Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, February 28, 2019

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 211

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Supplementary Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training

Hon. M. Mark

S. Cadieux

Supplementary Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General

Hon. D. Eby

M. Lee

Supplementary Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development

Hon. K. Conroy

L. Throness

Hon. K. Chen

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Supplementary Estimates: Ministry of Citizens’ Services

Hon. J. Sims

S. Thomson

A. Olsen

B. Stewart

Supplementary Estimates: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

Hon. M. Mungall

T. Shypitka

G. Kyllo

P. Milobar

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2019

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I will be calling the supplementary estimates for the

following ministries, in this order. First will be Advanced Education, then the

supplementary estimates for the Attorney General’s ministry and then the

supplementary estimates for the Ministry of Children and Families.

In Committee A, the Douglas Fir Room, I will be calling the supplementary

estimates for the Ministry of Citizens’ Services first; followed by the

supplementary estimates for the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources; followed by the supplementary ministry estimates for the Ministry of

Forests, Lands, Natural Resources and Rural Development.

[1:35 p.m.]

Committee of Supply

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES:

MINISTRY OF ADVANCED

EDUCATION,

SKILLS AND TRAINING

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); J. Isaacs in the

chair.

The committee met at 1:38 p.m.

On Vote 11(S): ministry operations, $5,500,000.

Hon. M. Mark: I’d like to start the conversation with a few remarks. First, I’d

like to acknowledge that we are gathering on the traditional territory

of the Lekwungen-speaking people, members of the Songhees and Esquimalt

First Nations.

It is my honour to introduce the supplementary 2018-

2019 spending

estimates for the Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and Training.

I’d like to introduce my staff. To my flank, ADM Jeff Vasey; to my

right, my deputy minister, Shannon Baskerville, and my assistant deputy

minister Kevin Brewster. I’ve got other teammates that are waiting in

the wing just in case the official opposition has any technical

questions that we need to address.

I’d like to thank the members opposite, my official critics, my

colleagues, for allowing me to provide a brief introduction. I

understand it’s been a long time since we’ve seen supplementary

estimates in these chambers.

[1:40 p.m.]

Moving forward, a more recent history lesson is warranted as we

talk about adult basic education, skills and training. In December 2014,

the old government announced a policy of exclusion — to no longer fund

learning. These are programs in numeracy, literacy and upgrading across

the ecosystem. The policy decision by the old government unfortunately

slammed the door for ordinary people who wanted to better their lives,

get a job, support their families or pursue their opportunities in

college or university. People wanting to upgrade their education and

participate in the economy were penalized with tuition fees as high as

$1,600 per semester. As a result, enrolment in ABE and ELL programs

dropped almost 35 percent, from 10,244 spaces in 2013-2014 to 6,692

spaces in 2016-2017.

The members opposite may recall the reaction of students — and

let’s not forget that it is about students — and the instructors, very,

very passionate about ABE. I can imagine that the members opposite have

had a chance to meet the recipients of these ABE and ELL programs and

the instructors that go to work each and every day with passion, who

begged the old government to do the right thing and reconsider their

decisions. The former Minister for Advanced Education was absent from

that announcement and faced significant backlash in his

riding.

Thousands of people sent letters pleading with the old government

to do the right thing, to reverse their decision. From across the

province, students and educators told us how the unfair tuition fees

blocked people from advancing their opportunities, improving their

chances of success and participating in the workforce. They pleaded for

change.

Now, let’s talk about the present. When we formed government in

July 2017, we were quick to take action, because our government knows

that the importance of investing in people is through education and

training. We know it’s about opening doors so that people can

participate in the workforce, build thriving careers and support

themselves and their families. It brings pride and hope to

people.

I want to pause for a moment, because I’ll never forget the day

that I went to my mom’s graduation at Native Education College, when she

returned to school as an adult to get her GED. It is life-changing. It

is a deal-breaker for people that, for whatever reason, didn’t get a

chance to finish their grade 12 along with their peers.

On August 8, 2017, I stood next to Premier Horgan, Minister

Fleming and students from Camosun College to announce that we were

removing roadblocks. In less than three weeks of taking office, our

government announced we were eliminating tuition fees for ABE and ELL

programs, which is a key part of my mandate. This was a direct response

to the call to action from thousands of students and educators from

across the province.

On September 1, 2017, tuition-free programs came into effect at 18

public post-secondary institutions, as well as the Native Education

College. Adult basic education programs are now helping students

complete high school or upgrade to access post-secondary

programs.

Students are taking their math at Okanagan College. That’s equal

to grade 11 high school math and will get them into academic career and

technical programs. Students are taking chemistry at Thompson Rivers

University and Native Education College. They’re learning about the

periodic table, atomic structure and chemical reactions. Students are

studying social sciences at College of the Rockies. They’re learning

about Canadian government, law and citizenship and Canada’s relationship

with Indigenous peoples.

and go on to higher education. As a result, life’s looking a lot

brighter.

We’ve stopped the decline in ABE enrolments. The number of ELL

students has increased by 10 percent. We are continuing to break down

barriers with a policy of inclusion. Through our Upgrade B.C. campaign,

we are getting the word out that ABE and ELL programs are now

tuition-free. We can’t undo the damage overnight that the old government

caused, but we are taking steps, we are taking measures, and we are

taking action.

[1:45 p.m.]

When people can access affordable education, skills and training,

it tackles poverty and inequality and grows our strong economy. This

policy builds on our belief that we must lift as we climb. More than

20,000 students now have opportunities to pursue their dreams and forge

new pathways.

Behind the numbers are real people who have been given a chance at

opportunity, students like 34-year-old April Murphy. April is an ABE

student from Vancouver Island University. April battled illiteracy,

homelessness, addiction and mental health challenges. But she’s well on

her way to getting her high school diploma. April plans on enrolling in

the community mental health worker certificate program so she can help

others overcome their barriers.

She says: “I went from being my own worst enemy to being my best

friend. I didn’t realize how good life could be if I was good to myself.

The community at VIU has been amazing through this process. I don’t

think I would be half as successful if it weren’t for the staff here

cheering me on and pushing me to better myself.”

There are thousands of people like April across the province who

are going back to school to better their lives. We’re fighting for

students like April. This is good public policy. It’s what British

Columbians expect of government.

As I close, Budget 2017 Update confirmed the removal of fees for

2018 brought hope and included $18.5 million a year for tuition-free ABE

and ELL programs for a total of $55.5 million over three years. We’re

increasing that by $5.5 million in 2018 and 2019 and the following years

to defray costs.

Education is a great equalizer that transforms lives. I’m proud of

the choices our government has made and the work we’ve done over the

past 19 months. I look forward to responding to the questions from my

colleague members opposite. Haawa .

S. Cadieux: I apologize for my voice. I hope it makes it through, as I hope

yours does, Minister.

Thank you to the staff for being here to help with questions

today.

First off, I’ll introduce my co-critic, the MLA for

Abbotsford-Mission, who’s here with me. Although for the ease of this

short stint in supplementary estimates today, I’ll ask the questions on

our behalf.

I will beg forgiveness in asking this first question. It’s a

question for clarity for me that may prevent me from coming back to a

different question later. So I’d like to ask it first. It comes, though,

out of the minister’s accountability report from the 2017-18

year. Just for clarity for myself — because as I was preparing for

today, I found something, and I can’t explain it — I just would like to

know if you could, please….

On page 10 of the accountability report, where it lists the

individual responsibilities results for members of the executive council

with operating expense and responsibilities, Ministry of Advanced

Education expected results — expected spending of $2.571 billion; actual

results of $2.475 billion, with a variance of $96 million. For clarity,

could the minister explain why those numbers are not the same numbers as

we look at in the estimates for the ministry, which were, of course, a

total of $2.153 billion? I’m just confused as how they come to that

total, as arrived at in that document.

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: I’d like to thank the member opposite for the question. There are

a number of variables to respond to that specific question. We can get

the answer to you in writing, hopefully, before estimates, which is

scheduled for, I believe, next week, next Thursday. My staff, at the

moment, are prepared for the supplementary estimates today.

S. Cadieux: Thank you very much, Minister. I’d appreciate that. I’m just

trying to work my way through these books and just making sure I have

things clear, so thank you.

On to the subject at hand, which is the supplementary estimates.

The last time government required supplementary estimates was, indeed,

during a global financial crisis. That’s certainly something quite

different from what we’re seeing now. What we’re seeing now is a

government that either (

a) didn’t adequately budget, or (

b) couldn’t

control its spending and overspent and is now coming back to ensure that

they can massage the numbers so that they can come in

balanced.

