somewhere between thousands and 20,000 or even more, because, of course, how many actually get filed in the courts is not indicative of how many disputes there are. As I mentioned, the numbers that I refer to are 40,000 to 50,000 different disputes. Let’s turn to the CRT. That was a point I wanted to come back to, because I know that the minister, in our last com- mittee session, referred to the CRT as a jurisdiction three times in response to points that I made.

The point that I’ve made is that most recently, Chief Justice Hinkson has ruled that the power that’s been granted to the CRT to decide accident claims was unconstitutional, because his- torically, the power to decide personal injury claims and their value belonged exclusively with the superior courts. So this is a jurisdictional concern. I think it’s important to note, at least for the record, in this House, the nature of that decision so we have a clear understanding of that decision. The effect of the decision is to recognize that personal injury claims are exclusively within the domain of the superior courts.

That means that jurisdiction over personal injury claims cannot simply be handed to the government’s online tribunal, whether in whole or in part. Now, the minister has said that the CRT decision will not affect the ability to decide no-fault decisions or benefit decisions. That’s not how I read this decision. I appreciate that the Attorney General has indicated that the govern- ment intends to appeal the decision.

But from my per- spective, given the fact that the chief justice has ruled that there is uncertain ground constitutionally on which the CRT operates, in terms of its jurisdiction, we are now looking at a bill for which there could be even greater weight that British Columbians need to place on the fair- ness officer. [2:55 p.m.] If it turns out that the government loses that appeal, and it turns out that the CRT does not have the jurisdic- tion, which the chief justice is saying….

If the Court of Appeal of British Columbia agrees with the chief justice, that means the CRT continues to be operating in an unconstitutional manner and they will not be a forum for benefit disputes. British Columbians will be further cut off from their ability to raise disputes with ICBC about their benefit determinations, which is the very point I was mak- ing previously in committee.

I know that we have lots of concerns about this fairness officer in the current context, recognizing that there’s a new system, of course, that’s being implemented on May 1 and that we are still debating, in this House, the powers of that fairness officer. To the minister: if the appeal of that decision, brought by the government and the Attorney General, is not successful, will the government be com- ing back to this House to amend this act, to enable further powers to be provided to the fairness officer? Hon. M. Farnworth:I thank the member for the ques- tion.

I understand the point that the member is attempting to make, but I’ d make these observations. First, in terms of the case itself, in terms of appeal, I’m not going to comment on that. Those appeal questions are more appropriately directed to the Attorney General anyway. The fact is that the court did make a determination, under

section 133(1) of the act, where the issue was under “the determination of whether an injury is a minor injury… ” and the ability to hear claims for liab- ility, personal injury and property damage of up to $50,000. That will not have an impact on the CRT decision in terms of their ability to determine benefits. And that particular point was in fact conceded by the plaintiffs themselves. They did not disagree with that. So the ability for the CRT, the civil resolution tribunal, to determine benefits is not what is in dispute. Having said that, I turn to the second part of the ques- tion that the member raises.

The fairness officer’s position is to deal with process and procedures. It is not about the determination of benefits. So, no, I’m not planning, and government will not be planning, on coming back to amend the legislation to give powers in that area. [3:00 p.m.] M. Lee: I appreciate the response from the minister about this point. I understand, of course, that we’re in the midst of the government bringing forward an appeal of the decision. The decision itself, though, I would still state, does Wednesday, March 24, 2021 British Columbia Debates 999

cause and raise question about whether there’s uncertain constitutional ground for the CRT to be operating, in determining or deciding any legal issues relating to a motor vehicle accident. So I just note this: there is that possibility that the CRT’s jurisdiction may well be fur- ther called into question. I appreciate that given the limitations around the fair- ness officer under

section 57 of this bill…. That’s the reas- on why my colleague the member for Prince George– Mackenzie and myself are spending this time pressing on the limitation around that jurisdiction. If it turns out that the government’s position is incorrect, and the courts fur- ther find that the CRT’s jurisdiction is entirely in question, then yes, this is the concern under this bill. The fairness officer has no ability to address determination of the amount or fault determination. There is no other venue. To come back to the minister’s point about the CRT.

I know that, again, in terms of the significant amount of debate that we’ve had in this House relating to the CRT jurisdiction, including in estimates — it’s been raised by myself — there’s a significant win record for ICBC in front of the CRT. If we look at a similar…. If we look over at Manitoba, which I know this government looks at by way of example for the new no-fault regime, they have the Automobile Injury Compensation Appeal Commission. In 2019, there were 31 hearings. Of those 31, the injured party won on only four occasions. That’s a win rate of 13 percent for accident victims.

ICBC wins 87 percent of the time, or the equivalent in Manitoba. That’s a very similar win rate in front of the CRT currently in B.C. More importantly, when we look at the CRT jurisdiction…. Given the weight that this govern- ment is placing on the CRT and not giving the ability to the fairness officer as a result, I think it’s important that we continue to consider both the challenge constitution- ally with this jurisdiction, the potential bias that the CRT is operating under, under ICBC jurisdiction, and thirdly, the competency. The competency point would be this. There was a recent decision,Devendra v.

British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal, 2021. That is a decision where the courts held that the tribunal, the CRT, “acted with a seemingly honest, but mistaken understanding of civil procedure and insur- ance legislation in concluding the plaintiff ’s liability. ” Including other aspects, the tribunal failed to realize that the plaintiff ’s claim against ICBC was not based in tort. The CRT, even recently, and by its track record, has been found to be lacking in competency. That’s the result of this decision. To the minister.

Again, does the minister have any con- cerns with the reliance on the CRT, given the questions around its constitutionality, the bias, the competency, and not putting further authority and jurisdiction within the fairness officer to deal with and to give the peace of mind that the Attorney General has referred to for British Col- umbians? [3:05 p.m.] Hon. M. Farnworth:I thank the member for the ques- tion. Look, I’ d make this point. The civil resolution tribunals have been around since 2016. They had the addi- tions to their responsibilities in terms of accidents in 2019.

I have every confidence in their ability to do their job and to do their role properly. In terms of ICBC itself, the change on May 1 is to enhanced care. It is about making sure that you get the care you need. It is moving away from that adversarial tort sys- tem. That will be the culture and the ethos of the new sys- tem that ICBC has to deal with and is implementing. I fully expect the civil resolution tribunals will do their job in the way that it is intended for them to do their job — fairly and properly. The fairness commissioner has their job to do. This new system is going to work. M.

Lee:I appreciate the response from the minister. There’s a lot of expectation that British Columbians have relying on this government, in terms of the fundamental changes happening on May 1. Despite the warning signs, the challenges, the losses in the courts…. I think that there are some serious questions, of course, and concerns as we look at how this government is implementing this no-fault regime. We’ll see, in terms of how the fairness officer is able to provide any peace of mind to British Columbians. Just let me turn to that for one more run of questions here.

In terms of this new officer, we’ve talked at length in terms of the ability of the fairness office to only look at policies and procedures, and not on the outcome. That, in effect, is saying that when an individual has a dispute with ICBC…. [3:10 p.m.] I would say that when the minister gave this example of, “Well, for the sake of argument, if someone was look- ing for a benefit of, say, $500 in value, can the fairness commissioner say that should be $800?” The answer would be no. The fairness commissioner cannot do that, or the officer cannot do that. That is, by virtue of

section 57, the case. But isn’t that the nature of the dispute? Isn’t that the reason why an individual would find that the way they’re being treated by ICBC under this new no-fault regime is unfair? Isn’t it because of the way that their benefit deter- mination has come out; the way that it’s been calculated, assessed; the process and the policies that have been applied for that purpose? And the same thing for the fault determination. Aren’t these the very fundamental questions that any individual would have with ICBC, the very fundamental disputes that they would have?

In the absence of the ability of the fairness officer to address that, we’re left with a very challenged ability and very limited ability for the fairness officer to actually deliver any element of fairness to that individual. And again, the CRT was certainly a creation of 1000 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, March 24, 2021

the former B.C. Liberal government for certain kinds of disputes — strata disputes, societal-type disputes — and not for the complex nature of minor injury claims. With the no-fault regime, it’s placing greater burden on the CRT — a burden that’s questionable. But we’ve just had that exchange.

So to the minister, does the minister not see that under Bill 5, British Col- umbians would have greater confidence and trust in ICBC if that fairness officer actually had the ability to not be so restrained — no decision-making power, only policies and procedures, but nothing to do with the amount or the fault determination? If that fairness officer was so not restrained in that manner. Hon. M. Farnworth:I appreciate the question from my colleague across the way.