Now, I understand, and as the minister’s statement at the opening

of the session has stated, that the ministry is looking for $5.5 million

for adult basic education and EBE programs. Some inquiries, definitely,

along that line. My understanding, from last year and from our estimates

process and discussion, was that the ministry was budgeting $18.5

million for the ABE, ELL reinstatement this year. Is that

correct?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: In 2017-2018, it wasn’t a full year. The first full budget was in

2018-2019. We anticipated $24 million for Budget 2018. So $18.5 million

was in the budget and $5.5 million in contingency. We worked closely

with the public post-secondary institutions, starting from the 35

percent reduction that I made in my opening remarks. Based on the first

year, we have hit our target.

S. Cadieux: Okay. I guess I’m having trouble understanding how the first year,

2017-18, was a partial year, given that it started in September. You

would have had that semester, and you would have had the second semester

starting in January of that year. When is it that government makes those

transfers to institutions? How does that break out during the

year?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: To the question. As the member is aware, the semester is divided

into three, one starting in September, one starting in January and one

starting in April. We know that the budget is April to April. So the

partiality comes from the program starting in September and then again

in January.

The $18.5 million was in our budget for September. We were ready

to fund on demand, but the program had to ramp up. There had to be

awareness that the program was now tuition-free. The number that we have

for the first year is partial, because it’s only covering the two

semesters of April and January.

S. Cadieux: Thank you, Minister.

My next question, then, is on the numbers, on the uptake for the

program. The minister stated in her opening remarks that in ’13-14,

there were 10,244 students; in ’15-16, 6,692 students. First off, is

that FTE or enrolment? Then what were the numbers for ’16-17 and

’17-18?

The numbers that the minister quoted do not match the numbers that

the minister provided to me in a letter on November 20, 2017, by any

shape of the imagination. I’m just trying to understand what the real

number is and where it comes from.

Hon. M. Mark: I wish Hansard could see the graphs in front of me to explain

it.

To the questions that the member is asking, we have numbers for

head count. We have numbers for FTE. We have numbers for FTE broken down

by ABE and ELL. FYI, I’m just joking with acronyms.

I’m going to go with head count first. ABE and ELL total head

count, in 2015-2016, was 22,170. For 2016-2017, it was 20,120. For

2017-2018, it was 20,280. This is for head count, combined ABE and

ELL.

The second graph is ABE and ELL, combined, by FTE. In 2015-2016,

it’s 7,262. In 2016-2017, it’s 6,692. For 2017-2018, it’s

6,882.

[2:05 p.m.]

Breaking that down, split between ABE and ELL. For 2015-2016, it’s

6,310 for ABE, 958 for ELL. For 2016-2017, it’s 5,555 ABE and 1,137 for

ELL. Finally, for 2017-2018, it’s 5,633 ABE and 1,249 for

ELL.

We’ll gladly get these graphs to you before estimates. But there

is a difference, as the member is aware, between head count and FTE, so

I’ll get those three graphs to you.

S. Cadieux: Thank you, Minister. Yeah, it’s very confusing because those

numbers still don’t jive with the numbers that I’ve been given before,

so it’ll be great to have it all laid out.

I can move on to another question.

Hon. M. Mark: Point of clarification, because sometimes I can be dyslexic with

numbers, and I apologize. When I said the combined FTEs for 2017-2018

for ABE and ELL, it’s in fact 20,820, not 20,280. Anyway,

sorry.

S. Cadieux: My next question is: how was the budget arrived at, then? When the

ministry decided they were going to make it tuition-free again, how was

that budgeted? Was that budgeted per student — so per head count, per

FTE or in some other way? Was it determined per institution or a

combination? How much was that determined to be on a per-student or

per-FTE or per-institution basis?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: The money is per FTE. To the member’s question, we’re working with

PSIs, the post-secondary institutions, with actual numbers and

projections. Of course, as she can appreciate, they’re the experts in

their community. Money provided is for demand.

Not all courses cost the same. Some of the courses…. As an

example, computer studies, Indigenous ABE, sciences, biology, chemistry,

physics…. All of the courses are not the same, but on average, we know

that $1,600 per semester was the average cost of tuition when the

previous government allowed PSIs to charge tuition for ABE and

ELL.

Forecasts are for an increase in need, which is why we are going

from $18.5 million to $24 million. Finally, with the full year

completing this year, moving into April, we will have better numbers

through our data, but we are on track.

S. Cadieux: Okay. Well, that’s confusing.

You budgeted and projected by FTE at an average of $1,600 per FTE

based on the projections for enrolment that were provided by the

institutions, knowing what they normally would see in terms of people

coming in. I understand there’s some flux because courses cost a

different amount of money.

You budget an amount. Then the bills come in at the end of the

year from the institutions saying: “This is how many students we had in

these courses, so here’s our bill.” Is that how this is

working?

You said that you budgeted at $18.5 million with $5.5 million in

contingencies. But you’re not accessing contingencies. You’re asking for

a budget lift because you’ve overspent. So is this…? You think you’re on

track now, and you think that that will work going forward, but you

won’t know till April, which is too late for the next budget.

I’m just trying to get some clarity around how this process works,

because it’s going to be hard to believe the ministry has a sense of

their budget if they’re $5.5 million out, plus or minus, at this

ask.

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: To some of the line of questioning, there has been no

overspending. We are working with the PSIs, the public post-secondary

institutions, throughout the year and tracking student uptake. It is not

unusual, as the member can attest and relate, as a former cabinet

minister, when implementing a new program to get partial funding and

access to contingency as the program rolls out.

[2:20 p.m.]

Last year we used enrolment and costs to get better information on

student uptake and program costs. We started at $18.5 million, and the

numbers of students are showing up as expected — which is why our budget

is being increased. Yes, PSIs billed us after the first partial year. We

used that data to build in the funding for their annual grants going

forward.

S. Cadieux: The second-quarter update, or the forecast document in November,

showed a $1.7 million overspend for the ministry and predicted that the

ministry would come in on budget. Now the ministry is coming and asking

for an additional $5.5 million because they can’t meet that budget. So

the overspend has more than tripled in the second half of the

year.

Now, I recognize that 0.24 percent is not a lot of money, and ABE

programs are a good thing. It’s not a criticism that government is

embarking on this program, but it is a criticism that in a budget of

$2.2 billion, the ministry has spent so freely this year that they need

more at the end of the year and that there isn’t a 0.24 percent slippage

in the ministry’s budget, especially, it would appear — given the

question I started the day with — that in an average year, there would

be a significant fluctuation of a few percentage points of

room.

There are things that don’t happen. There are unexpected costs in

other areas. Some things go up; some things go down. There’s a hiring

lag. Something doesn’t move ahead as ahead as expected during the year,

or there’s a delay. Therefore, some of the dollars don’t get spent.

That’s what generally happens.

The fact that on a $2.2 billion budget, the ministry has come so

close to the line that, at the end of the year they have to come back

and ask the Legislature for an additional $5.5 million to be able to

fund this program that they launched, and for which they projected they

would need $5.5 million additional from contingencies much earlier,

suggests that they can’t get the money from contingencies because those

are overspent. Whether it’s this ministry that has overspent or the

government that has overspent, either way, it doesn’t bode well that the

government is coming back because they can’t balance their budget. I am

concerned about that.

Along that line, can the minister tell me, please, was there any

additional spending this year on the following: mental health supports

for students on campus and sexual violence policy implementation

supports? How much was spent on completion grants this year? The average

has been between $30 million and $32 million. What was this year’s

total?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. M. Mark: I appreciate the questions from the member opposite. As she

recognizes, these are the supplementary estimates to speak specifically

There’ll be ample time in estimates, which is scheduled next week, to

discuss my ministry — which, for the record, is not over budget. To

imply that we’re the “go and spend, spend freely out there, over budget,

can’t manage a budget….”

I recognize that the tone in estimates is supposed to be a little

bit more collegial, but I will not allow the record to state that we

have overspent anything. Our budget is balanced; it is in line. In fact,

is also balanced. I’m more than happy to answer any questions related to

those two program areas, but to talk about slippage and 2.4 percent —

there’ll be ample time in estimates to speak to that.

S. Cadieux: Well, it’s my understanding that we’re here because the ministry

has not been able to meet their budget. It needs an additional $5.5

million in order to meet their spend for this year for this program on

ABE — for which they had only budgeted, in the document, $18.5 million,

as the minister stated earlier, and another $5½ million in contingencies

— which clearly they have not accessed, because they’re coming to ask

for additional funds. I’m curious as to why my question about whether or

not anything else happened during this year — did something else in the

budget change? — is not seen to be a question for today. I’m trying to

discern why it is that we need to come back for $5½ million on a $2.2

billion budget.