I’ll make the point again, because I’ve made it a number of times, and that is: we believe that this system is the right system and the right approach, with the fairness officer looking at policies and procedures to ensure that individuals were treated fairly and also hav- ing the ability, in terms of making recommendations to the board…. [3:15 p.m.] Those recommendations are made public. That will give a significant level of confidence to people that they are being treated fairly and to the public that ICBC is doing what it’s supposed to be doing. The civil resolution tribunal system works in Saskatchewan.

It works in Manitoba. It works in Quebec, and it will work here. I’ d also point out that when accident claims were added to the civil resolution tribunal, it was done through…. I think it was Bill 22 in 2018. That passed with the unanim- ous support of this House. I understand the points that the member is making, but I would also say this: the CRT process is a process that has been proven to work. It will work.

The fairness commis- sioner dealing with those policies and dealing with those procedures, I think, is an important step in ensuring that people have confidence that ICBC is doing the things in the correct manner and in the correct way. As I said, again, we are moving from that adversarial, tort-based system. As of May 1, it becomes a care-based system. The corporation, ICBC, has been putting in signi- ficant amount of work in ensuring that its policies and pro- cedures reflect that and that the training of staff and the implementation of enhanced care is understood by every- body in the organization. M.

Lee: I just want to make a quick comment in response. Then I believe my colleague, the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, has an amendment that he would like to table. Just so we’re clear, though, in terms of the CRT juris- diction…. This is a government, of course, that, despite assurances to brain injury and concussion associations all over the province, after this bill was passed extended the definition of a minor injury to include brain injuries and concussions — extended the jurisdiction of that definition despite the assurances by the Attorney General to those stakeholders that that wouldn’t occur.

He broke his word. He broke his promise. We’re talking about a CRT jurisdiction that is now being extended under no-fault, which was not in place at the time that Bill 22 was considered. So I would just want to note, for the record, that this has been a moving target with this government. So for the very concerns that we’ve been raising in this House on this bill, they’re in the con- text of this bill. With that, I’ll just turn that over to my colleague. M. Morris:I’ve got a couple of amendments on the order paper under my name. We’ll deal with one first, deal- ing under clause 2

section 55. If the vanguard of this bill is truly transparency of the fairness officer, and if the intent of this bill is to create an independent overseer of ICBC fairness, what we’re sug- gesting under this amendment under

section 55 is to delete subsection (3) of this particular section. The Chair:Just for the information of members, the amendment being proposed is on the order paper, with the full text available there. We’ll just take a moment for members to be able to read the proposed amendment so that they understand what we’re discussing here, Member. Thank you. Just for clarity, Member for Prince George–Macken- zie, if you could move the amendment. I’m not sure if I heard completely that it was moved. I heard it discussed. Just for the record, if you want to move it officially, that would help. [3:20 p.m.] M.

Morris:Thanks for the reminder, Chair. I’ d like to move the amendment that’s under my name on the order paper for today on clause 2, dealing with

section 55 of the bill. [SECTION 2, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown: 55

(1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may appoint a fairness officer.

(2) The fairness officer is to be appointed for a term of 3 years and may be reappointed for additional 3-year terms.

(3) Subject to subsection (2), the board may, subject to the approval of the minister, set the terms and conditions of the fairness officer’s appointment, including remuneration. (4)

(3) The fairness officer may retain staff necessary to assist the fairness officer in the carrying out of the fairness officer’s powers and duties. (5)

(4) All necessary expenses required for the fairness officer and the fairness officer’s staff must be paid by the corporation in ac- cordance with a budgeting process prescribed by regulation.] On the amendment. Wednesday, March 24, 2021 British Columbia Debates 1001

The Chair:If the member would like to speak on the amendment further, of course that’s appropriate. If he feels he’s said enough, that’s okay too. Just for clarity, if the member had any more he’ d like to say, he’s welcome. M. Morris:Thank you for that, Chair. Pretty much, we’ve discussed this at length. We feel that if the intent of government, with respect to this bill, is to make this a truly transparent process, then we feel that this is a fairly significant amendment that should be considered by the minister. Hon. M. Farnworth:I’ll make a couple of points.