Having managed a budget of considerable size myself, I do know

that generally there is some slippage, and that therefore, a ministry

usually is asked to manage within their budget. That’s how it works.

That’s the point of budget accountability. That’s the point of the

Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, which has ministers’

salaries held back to ensure that they meet their budgets. If they don’t

meet their budgets, they don’t receive that holdback. So I’m

curious.

Now again, I’m not arguing that ABE isn’t a good program or that

it’s not a new program and therefore they’re having some challenges. I’m

just trying to discern, through this line of questioning, the degree of

that challenge so that, when we get to the estimates for yet a new

budget year, we can ask those questions. The reality is: we’re asking

about the year we’re currently in, and these questions are related to

the year we’re currently in. It’s not what they’re going to spend next

year or what they’re planning to spend next year, but what indeed they

spent this year that has led to their need to come back for another $5.5

million.

I’ll ask once again to the minister, collegially: was there any

money transferred to universities to support the government’s sexual

violence policy implementation or mental health supports on campus,

which have been talked about a lot by the minister? And I’m curious as

to how much the government spent this year on completion grants for

students. All of these things have an impact on the budget that we’re

now here to supplement.

[2:30 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. M. Mark: Government policy, the new government policy, is that ABE and ELL

learning exceeds our $18.5 million budget for the program. The Minister

of Finance has allowed an additional allocation of $5.5 million to

support this demand-driven program.

Put plainly, what we are doing is bringing certainty to this

program. There is going to be certainty for students to understand that

programs tuition-free throughout British Columbia.

For the record, around supplementary estimates, which is new to

many of us…. I don’t recall if the member opposite ever did

supplementary estimates. They’re new. They’re unique. They’re rare. I’m

the rookie who gets to stand here for the first time to speak to them.

So you know what? I can’t give you a history lesson.

What I can tell you on supplementary estimates is that they’re a

fiscal planning tool that allows government to use fiscal surplus to

fund new initiatives that would otherwise be funded in Budget 2019 or

future budgets, removing pressure from the fiscal plan in future years,

and move already approved funding being held in the contingencies vote

by the Minister of Finance to a ministry’s specific appropriations in

order to manage the contingencies envelope.

Further, the use of supplementary estimates does not mean the

government is running out of money or that ministries are not carefully

monitoring their budgets for fiscal 2018-2019. Additional surplus has

materialized since the 2018 budget was tabled, which provides the fiscal

room to table supplementary estimates.

S. Cadieux: Well, no, I haven’t had to be the minister in supplementary

estimates before, because I didn’t have a situation where I overspent my

budget.

The reality is that I understand that the minister must have

spent, or be on track to have spent by the end of March, all the money

in all the lines of her budget. Otherwise, she wouldn’t need an

additional $5.5 million to be added to the budget. That’s just the

reality of it. You can dress it up however you’d like,

Minister.

Frankly, I will state once again that I like and I don’t have any

problem with the fact that this is a program to help people better their

lives — absolutely. I don’t have a problem with the government making

the decision to fund this, but I do have a problem with the government

not managing well enough during the year that they feel that they need

to come back at the end of the year to get additional money to fund this

program.

Now, it was in contingencies. Generally, that means you didn’t

anticipate needing it, or if you did, it would have been moved into your

budget. You don’t need supplementary estimates to move contingencies

money into a budget. I think this is more likely putting a program — a

good program, a worthy program — up for a boost to the budget, because

in another area, they don’t want to admit that they have

overspent.

[2:35 p.m.]

I was trying to just ask simple questions — whether or not there

were other areas of the budget that had been underspent or overspent.

But the minister has not chosen to volunteer that any of the other areas

of the ministry are overspent or underspent and suggests we cover that

in estimates for the next year. Well, okay. I guess we’ll do that. I

don’t expect that the minister will be any more forthcoming with answers

related to those at that time, because I don’t think that the minister

wants to be completely transparent about this circumstance.

This is an unusual circumstance, and it is concerning. It’s

concerning not because the money is going to support a worthy program

and support individuals that are looking to better their education, not

for that reason, but for the reason that the government sees fit to….

“Wow. There’s a surplus. Let’s go and spend it.” Rather than: “Wow.

There’s a surplus. I guess we won’t need to take as much from the people

next year.” But instead: “We are going to spend every dollar, and then

we’re going to take some more.”

I guess, with that, I will say thank you to the minister and the

staff for being available today, and I’ll look forward to delving into

all of these things again next week.

Hon. M. Mark: I look forward to having conversations about the issues that the

member raised — mental health, completion grants. But to imply, on the

record again, that there is overspending is simply not accurate. We are

still in the middle of the budget. The budget is not over. It’s still

the end of February. There’s more time to go in this fiscal

year.

To be clear, let’s talk about where we came from, because the

history lesson is that that $74 million in cuts from the old government,

the previous government, the members that sit opposite, who cut ABE….

I’m looking at my notes here, just to remind for the record — $17

million in base funding in 2014.

We’re not talking about cuts here. We’re talking about bringing

certainty into the budget, into my Ministry of Advanced Education,

learning.

Vote 11(S): ministry operations, $5,500,000 — approved.

J. Brar: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Brar: I see students there. I don’t know what school they’re from, but I

welcome these students. I ask the House members to make them feel

welcome.

I just want to say to you that what you saw right now was the Minister

of Advanced Education sitting on this side with her staff members, and the

critic from the opposition side sitting on the other side. There were

questions being asked by the critic to the minister about the budget. That’s

what we are doing right now.

In the next three or four months, the ministers will be asked

questions about the budget, whether it’s the Minister of Education, the

Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Finance, whatever — one by one.

That’s the process that will continue until the end of May. That’s what

we’re doing here.

Welcome to all of you. I hope you’ll enjoy your stay here.

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

The committee recessed from 2:39 p.m. to 2:41 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Debate Continued

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES:

MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY

GENERAL

On Vote 14(S): ministry operations, $7,900,000.

Hon. D. Eby: I’d like to introduce — I have some staff here with me today —

Richard Fyfe, Deputy Attorney General; Salman Azam, executive financial

officer and assistant deputy minister, corporate management services

branch; David Hoadley, chief financial officer and executive director,

finance division, corporate management services branch; Carmen

Zabarauckas, executive director, tribunal transformation initiative,

justice services branch, and Richard Rogers, executive director and

registrar of civil resolution tribunal. They’ll be coming in and out as

necessary, with your leave, Mr. Chair.

M. Lee: I appreciate this opportunity to review with the Attorney General

and the team the need for this additional $7.9 million. Perhaps I could

just start there by asking the Attorney General what the purpose for

this request is.

Hon. D. Eby: The $7.9 million breaks down to $4.4 million for the civil

resolution tribunal, $1.5 million for justice services branch for the

tribunal transformation and supports office and $2 million for

amortization.

M. Lee: I appreciate that brief overview as to the requirements for this

expenditure. It does gives us the opportunity, of course, to talk about

the many changes that have occurred with the ministry since the last

budget. Certainly, we will get into those topics. Like my colleague the

MLA for Surrey South, obviously we haven’t seen this sort of exercise in

this House for over ten years. It’s very exceptional that ministries

would be coming forward to look for this process at this

time.

To the Attorney General, in the current budget for the 2018-2019

fiscal plan, how are the expenditures against that plan to

date?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I can advise the member that it’s our understanding that we are

pretty much on track in relation to the budget. Also, it’s my

understanding, although I don’t pretend to be an expert in the area,

that supplemental estimates were restricted until the operating debt was

retired, which our government did do and which we’re proud of

doing.

M. Lee: In terms of these expenditures that are being requested, were any

of them foreseen prior to the last budget?

Hon. D. Eby: These are expenses, I’m advised, that are foreseen, but the actual

amount is variable. So what happens is that by bringing them in through

the supplemental estimates process, they let the opposition and the

public know that this money is certainly going to be spent in these

areas. It also puts it into the base budget for ’19 and ’20.

M. Lee: For example, on the justice services branch, was it not…? You have

a plan for 2018-2019. Was it not contemplated what the plan would be for

that branch over that period of time? Why is it necessary to ask for an

additional $1.5 million at this time?

Hon. D. Eby: I understand that the history of funding new programs in

government is that they are funded through contingency until they

establish a track record of expenditure that can be relied on, at which

point it typically moves into the base budget. So that’s what the member

is seeing here.

The JSB program, tribunal transformation and supports office —

this is the first year of that program. It was in contingencies, and now

he sees it moving into the base budget.