I mean, at initial glance, I suppose I could make the argu- ment that by removing the remuneration out of ICBC and thereby moving it to the minister’s office, that would be an impost to my office. That would not be in order. More appropriately, at this point in our debate, I’ll just make this comment. We believe that the method of deter- mining the terms and conditions, with the approval of the minister, is the right approach to take — in particular, because of the ability for there to be a dispute resolution, if that is the case, that involves the minister. I think the current

section is appropriate as it stands. I would thank my colleague for his amendment, but would respectfully, at this point, say that I will not be in favour of the amendment and would say that we would be voting against that amendment. M. Lee:I just wanted to join to support the amendment proposed by the member for Prince George–Mackenzie. I would support this amendment for the very reasons that the minister has commented on in response. The concern is, of course, that there is an undue influ- ence by the ICBC board over the fairness officer.

This amendment would at least address part of that concern by removing the manner in which the terms and conditions and the remuneration would be set by the board. The fact that if there’s a dispute between the fairness officer and the board, that the minister can intervene is secondary. That would suggest, the way the minister has just framed it, that the minister and the government want to have the board overseeing the remuneration and the terms and conditions of the appointment of the fairness office.

That’s the concern, that ICBC, which is running this entire show for no-fault, has no form of any independent review. Certainly, it’s not by the fairness officer, despite what the minister has said relating to transparency. I appreciate that the minister did make some adjust- ments to the bill already to ensure that the report of the fairness officer is tabled in this House, as opposed to on a website. I appreciate that. But we’re not just interested in transparency. We are very focused on ensuring that there’s not undue influence by the board of ICBC on the fairness officer.

That’s the reason why I would urge other members of this House to vote in favour of this amendment. [3:25 p.m.] The Chair:Seeing no further speakers on the amend- ment, does the mover of the amendment have anything else he’ d like to state at this point before we go to the vote? Member for Prince George–Mackenzie? No. All right. Amendment negatived on division. M. Morris:Sorry, Mr. Speaker. My audio went off here for about the last four or five minutes here. I haven’t been able to hear anything. I sort of missed where we are in the process. The Chair:Okay.

The proposed amendment did not pass, but it was noted on division. Now we’re back to the amended clause 2 for further discussion. I believe you may have another amendment you wanted to move. Member, please proceed. M. Morris:Y es, I do. Thank you. Again, I move the second amendment that I have under clause 2, regarding

section 57, with respect to the duties of the fairness officer. [SECTION 2, by deleting the text shown as struck out: 57

(1) The fairness officer may not comment on or make recom- mendations respecting (

a) an amount payable by the corporation, or (

b) the extent, as determined by the corporation, that a person is responsible for an accident.

(2) Section 56 does not authorize the fairness officer to investigate a fairness complaint in respect of any of the following: (

a) a matter that is the subject of a proceeding or a decision of a court or tribunal, as defined in

section 1 of theJudicial Review and Procedure Act; (

b) a matter that is or was the subject of arbitration or an arbitral award; (

c) a prescribed matter.] The Chair:Thank you, Members. Just again for your information, on the order paper is the proposed amend- ment moved by the member for Prince George–Macken- zie, the removal of subsection (1) under clause 2, 57. Any discussion, Members? We’ll just take a moment so members have a chance to assess whether or not they want to engage in this discus- sion. On the amendment. Hon. M. Farnworth:I appreciate the amendment put forward by my colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie, but again, we would not be in favour of this amendment.

I think it would cause significant problems, not the least of which…. It would create an overlap between the fairness officer and the CRT, which I think has the potential to cre- ate significant conflict. That is not what the position of the fairness officer is 1002 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, March 24, 2021

there for. We believe that the current structure of the fair- ness officer is the appropriate way to go. For those reasons, we will not support the amendment. M. Lee: I again would support this amendment pro- posed by the member for Prince George–Mackenzie for the reasons that we’ve been talking about here at commit- tee stage. Right now, despite the powers and duties set out in

section 56 of the fairness officer and the public commu- nication by this government to British Columbians over the last year…. [3:30 p.m.] They have advertised that the fairness officer would take care of British Columbians, would give them peace of mind. As we’ve heard at this committee stage, that is not the case because of this significant restriction on the jur- isdiction of the fairness officer. That’s the reason why the member for Prince George–Mackenzie has put forward this amendment to strike those limitations. I would just note that what is not struck is the rest of

section 57, which does say that there is a further limita- tion that exists, that remains — that the powers and duties of the fairness officer under

section 56 do not authorize the fairness officer to investigate a fairness complaint in respect of a matter that is subject to a proceeding of a tribunal or any other prescribed matter, sub (c). The government has the ability to ensure jurisdiction- ally if there is a concern relating to the overlap, as the min- ister just stated, between the fairness officer and the CRT, which I have challenged in debate on this bill. The govern- ment can address that. In fact, this

section already does. If there’s some further gap that’s not addressed in this section, it can be done by regulation in the prescribed matter. I think that this amendment is fully appropriate and doesn’t have the sort of challenge that the minister is speaking to. I would ask if the minister could address my comment on that. [3:35 p.m.] Hon. M. Farnworth:I’ll make the following couple of points. I think what’s important is that difference in (1) and (2), and (2) is important because it means the fairness commissioner does not investigate the matter that has been brought to the civil resolution tribunal,

whereas (1) is about being able to investigate or being able to assess and look into the complaints around process and procedure. It comes back to what we believe is the most appropriate function of the fairness officer, and that is that they are not a determinator of benefits but, rather, ensuring that proper procedure and process have been followed. That is how we view the role, and that’s why those two sections are the way they are. Again, by doing that, you significantly and sub- stantially change that role, and that’s something that we’re not prepared to support. M. Lee:I appreciate the response.

I think we are getting now to the so-called nub of the issue here. [N. Letnick in the chair.] If I go back to

section 56, subsection 56(1) says: “The fairness officer, on a fairness complaint or on the fairness officer’s own initiative, ” may investigate a decision,

an act done, a procedure — so a decision by the corporation, with respect to a corporation process that aggrieves a person. If you just stop there, and then you flip to subsection 57(2) under Bill 5, the restriction is: “Well, okay. Y ou can do that, fairness officer. But you can’t do that where the mat- ter is the subject of a proceeding with a tribunal. ” That’s the point that I would expect both the minister and myself acknowledge and agree. That’s the limitation that’s already built into this bill. This amendment proposed by the member for Prince George–Mackenzie does not change that at all.

That still is the restriction on the way that the powers and duties of the fairness officer can be utilized under subsection 56(1). The concern is this. When you look at the lead-in language to the restriction that the member for Prince George–Mack- enzie is proposing an amendment to remove, it only says this: “The fairness officer may not comment…. ” Can’t even make a comment. That is effectively silencing the fairness officer, the very person that’s charged by this government to ensure the fairness at ICBC. We are silen- cing that fairness officer. That fairness officer cannot even make a comment.

This is not necessary. This is overkill. This restriction completely limits the fairness officer for the reasons that the minister has given twice in response to this proposed amendment. It’s already dealt with. It’s already dealt with by subsection 57(2). [3:40 p.m.] This subsection, 57(1), needs to be removed from this bill because it is overkill. It will silence the fairness officer in his or her ability to address the fairness, even when we’re talking about just the process for procedure. Of course, it goes further by saying the fairness officer cannot make recommendations.

This is not about overturning a decision by ICBC, an assessment of amount or responsibil- ity. This is talking about making a comment, first, or mak- ing a recommendation to the board. Again, in response to the member for Prince George– Mackenzie, the minister had repeatedly said the fairness officer does not have decision-making abilities. That’s the reason why the fairness officer needs to turn to the board, who, with the defeat of the amendment, is still under the thumb of the ICBC board. Again, I would urge members of this House….

If they believe, as they did in their second reading speeches, that the fairness officer will bring fairness to ICBC, they’re wrong. Not with this bill. Not with this current formula- tion. I would wholeheartedly support this amendment and urge members of the House to do the same. Wednesday, March 24, 2021 British Columbia Debates 1003

The Chair:Seeing no further…. I understand the Lead- er of the Third Party wishes to speak. Please go ahead. S. Furstenau:I’m speaking in favour of this amend- ment. I’ve listened with interest to the debate over the past several days on this. I concur with the member just speak- ing about the expectation that people are going to have with just the title that comes with this officer’s position and role — the fairness officer. I heard the minister speak to how the fairness officer won’t be able to speak to [audio interrupted] events but will be able to speak to the meas- ure of fairness of the process.