M. Lee: That would presumably be part of the response in terms of the CRT.

Can I get a better sense from the Attorney General as to the purpose for

the $4.4 million in terms of what that is being spent on in terms of the

initiatives that the Attorney General has brought forward over this past

year?

Hon. D. Eby: I can tell the member — he may know — that shortly before he came

into this place, the previous government established a civil resolution

tribunal in relation to, first, strata disputes, and then small claims

disputes were added after that. What the member is seeing is that new

program transitioning into the base budget. It’s $4.4

million.

We can advise the member that none of that is in relation to the

civil resolution tribunal expected to take over ICBC-related disputes

under $50,000 for minor injury and benefits disputes. That is not

expenditure in relation to this number.

[2:50 p.m.]

M. Lee: If I hear this correctly, then clearly, the $4.4 million relates

to only the current mandated CRT and not to the new mandate, which will

be implemented as of April 1 for minor injury disputes in the expanded

mandate. So this $4.4 million is for the tribunal purposes. What was

that expenditure for then?

Hon. D. Eby: It’s for civil resolution tribunal expenses related to the

administration of small claims and strata disputes in the

province.

M. Lee: I’m not sure why that was not part of the base plan in the first

place. Were there new initiatives, or new spending, that were being

thought of in the contingency for that purpose?

Hon. D. Eby: Fair question. The CRT was established under the previous

government — and the expenditure for the CRT to resolve strata disputes

out of contingencies. That was the approach that was taken by the

previous government. The member now sees us moving it into base budget

in relation to the strata disputes and the small claims disputes, as I

outlined.

The general policy, as I understand it, is that a new program like

the CRT…. I don’t mean to cast aspersions on the approach taken by the

previous government, because it’s an approach we’re taking, too, with

new programs. They’re funded out of contingency until they establish a

pattern of reliable expenditure, at which point, they shift into the

base budget.

M. Lee: So that would mean that the previous line, which I think was $23

million for tribunals…. Did it include expenditure for the

CRT?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is correct. The previous line item related to the 18

tribunals within the Ministry of Attorney General, not the civil

resolution tribunal.

M. Lee: That’s helpful to know. In terms of the base funding, then, for

CRT that was previously in contingency, it’s actually $4.4 million,

prior to the changes that are coming forward. Is that

correct?

Hon. D. Eby: If the member is talking about the ICBC changes, that’s correct.

This does not include the ICBC changes. This is civil resolution

tribunal expenses related to strata disputes and small claims

matters.

M. Lee: Are there any expenditures that are incurred through the course of

the 2018-2019 plan for the implementation of the expanded mandate for

CRT?

Hon. D. Eby: All of the new staff related to the upcoming and the staffing up

for taking on the ICBC-related disputes will be coming out of

contingency. But I do want to tell the member that, obviously, there’s

time being spent by the executive director, for example, the registrar

and other senior staff to do that hiring and to oversee development of

the software, which, I understand, the member has been oriented on.

Also, the executive director, tribunal transformation initiative,

justice services branch, is spending some of her time getting this set

up too.

It’s not a bright line in the sense that there are current staff

at the CRT, current staff at the tribunal transformation initiative,

that are assisting in the hiring and the development of this new

function within the tribunal. But the vast majority of the new expenses,

the new staff that will be handling the disputes, the actual cost of the

software development and so on would be out of the contingencies and is

not part of this.

M. Lee: Just before coming back to that, can I ask in terms of the third

category of expenditure — for the Attorney General to walk us through

that as well?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: This is an amortized cost related to software for the tribunal

transformation project. What we’re trying to do is to get the tribunals

to use a consistent software platform for managing their cases, and this

is the software platform that four new tribunals will be onboarded to in

the period. Our hope and expectation are that there will be a unified

back end, essentially, for these tribunals through the software program,

so it’s an amortized expense related to that. It’s a five-year

amortization.

M. Lee: This, again, would have been part of the plan in 2018-2019 for the

ministry, in terms of the transformation, of course, of the tribunals,

which is ongoing. Was this not a cost that would have been foreseen and

budgeted for at the outset a year ago?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that the actual value of the amortization depends on

how many tribunals go live on the program in any given year, so it’s a

variable amount. We now know that there are these four tribunals that

are going live on it, so we have a certain amount for the

budget.

M. Lee: Why the timing of now, though, in terms of this adjustment? Why

isn’t this adjustment just being done in next year’s budget to account

for that expenditure or that cost to the amortization?

Hon. D. Eby: There is allocation for this made in contingencies. There is

expectation that some number of tribunals will be coming on over the

year. So it’s moved from contingencies into base budget. Because there

are four tribunals coming on, this is a fixed expense we can put into

the budget.

M. Lee: In terms of the 2018-2019 contingency amount for this ministry,

what was that amount again?

Hon. D. Eby: I regret to tell the member that we don’t have the 2018-19 full

contingency number, which would include contingencies for major cases

and other files, but the amount of contingency proposed to be brought

over in relation to today’s supplementary estimates is $7.9 million, as

I advised earlier.

M. Lee: Obviously, as has been said by my member opposite so many times,

I’m new to this House, so I’m just trying to understand how this process

is working. We understand — as just a recap — that there are contingency

amounts for new initiatives that are there. That’s being now brought

over through this supplementary estimates process to be put into the

base, because this tribunal, CRT, has now reached a stage.

I’m still unclear as to why now. Why isn’t it part of the next

budget that we’re reviewing and not a catch-up for the previous year?

Presumably, when you set a contingency, you know what you’re going to be

spending that’s going to be contingent on, as we say, major cases, other

impacts, new court cases, taking Alberta to court numerous times — areas

like that — situations within this House, new requirements for legal

counsel from the Ministry of the Attorney General.

[3:00 p.m.]

I must say, of course, that there have been other things that the

Attorney General has brought forward, including in January, which would

take money off the table from British Columbians, in terms of

settlements that might have been put forward for major complex claims,

which is arguably adding more cost, in one way, to British Columbians,

maybe less costs on the table in terms of defence costs.

There are fluctuations in this budget as we go forward, and we’re

talking about how legal claims will be dealt with by this government.

I’m surprised, here, that we are still talking about taking money and

converting it from contingency when that contingency is for a variety of

purposes, many of which would have been contemplated for this 2018-2019

fiscal year. In the absence of knowing what the exact number of the

contingency is for this ministry, it’s hard for me, as a member of this

House, to understand what the percentage is that we’re talking about and

why we’re doing it in the first place.

If I can ask for some greater clarity on how this is occurring at

this time, as opposed to in the planning process and the approval

process in estimates for the 2019-2020 budget, which I would have

thought would have incorporated the expenditures for CRT in the base

budget. That’s obviously something that we’ll be looking at. I believe

that figure is on an $8 million figure, year over year, additional.

That’s something, perhaps, we can be touching on here. For now, let’s

just ask further about the contingency and how that’s being converted at

this time.

Hon. D. Eby: The member is asking: why is this happening? I can advise that I

understand one of the reasons why this is happening is that it can

happen. Because our government retired the operating debt, we’re able to

do these supplementary estimates. This isn’t something that was

available previously when the operating debt existed.

The member asked questions about the ICBC litigation strategy. I

can tell the member that there’s nothing in the Ministry of Attorney

General budget related to ICBC defence costs or so on. The line item in

the Ministry of Attorney General budget that we’re talking about is in

relation to…. When someone has a dispute with ICBC, instead of the B.C.

Supreme Court, they will go to the civil resolution tribunal.

That’s an additional caseload for them. They have to hire up

decision-makers, and they have to be prepared for that with a software

program that guides people through the application process and so on.

Those are those expenses, but that’s not ICBC defence costs. I would

want to be really clear about that. Those costs are separate and

contained within ICBC’s financial statements for the

corporation.

Of course, the member will see ICBC showing up in the budget as a

giant black pit of money, currently, until we get our fixes in on April

1, part of which fix is this civil resolution tribunal approach.

Obviously, I regret the fact that ICBC is in the financial state it’s

in. We could spend a lot of time talking about that, but unfortunately,

we can’t, because it’s not in this budget.

M. Lee: Structurally, then, the expenditure that’s required here is one

that…. What is the alternative, then, in terms of leaving it in

contingency, not doing this move?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: There are some good reasons to do this, one of which is increased

transparency. It allows for the opposition to understand where money is

being spent that might not be immediately apparent otherwise and the

public to understand where money is being spent. Not only that, a fixed

expense that’s expected to go forward into the future and move into the

base budget. So it provides that advantage.

If we didn’t do this, it would simply come out of contingency

funding, as it had in the previous decade, I guess, when the previous

government was in power. Because there is room in contingencies, there’s

a surplus budget and our Finance Minister has done a very good job of

preparing this budget and has retired the operating debt, we’re able to

do this and provide this transparency.

M. Lee: I guess in the absence of knowing what the contingency amount is

overall for this ministry…. Am I to take it to understand that there are

these dollars…? Well, let me ask it this way. Are there any other

additional funds in the contingency that aren’t being spent? Is it $7.9

million that’s left over?

Hon. D. Eby: Staff have made good use of the time while we were discussing

other issues to track down the total contingencies currently within the

Ministry of Attorney General. I say currently, because the Ministry of

Finance is always tracking what’s happening in the various ministries

and may allocate or pull back contingencies from ministries, depending

on whether or not anticipated outcomes are realized or not — whether or

not there were major cases, for example, within the Ministry of Attorney

General — and may reallocate those contingencies to other ministries

that may have had unanticipated expenses. The forest fires might be a

good example of that.

We currently have $39 million in operating contingencies. The

member may be curious about whether the $7 million plus we’re talking

about here is part of that, and it is. That $7.9 million would be coming

out of that $39 million in operating contingencies and to base

budget.

M. Lee: In terms of other uses of the contingency, then. There hasn’t been

any, in terms of all of the other new major court cases that have

occurred through the course of this year…. How much of that has utilized

or used up some of that remaining balance of the $39 million

contingency?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: As I understand it, the general philosophy of the contingencies

use is that there are anticipated expenses at the beginning of the year

that may be variable. They may not be a fixed number. Civil resolution

tribunal disputes related to strata and small claims — the program has

been around for a little bit of time. People are just starting to learn

about it. They don’t know how many cases they’re going to have. They

expect they’re going to see X level of cases. They’re budgeting to X

level of cases. The money is in contingency instead of in base budget

because it may be variable. Maybe fewer people bring cases; maybe more

people bring cases.

Once that stabilizes, then it moves out of contingency into base

budget so that we have an understanding, generally, of what a standard

year looks like for the civil resolution tribunal. So the contingencies

amounts are the best estimates of what the actual expenses are going to

be for the year. It may be that something happens, like we need to hire

Peter German to come in and do a bunch of work on anti-money-laundering.

There are expenses that are attached to that, like having the regulator

in the casinos at peak hours instead of just Monday to Friday, nine to

five.

When those things happen, you go to Treasury Board and they might

allocate a contingency to that. Or they might say, “No, we’re not going

to provide the funding for this request,” so you’ve got to make it up

out of your existing funding that you have.

The ministry is budgeted to use the contingencies, but as I say,

those are variable amounts. They’re in categories that may be higher or

lower. The Treasury Board monitors that. If contingencies are not being

used that were expected to be used, they could be reallocated to another

ministry.

I hope that helps the member to understand a little bit about that

general approach.

M. Lee: So many questions to be asked here. Let me just say that it does

actually introduce something that I did want to speak to the Attorney

General about in this session this afternoon. Again, thank you to the

Attorney General and his ministry for arranging a good meeting. Last

time, at the end of November, when we were doing the Attorney General

Statutes Amendments Act — another one — we had a good discussion around

the civil resolution tribunal, and the Attorney General invited me to

meet with the chair of the CRT.

I did do that last week. We did sit down with a member of the

Attorney General’s ministerial staff as well, to walk through the

current planning for the greater mandate for the CRT.

Just speaking from a budget planning point of view and what’s

occurring here within supplemental estimates on contingency and how the

Attorney General just laid that out, I’m curious to know what the

current assessment is by the ministry in terms of the expanded mandate

of the CRT, as to what the caseload of that tribunal will look like with

the increased mandate of the CRT to deal with minor injury claims,

claims up to $50,000, keeping in mind, of course, that the Attorney

General, through order-in-council, also passed a regulation in November

to expand the definition of minor injury to include brain injury and

concussion — elements that British Columbians did not expect to occur as

part of that minor injury definition.

I’m asking the Attorney General what the expectation is and, with

all of these changes that have occurred over the last six months, what

the current assessment is and what the planning might be, particularly

when we’re talking about a $4.4 million figure on contingency for the

CRT that’s moved over now to base. What is this government considering,

going forward, for the CRT?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I guess this will save us some time in the ’19-20 estimates. I’m

happy to provide the member with whatever numbers I can. I’ll just

advise him that I don’t have all the staff here for the ’19-20, so I’ll

just do the best I can. We’re prepared for supplementary estimates, and

we do have these numbers, so I’m glad to share them with him. I’ll do my

best to share whatever we do have.

For ’19-20, the project resources for CRT related to the ICBC

disputes are $11.07 million. For ’20-21, $25.96 million. And ’21-22,

$30.76 million. Those would be annual expenditures anticipated for the

CRT.

Just to give you an idea about the volume that that reflects, the

anticipated volume — again, this is a variable expense. It’s very hard

to know how many disputes there will actually be. It could be

significantly more; it could be significantly less. So for ’19-20,

10,100. For ’20-21, 31,100. And for ’21-22, 31,750. These are in terms

of the anticipated claim dispute volumes as best as we can determine

with the information we have currently.

M. Lee: Thank you. I appreciate that that does relate to ’19-20. I

appreciate the Attorney General sharing that information with me in this

process. But it does actually go to the point, in terms of this new

area, as this government builds out the CRT in the manner that it just

referred to. Currently, my understanding is that, with ICBC, the numbers

fluctuate, but it’s about….

So 111,000 motor vehicle accidents per year is one figure for one

period of time recently, of which 55 or 60 percent might be represented.

So disputed claims might have a figure in the 55,000 to 60,000 category

number. Certainly, a figure that we’ve discussed, including at the end

of November, with the Attorney General, has been the figure which is the

10,000 to 15,000 range of individual claimants that might file a notice

of civil claim.

Of course, the CRT, in the way that they process claims coming

forward, is dealing with facilitation and mediation — trying to address

what might be a minor injury or a minor claim. So that figure is closer,

I think, to that 31,000 figure. If I could ask again to the Attorney

General….

I presume that, in the first year, it’s a 10,000 figure because of

the ramp-up — recognizing that, as of April 1, that’s just the first

year. It’s not all going to hit the CRT right away. But is 31,000,

thereabouts, the expected capacity that the government will want to plan

for in contingency in their budget in 2019-2020 and years to come? And

go through the same exercise that we’re going through today, which is

moving, in this case, a $4.4 million figure into base from contingency?

Is this what we can expect from this ministry going forward?

Hon. D. Eby: The member is asking about the ministry’s plans to use

contingencies in the future. Just as the previous government did, we

will be using contingencies for new programs where expenses are

variable.

The member is right to observe that, in later years, the number of

anticipated disputes going through the CRT is higher. The reason for

that is that it’s only for accidents happening on or after April 1, the

beginning of the fiscal year, that they are eligible to bring a dispute

to the civil resolution tribunal. So there is, as the member said, a

ramping-up process, which is why the number is closer to 10,000 disputes

for year 1.

[3:20 p.m.]

Now, the member is basically making a case for why we use

contingencies for new programs. The number might be higher; it might be

lower. So we will be using contingencies for this program until the

number stabilizes and we have sort of an understanding of what that’s

going to look like going forward.

Eventually, yes, the money will move into the base budget. Whether

it happens through the budget process itself or through supplementary

estimates, I wouldn’t want to hazard a guess about the Finance

Minister’s plans in the future. But that is the general process: start a

new program starting in contingencies until the expenses stabilize and

then shifting into base budget.

M. Lee: Because this budget process is going to take until, potentially,

the end of May, I’d just like to ask at this juncture, recognizing that

the CRT is implemented as of April 1: what is the Attorney General’s own

assessment of the state of preparedness, let’s say, for the

implementation of the changes at the CRT as of April 1?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m following it very closely, and I’m currently advised that

we’re anticipating that everything should launch as expected on April

M. Lee: I ask that question because if we look back at the history of the

CRT and, again, with the discussion around the $4.4 million to date….

The CRT continues to be — I think the Attorney General used the words,

in effect, “in a pilot, experimental phase.” It’s still transitioning to

a stable state.

In that planning to date, can the Attorney General indicate how

many disputes the CRT has administered through their process since the

initiation of the CRT itself?

Hon. D. Eby: In terms of applications for dispute resolution — disputes filed

and completed as of January 31, 2019 — 9,294 applications for dispute

resolution to the CRT. So 7,375 of those have been completed, and 1,919

of those were outstanding at December 31, 2018. And just to confirm,

those numbers are since the beginning of the tribunal accepting these

files.