Y et I would think that for most people, the experience of a measure of fairness is really quantified by the outcome of that process, by the benefits, for the support, by the remu- neration that they receive as a result of the experience that they’ve been in. This is a time when ICBC is going to be in significant transition.

I would hope and expect that what govern- ment is wanting to achieve through this transition time is actually a building of public trust in this new system, a building of public expectation that this system is going to be, as the government has made the case for and made many promises about, more fair — that it’s going to sup- port people better. However, when we are in this period of transition from one system to another, I think we can all expect to see that there will be bumps along the road of that transition.

The expectation that people have, as was just pointed out by the speeches from the members on the government side, is: “Oh, it’s okay. There will be a fairness officer, so if I’m upset with how things have turned out, I can go to the fairness officer. ” I think that people will be quite surprised to find out that the fairness officer will look specifically and only at process and procedure, but not even be able to com- ment, really, on what is the measure of fairness for most people, which is the outcome.

This amendment provides that capacity for the fairness officer to actually speak to what I would think the vast majority of people are going to use to measure what they consider to be fair in this process. I also look to — and I spoke to this a little bit in my second reading speech…. We have a lot of oversight bodies now in British Columbia, looking at various government and Crown organizations, Crown corporations. What we’ve seen…. I’ll look to the example of the Representative for Children and Y outh.

I think there are over 100 reports now from that representative. [3:45 p.m.] Y es, there are some outcomes that come from that report. But fundamentally, the ministry operates without the representative being able to speak to outcomes but to the process. We have the B.C. Utilities Commission, which was actually rebuffed by B.C. Hydro when it presented spe- cific questions about Site C. It took months for B.C. Hydro to respond to their own oversight body and their own regulator about very specific questions about the largest infrastructure project in B.C.

We had the gaming policy and enforcement act, the oversight body for B.C. Lottery Corporation. We are going to hear about, I’m sure, a lot of this in com- ing months when we get the money-laundering inquiry, but we know that there were some major problems hap- pening in casinos in British Columbia. I think that one of the challenges that I have here is that we are layering — in a way, kind of barnacling — on top of these organiza- tions and Crown corporations that aren’t functioning par- ticularly effectively, from the evidence, in these oversight roles. But they’re not particularly empowered.

This will be yet another agency…. The fairness officer and the fairness officer’s office are what…. The private land forestry oversight body — I famously heard from their president a few years ago: “We are a dog on a short leash with a loud bark but no bite. ” We have in British Columbia, I would say, a growing problem of the perception, based in a lot of evidence and a lot of reality, that rules aren’t followed in this province, that there is a lack of compliance and enforcement on a lot of fronts.

I worry that if we have yet another agent who can’t really speak to outcomes, who can’t weigh in on what people’s experiences of fairness are as measured by the out- come, people are going to throw their hands up and say: “Well, how does this help me?” So I worry about the larger issue here of trust in our institutions, of trust in the bodies that are supposed to be serving the people in this province. I think that this amendment provides, if we just look at it, through this transition period….

Ideally, the outcome here is that ICBC becomes what the government has been promising it will become, which is committed to the safety and well-being and health and recovery of people after they’ve experienced an accident. However, as we go through this transition period, it does seem like it would be valuable to provide this fairness officer with the kind of capacity to speak to the outcomes of these processes and not just the process itself. That is why I will be voting in favour of this amendment. The Chair:Are there any further speakers?

Prince George–Mackenzie, would you like to close debate, since it’s your amendment? M. Morris:I agree much with the comments from the Leader of the Third Party. There’s no difference. Without these amendments, there’s no difference between the fair- ness officer and the current fairness commissioner’s pos- ition that we have here. It’s an elaborate process to go through, to have cabinet pick the fairness officer through an order-in-council.