M. Lee: I guess that I say that only because, to date, for the

expenditures, even in contingency of the $4.4 million, the volume level

is not the same, certainly, as what is expected after April 1. So with

that, in terms of the state of preparedness of the CRT for

that….

I do understand that it’s the view of the tribunal itself that

there will be an ability to scale up — literally, I think, that’s how it

has been described — for the tribunal. But in terms of the personnel,

for example, does the Attorney General believe, at this juncture, that

the CRT has the sufficient number of personnel, as well as training and

expertise, to see this change come about as of April 1?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that as far as the project management goes, everything

is going as expected for launch as expected April 1, which means

handling the dispute levels required of it by British Columbians if they

have disputes with ICBC.

[3:25 p.m.]

M. Lee: Well, I wanted to also ask the Attorney General as to whether

there had been consideration for any other purpose of funding through

supplementary estimates in his ministry, in terms of areas of focus,

whether it’s through access to justice or any other initiatives that the

Attorney General has focused on in the last year.

Hon. D. Eby: I can’t speak for the internal process within the Ministry of

Finance, but in terms of my understanding, it’s the $7.9 million that

the member sees in front of him that was considered for moving out of

contingency.

M. Lee: We’ve talked a bit about some of the changes that have come about

in terms of rules of court. Those were initiatives that the Attorney

General took as of February 11 to limit the number of expert reports

that individuals who are seriously injured might be able to utilize for

the purpose of making their claim. This is had the effect, of course, of

changing the rules midstream for individuals who are with counsel,

raising their claims.

The second area is that it causes those plaintiffs the need to

make a decision as to which part of their claims they will have expert

reports support for. Also, there have been changes announced by the

Attorney General in early January which had the effect of, with many of

these complex claims, ICBC withdrawing their settlement offers and

tabling in their place significantly lower offers.

I’d ask to the Attorney General what impact the Attorney General

sees in this area in terms of additional impacts on court delays, court

processes that were not set up for these rule changes in terms of — what

I understand to be the case — cancellations of trial dates or

adjournments because the capacity is not there. So when we look at

contingency spending and the current supplemental estimate process, is

there any consideration by the Attorney General in terms of the impact

of these rule changes that the Attorney General has made to British

Columbians, midstream, which arguably has limited their rights to pursue

their claims in a court of law?

Hon. D. Eby: There’s a lot there. Obviously, some of it I agree with; some of

it I don’t. But I think I can summarize the response in a couple parts.

One is….

Unfortunately, I don’t have anyone here from ICBC today to break

down some of the projected financial implications and how they went

through that actuarial process. But what I can tell the member is that I

think it’s far too soon to say what the impact of any of these changes

will be, ultimately, in the long run.

It is much like the areas that we’ve been talking about that are

in contingency funding here. The outcomes are dependent on a number of

variables that are beyond our control, including the court’s

interpretation of the rule changes, the proclivity of plaintiff counsel

to go to court or not, or to settle, or a number of different and

variable factors. I think it’s too soon to say what the impact of any of

these things will be or whether they will even have an

impact.

[3:30 p.m.]

We’re certainly hopeful that they will assist us as part of a

larger suite of reforms to make litigation more efficient and get away

from the use of adversarial experts. That’s a hopeful outcome that we

have, but we’ll see how things work out on the ground.

M. Lee: Well, I would just observe…. This is a lot of change, of course,

that’s happening, which has an impact across all claims, not just at the

CRT level.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

What is the expectation in terms of the percentage of cases that

the CRT would be asked to administer and adjudicate through its

processes versus the percentage that we’re talking about that are

affected by these rule changes?

Hon. D. Eby: Again, challenging for me to provide numbers to the member, but I

can say broadly that 80 percent of cases that are currently filed in

B.C. Supreme Court, with all of the attendant length of dispute and

attendant costs for disbursements, and so on, will no longer be in the

B.C. Supreme Court. Those disputes will be in the jurisdiction of the

civil resolution tribunal. It will be a very significant change. That

change is effective April 1.

As far as what number of claims 80 percent represents, I would

need the ICBC folks here with me to provide that number to the member.

But it is a significant shift of cases out of B.C. Supreme Court into

the tribunal process.

M. Lee: With the amount of shift that is occurring here, does the Attorney

General foresee additional budgetary expense relating to these changes,

from his ministry?

Hon. D. Eby: We certainly do anticipate additional expense. I ran the member

through the anticipated expenses in relation to the CRT’s taking on of

the ICBC expenses. There is some time spent by our executive director of

the tribunal transformation initiative within the Ministry of Attorney

General to work on this, as well as within the CRT’s base budget to

spend time working on this.

The majority of the costs associated are in contingencies, and I

ran the numbers through the projections for the next three years in

terms of caseload and anticipated expenses. They’re in contingencies

because this number is anticipated to be quite variable.

M. Lee: I just wanted to reflect on one question that came up in the

course of the Attorney General’s responses to me when I’ve referred to

these changes in the rules of court and limitations on expert reports,

the withdrawal of offers and the substitution of what some people would

term, and many would see as, lowball offers back to British Columbians —

really, effectively, pushing out the kind of potential for settlements

and causing, arguably, increased legal costs through the

courts.

The Attorney General and I would differ on that in terms of what

we would expect coming out of that. We can say that we don’t know today

what’s going to happen in the future, but certainly, we are seeing the

challenges within the court system, from what I’m hearing from many

members of the legal community.

Having said all that, I’m curious, again, as to how the Attorney

General sees his role in responding to these questions in these

supplemental estimates on these topics versus how he sees his role as

the minister responsible for ICBC.

[3:35 p.m.]

I appreciate that we have opportunities, of course, in estimates

to have that discussion. But it will just be important for me to

understand how the Attorney General separates his role in making changes

to the rules on expert reports and settlement offers — which, again,

falls within the confines of the Attorney General as the chief legal

officer for the province — versus his responsibility for ICBC, which

arguably is the beneficiary of these rule changes in the area of what

has been what the Attorney General has focused on: cost containment for

the benefit of the province but also on the backs of many vulnerable and

injured plaintiffs, individuals who are seeking that sort of

relief.

I’m curious, again, as to how he separates his two roles in that

regard.

Hon. D. Eby: Obviously, there’s a difference in perspective between the member

in the opposition and me in terms of what the best way is to resolve 80

percent of the disputes that people have with ICBC. The member clearly

thinks that B.C. Supreme Court, with all of its attendant processes and

expenses linked to it, is the best way to resolve these

disputes.

I disagree. I have about a billion reasons why I disagree with

that assessment, not just a billion reasons in terms of the cost but the

misery of waiting multiple years to have your dispute finally resolved,

to have to pay massive expenses to have your dispute with ICBC

resolved.

The CRT has had remarkable success in resolving disputes to date.

It has done a very good job of resolving these disputes. We think that

they will be able to provide fair, independent decision-making around

disputes that people have with ICBC in relation to benefits, in relation

to their entitlements under their insurance policies.

I will note that those entitlements are not going down. Those

entitlements are going up, doubling the lifetime benefit for people who

are injured in accidents from $150,000 to $300,000, increasing the wage

loss, increasing homemaking allowance, increasing the number of service

providers that can provide covered services to people who are injured in

an accident. And then, increasing the rate at which those service

providers are paid, so it’s actually the market rate for a

physiotherapist, not a fraction of what a physiotherapist charges. This

will make a real difference in the quality of life of people who are

injured in accidents.

I don’t understand why the member doesn’t support that, but he’s

entitled to that opinion. Frankly, it may explain, to some degree, how

we ended up in this mess with ICBC.

I think that the proposal to shift matters to a civil resolution

tribunal will provide expedited resolution of disputes, will provide

cost savings that allow people to have increased access to benefits,

more care. They’re going to get better faster. It will provide cost

reductions for all British Columbians that buy car insurance.

These are changes that were made in every province in Canada

except for B.C. for some reason. We are reaping the costs of the fact

that these changes weren’t made when they were recommended to the

previous government in a report. The government cut the page out of that

report before releasing it to the public, rather than just releasing the

report to the public, where it said: “Hey, you might want to make these

changes. Everyone else is. You’re facing some major costs coming down

the road.” If only they’d done that, I think we’d be in a different

situation today. They didn’t, but we are.

M. Lee: There are probably a couple of points we could come back to on

CRT, but just not to lose the question in the response…. In my

discussions, let’s say, with the Attorney General — in the course of

last year’s estimates, through the bills relating to CRT and minor

injury, the Attorney General Statutes Amendment bill in November and now

currently — it’s fair to say that I’m becoming increasingly concerned

when I see the changes that have been brought forward by the Attorney

General.