It’s an extremely elaborate process to put cabinet through to end up with the same position and the same duties and responsibilities that the current fair- 1004 British Columbia Debates Wednesday, March 24, 2021

ness commissioner has. So we will be voting in favour of this amendment. [3:50 p.m.] The Chair:Members, you have received the amend- ment ahead of time. We’re about to cast a vote. Division has been called. Pursuant to the sessional order adopted on March 1, 2021, this division will be deferred until 30 minutes prior to the end of the day. Clause 3 approved. Hon. M. Farnworth:I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. Motion approved. The committee rose at 3:51 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The Committee of Supply, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again. Hon. M. Farnworth:I call committee on Bill 10, budget supply act. I also say I’ d give a ten-minute recess while staff and the minister get here. Mr. Speaker: The House will be in recess for ten minutes. The House recessed from 3:53 p.m. to 4:03 p.m. Committee of the Whole House BILL 10 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2021 (continued) The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 10; N. Letnick in the chair. The committee met at 4:03 p.m. On clause 2(continued). A.

Olsen: Y esterday I was asking the minister and talking about the process and the protocols of the Legis- lature. I had a few conversations over the last couple of days. I’m just wanting to ask the minister a few questions around the discipline that needs to be demonstrated by this House at a time when we’re asking British Columbi- ans to follow public health orders in a way that, certainly not in my generation and probably for a few generations, we haven’t asked. I’m just wondering if the minister can comment on the appearance of a lack of discipline in this.

We’ve got these processes, and they need to change, so we just change them. I think, in the context of the last number of months, we’re asking the people of British Columbia to be discip- lined in their actions, yet what’s coming out from here and from the government is a very obvious lack of following the due process or the processes that have been established and not demonstrating the discipline that we’re expecting of British Columbians. I just would like to hear the minister’s responses to that. [4:05 p.m.] The Chair:Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, I understand you have a point of order.

Hon. N. Simons: Mr. Speaker, there is clearly some- thing happening in the chamber that we’re not aware of, by the question. I would ask if the member for Saanich North and the Islands could explain. The Chair:I’m afraid I don’t understand your point of order. Did you get cut off? Hon. N. Simons:It’s very possible. Could the Chair advise the House what is occurring right now? The Chair:I’ d be happy to. We are in committee stage of Bill 10, clause 2. We have a question from the opposition, and the minister is now consulting with her staff before answering it. Thank you. Hon. S.

Robinson:I appreciate the minister clarifying what was happening here in the House. I think I understand the question. I may not get it…. The response may not match the question, because I was trying to decipher it, much like my colleague coming over Zoom. If I understand the question, the member was ask- ing about what the process is that we went through and understanding what the discipline was, and has been, in order to come to this conclusion about the supply bill.

I want to assure the member that there was a very spe- cific process that was used in terms of understanding that we were going to need supply to carry us through until we could bring in this budget, the next budget, for debate. The best estimate that had already, as someone might charac- terize it, been kicked in the tires — the blue book that got debated in this House — was a good starting place to take a look at how we would base this supply bill. Looking at that, taking a look at the number of months we would need supply, to carry us through till the end of June….

Again, would this sum meet all of the needs of ongoing programs? That was also taken under considera- tion. That was how we determined what would be in the supply bill. Wednesday, March 24, 2021 British Columbia Debates 1005

A. Olsen:Thank you, Minister. The point towards dis- cipline is along the lines of…. It would have been, prob- ably, better if it had been packaged with the series of ques- tions that I asked yesterday. Perhaps that’s part of why there is a bit of confusion on this. I asked questions around the process of a throne speech, then a budget, then a sup- ply act and then the budget estimates.

That’s normally the process that is undertaken. [4:10 p.m.] A government that follows that process — that follows, necessarily, one step after another — is demonstrating a discipline that the public service then understands; that then business leaders understand when they’re making decisions about investments in this province; that indi- viduals can understand, whether they be individuals that are relying on government services, leaders of non-profit organizations that are requiring budgets to be in line, whether it be school board trustees who are making decisions about their budgets.

When I was speaking to discipline, I was speaking to the demonstration of discipline from this House. When you have a number of changes to that process, it then, I think, sends a message. We hazard the situation where we could be sending a message that the discipline that we’re asking of British Columbians, to follow a process to follow the recommendations — which I agree with, and I’ve been very supportive of…. They need to see that from their institutions. They need to see that from their governing institutions. That’s what instils a level of confidence in the public, that

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20210324pm-Hansard-n40
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20210324pm Hansard n40
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	5218aedcecd56f7ac8fcdb14c3d607735d95834a

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).