In the face of what I understood to be the case, which was the

consultation that he did with members of the legal committee, members of

the judiciary and the members of the CRT about how to deal with expert

reports, for example….

[3:40 p.m.]

In the face of that, recognizing that there should be greater

proportionality in terms of the cost, what I understand when looking at

that report…. Close to ten different recommendations were made from that

group. Yet the Attorney General went forward with a recommendation or a

path that was not part of those recommendations. That’s from my

understanding.

My concern is increasing in terms of the language used for cost

containment around ICBC versus people’s individual rights, particularly

when we’re talking about individual claimants who have very complex

claims that might involve brain injuries, spinal cord injuries, internal

injuries, psychological or chronic pain issues. These are five

categories of potential reports that experts would need to provide to a

court in order for a claimant to get what he or she needs to seek.

People who have been quite severely injured in car accidents in their

early years, for example — they can’t be cut off on that

basis.

As we’re talking about this, we all want to ensure that there’s

efficient, orderly access to justice for British Columbians. The concern

is with the on-line dispute mechanism that is being put onto British

Columbians through the CRT, with the ramp-up of significant claims that

have to go through that process, plus these rule changes.

I’m concerned about the separation of duties for the Attorney

General in his role as the chief legal officer when he goes through that

consultation process and then changes gears on British Columbians at the

outcome of that. I’m concerned as to that role versus the role that he

has as the minister responsible for ICBC.

That is, I think, evident in the course of these supplemental

estimates, in terms of his responses. That’s the reason why I’m raising

this question at this time. I think it’s fundamental to the kinds of

discussions I’m able to have with the Attorney General in this House, in

the course of estimates to come and the completion of these supplemental

estimates.

Again, I would invite the Attorney General, if he would please

address the question I’m raising in terms of the concern regarding the

separation of duties between, on one hand, his role as the Attorney

General, chief legal officer, versus, on the other hand, minister

responsible for ICBC.

Hon. D. Eby: I wish the member would just come out and say what his concern is,

his growing concern. I don’t understand what he’s talking about. Is he

suggesting that the reforms that have been put forward are illegal?

Well, actually, the reforms around experts are in place in the United

Kingdom and Australia — in the United Kingdom, one expert only allowed;

in Australia, no experts allowed without leave of the court.

Is he suggesting that they’re improper? Manitoba and Saskatchewan

both have car insurance systems where you’re not allowed to sue. It’s

called no-fault. You’re literally not allowed to sue. I’m struggling to

understand what the member’s concern is. I think the concern is simply

that change is being made. I don’t think that’s enough. I think you need

to say what the concern is. What is the actual concern that you

have?

The argument for change is multiple. It has many tentacles, the

argument for change. One is the fact that the non-partisan legal expert

group looking at the civil justice system in British Columbia in 2006,

the Civil Justice Reform Working Group, came together and said: “People

say that the legal system takes too long. They say that it’s too

expensive; they say that it’s too complex. We have a series of

recommendations to fix this.”

One of the categories that they identified as a major driver of

costs: expert reports — adversarial expert reports in particular, where

each side gets an expert. Those experts, because of human nature, want

to do the best for their side, and then there’s this battle of the

experts. And the judge is expected to know which expert is more

credible, which expert is more believable, on incredibly complex,

technical matters.

That’s why the U.K. and Australia moved to a model of joint

experts. That is the reform related to the court rule that the member

addressed, about eliminating experts. It doesn’t actually limit joint

experts. It’s intended to encourage the two sides to come together and

say, “This is a credible expert. We both have confidence that this

person will do a good assessment,” and then that person will provide

evidence to the court as a joint expert.

[3:45 p.m.]

You still get to have three adversarial experts as well. You still

get to have your expert, your plaintiff expert, your defence expert —

for three — and then for any additional experts, you’ve got to come

together with the other side. You’ve got to choose someone who’s

credible to both sides and have that person present the information to

the court.

The member is concerned about that approach. Okay, I hear that. I

do think that he should maybe take his concern a step further and

articulate exactly what it is about the reforms that he’s concerned

about. When we live in a country where people are literally not allowed

to sue in car accidents — that is not what is proposed here. When other

jurisdictions have totally banned experts — that is not what is proposed

here. It’s a very modest limit of three adversarial experts and then

joint experts after that.

What is it, exactly, that the concern is? I will note that we are

well away now from supplemental estimates, but I guess the member won

one on me, in the sense that I couldn’t resist responding.

M. Lee: Well, I appreciate that we’ve had a great opportunity to have

those discussions, in this House, between the Attorney General and

myself. That’s partly because, I think, of the complexity of the roles.

I will just conclude by saying that, specifically, the concern is over

the multiple roles that the Attorney General carries. One is the

responsibility to be the chief legal officer for this province, advising

the Premier and the cabinet. The role that he played during the

referendum, for example, comes to mind.

The second, of course, in no particular order, is the minister

responsible for ICBC. As these changes are coming forward, does the

Attorney General look at these changes through the lens of cost

containment, as the minister responsible for ICBC, or through the lens

of being the chief legal officer to this province, ensuring that

individuals’ rights are protected?

There is, of course, great concern in terms of the need for expert

reports, the manner in which this meat chart policy that ICBC now has….

There was a report that the Attorney General brought out in early

January or December. That was the litigation review, which showed no

systemic concern. At least, that was the headline. But clearly there was

a change by ICBC coming forward, in terms of how they managed their

litigation process.

These are the topics that, I think, are quite concerning, in terms

of the pattern right now, of the way this has been approached, in the

face of the concerns from members of the legal community. I look forward

to discussing that further with the Attorney General in estimates and at

other opportunities. I do thank the Attorney General today and the

members of the ministry staff for that opportunity to have this

discussion.

Hon. D. Eby: I can’t let go unchallenged the member’s suggestion that ICBC has

a “meat chart.” They do not have a meat chart. That is incorrect; the

member knows it’s incorrect. He shouldn’t repeat it.

That’s the end of my closing statement. I thank the member for his

questions on the supplementary estimates, and I thank my staff for

assistance.

Vote 14(S): ministry operations, $7,900,000 — approved.

The Chair: A five-minute recess, please.

The committee recessed from 3:49 p.m. to 3:57 p.m.

[J. Isaacs in the chair.]

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES:

MINISTRY OF CHILDREN

AND

FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

On Vote 18(S): ministry operations, $19,900,000.

Hon. K. Conroy: Before we go into the supplementary estimates, I ask leave of the

House that the Minister of State for Child Care can speak from, and

answer questions in, the seat in which she is in. It isn’t her regular

seat, but in order to keep us together and streamline the process, I’m

asking leave from the House for that.

Leave granted.

Hon. K. Conroy: I’d like to begin by acknowledging we are here today on the

traditional territory of Lekwungen-speaking people, including the

Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.

It’s a real honour to serve as the Minister of Children and Family

Development, working with a team that places people, families and

communities at the heart of what we do.

Before we get started, I’d like to thank the many members of the

staff who have worked tirelessly to develop policy and implement the

initiatives that we’ve launched under Childcare B.C. In particular,

thanks to my executive team that is here with us today: Allison Bond,

our Deputy Minister; Christine Massey, ADM for early years and

inclusion; Philip Twyford, ADM, finance and corporate services. The work

that they have done — and will continue to do over the coming months —

is critical to the success of our child care plan. Without them, we

would not have come as far as we have over the past 12

months.

I also want to pay tribute and acknowledge my colleague the

Minister of State, who has been tireless in her work on this file. Her

passion and dedication is also why we have gotten as far as we have this

quickly.

Our government is committed to giving families access to

affordable, quality child care throughout this province. Last February

we announced a three-year $1 billion investment through our Childcare

B.C. plan to lay the groundwork for universal child care. This plan has

last year we’ve worked tirelessly to introduce supports in each

area.

[4:00 p.m.]

Our first priority was making child care more affordable for

families. That’s why we moved quickly to introduce the child care fee

reduction initiative in April 2018, followed by the affordable child

care benefit in September. Together, these two supports can save B.C.

families up to $19,200 a year per child on the cost of child care alone,

meaning that some parents are already paying the equivalent of $10 a day

or less for child care.

This has also been a long-term problem concerning the availability

of child care in B.C., and infant and toddler spaces have been

particularly hard to find. We’ve launched several programs to support

the creation of new licensed child care spaces and bring relief to

parents right across the province.

The childcare B.C. new spaces fund provides up to $1 million for

providers to create new licensed spaces or to expand an existing child

care facility. We introduced this program in July 2018 with several key

changes over the previous major capital program, including an increase

to the amount of funding available and an end to fixed application

windows.

We also launched the childcare B.C. maintenance fund in June 2018

to help providers with the cost of unexpected and emergency repairs, to

keep their facilities safe for children and maintain licensing

standards. We’ve seen a great demand for this initiative and have funded

more than 700 individual applications to date.

Alongside the new spaces fund and the maintenance fund, we

launched the start-up grant program, also in June of 2018. This program

is helping existing unlicensed providers or those new to the child care

field to upgrade their qualifications, as well as supporting those who

may currently be working in the field at an existing provider but who

want to branch out on their own.

Essential to all of our work with child care B.C., of course, is

our providers. They are the heart of our child care system, but for too

long, they haven’t received the recognition that they deserve. We are

improving the quality of B.C.’s child care sector and delivering

improved supports to the people who are caring for our children every

day.

I’m so proud of what we’ve achieved over the last 12 months, but

we can’t rest there. We’ve made a commitment to B.C. parents, and we’re

going to keep it. The budget item we are looking at today in

supplementary items is directly related to our government’s goal of

investing in people and making life more affordable.

I’m proud to present supplementary estimates for an additional

$19.9 million for child care initiatives to support the child care fee

reduction initiative, the childcare B.C. maintenance fund and other

services. This funding will support the higher-than-expected first-year

expenditures on our programming, supporting the child care operating

funding and the child care fee reduction initiative, as well as

higher-than-anticipated uptake on the childcare maintenance

fund.

The Minister of State and I look forward to the questions about

these supplementary estimates.

L. Throness: I want to thank both ministers for appearing today to account for

their spending. I would point out that, together, they have the

fifth-largest budget among the ministries, and therefore they warrant

the closest scrutiny. So I’m going right to questions.

The first question is about detail. The supplementary estimates

describe the $19.9 million in funds as support for the child care fee

reduction initiative, the maintenance fund and other services. These

descriptions are quite broad. They’re not terribly

descriptive.

I’m wondering if the minister can break down these general

categories into their component parts, so we can see exactly how much is

planned to be spent on what. For example, what are “other services,” and

so on? Could we get as much detail from the ministers as

possible?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: To answer the first question — and thanks to the critic for the

question — the child care operating fund and the child care fee

reduction initiative have had significantly more takeup from operators

across the province than we had anticipated in the first year of this

great initiative. We’re really thrilled to report that more parents than

we originally anticipated are benefiting from the fee reduction in those

centres across the province.

That’s why we’ve also made improvements to our adjudication

process to address issues operators have identified as we continue to

listen, learn, make sure our process continues to work better and

better, also increase transparency and simplify the application

process.

The result of the work during the past year, working with

providers, is that for the operating fund and CCFRI, our budget this

year is going from its original $76.73 million to $95.63 million, which

is an increase, through these supplementary estimates, of about $18.9

million. So that’s the first item.

The second item is the child care maintenance funding, which

provides child care operators with greater financial support for

maintaining and repairing their child care facilities. The budget for

this program was originally $1.36 million, and as a result of really

good participation, higher than we had expected, the supplementary

estimate required is an increase of $1 million to support improvement in

child care facilities to improve high quality.

The total expenditure for this fiscal year is $2.36 million. So

those are the two items that we are working on for the supplementary

estimates. We’re really pleased that many British Columbian families are

benefiting from those two programs. More parents are getting the fee

reduction while we enhance the services of quality child care

services.

L. Throness: Could I ask, then, if all of those extra moneys, all of the $19.9

million, are being spent on funds that are going to parents in the fee

reduction and to providers in the child care maintenance

fund?

Hon. K. Chen: Yes, the funding will be going to support families and

providers.

L. Throness: I’m wondering about when it says “other services.” What does other

services mean in the supplementary estimates?

Hon. K. Chen: To clarify, it’s the two items that are for the supplementary

estimates. So the two items that we’ve mentioned.

L. Throness: These are estimates, which I think implies that they are planned

future expenditures. Has any of this money already been spent? If not,

when will it be spent?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: This amount is based on the current expenditure and also our

forecast expenditure that’s going to go on till the end of March. We

want to make sure this funding is available to support the needs of the

two programs.

L. Throness: The minister didn’t answer my question. My question was: has any

of the money been spent?

Hon. K. Chen: Yes, it has.

L. Throness: I’m wondering about the purpose, then, of supplementary estimates.

An estimate is a request. Is she asking for permission or forgiveness?

How much has been spent so far without the permission of the

House?

Hon. K. Conroy: Actually, supplementary estimates are a normal government

practice. They were very common in B.C. until a legislative change a

decade ago ended their use while B.C. maintained an operating debt.

Government eliminated that operating debt, the first time in 40 years,

as announced in the second quarterly report last November. Our fiscal

picture is strong, with the highest GDP growth in the country and the

lowest unemployment rate. So now it means we can put these resources to

work on priority initiatives that help out people in the

province.

Also, supplementary estimates provide an opportunity for

government to fund existing programs, or parts of programs, through the

ministry appropriations rather than using the contingencies vote.

Sometimes a contingencies vote is used to cover program costs, but now

that we’re close to the end of the fiscal year and we have a high degree

of certainty about the program costs, we can move some of that program

funding out of contingencies, out of that envelope, into the ministry

appropriations. And in these cases, this is a shift in funding sources

for these programs.

L. Throness: Forgive me. I’m a fairly new MLA, so I don’t really understand

this because this is the first supplementary estimates, as the minister

stated, in about a decade.

I’m just wondering about her legal authority to spend money that

has not been approved by the House. I understand that this may be a

practice, but on what legal authority does the minister spend this

money?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I want to make it clear to the member that we have not exceeded

our authorized appropriation in any way, shape or form. In fact, because

of the strong economy, because of the position that our government finds

itself in, we are able to utilize the supplementary estimates, as

opposed to using contingencies, which is a benefit to all the programs

and to the people that are accessing them.

L. Throness: I’ll move on to another question. Last year I asked if the

minister had delegated any authority to the minister of state. Has she

delegated any authorities in the past year?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: This answer is no. I haven’t delegated any statutory authority

decision-making to the minister of state.

L. Throness: The Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act, given that

the minister is solely in charge, requires that the minister’s salary be

reduced by 20 percent for overspending her budget. Will the minister

receive a reduction in pay for going over her budget this

year?

Hon. K. Conroy: The answer is no, because our budget is in line. It’s not been

exceeded in any way, shape or form. So the answer to the member’s

question is no.

L. Throness: I understand that. There may be a legal explanation for that, but

the fact is that the minister’s budget was set a year ago. She’s gone

over her budget, so could she explain to the public why she shouldn’t

receive some kind of sanctions, some kind of sign of disapproval for

overspending by nearly $20 million? That’s why we have supplementary

estimates.

Hon. K. Conroy: I understand that the member doesn’t understand supplementary

estimates, because they haven’t been utilized in the times he was

sitting on this side of the House. Because you need a balanced operating

budget in order to do that, and for the first time in 40 years, we

actually have that in this province. That’s why we are going ahead with

supplementary estimates.

Just to walk the member through, we have not exceeded our budget.

It’s in line. It’s in place. We have not exceeded. We are using

supplementary estimates instead of contingency funds. Contingency funds

are part of our budget, part of our approved, authorized budget that was

authorized this time last year. So those funds are part of our budget

that we are not using. We are using the supplementary estimates

instead.

[4:25 p.m.]

I want to comment on the member’s comment that British Columbians

would want to know about this, but I think what’s even more important is

we are just so incredibly pleased that we have been able to benefit so

many British Columbians’ lives with this program. There’s not a week

that goes by when either myself or the minister of state is not

approached by someone on the street to tell us how much this program has

benefited them, how much of a difference this has made to families’

lives. They can finally start to afford things like saving a down

payment for a home, saving to buy a car.

I got a hug the other day in Safeway because a woman said she can

finally buy good-quality food. She can buy vegetables and fruit for her

kids, and she was so happy about it. I think people in B.C. want to know

that. They want to know that these supplementary estimates are going to

help us to continue to provide those services to people in B.C.,

continue to provide the fee reductions, continue to expand the spaces

that we need in this province. I think that’s what people want to hear.

Why are we doing supplementary estimates? So that we can continue to

benefit families and children in this province.

L. Throness: As I understand it, there were contingency funds available, but

the minister chose not no use those contingency funds and instead came

back to the House for more. Can the minister explain why she didn’t use

contingency funds if they were available?

Hon. K. Conroy: Once again, I’ll explain that supplementary estimates are a very

normal government practice. They were common in B.C. until a legislative

change about a decade ago that ended their use while B.C. maintained an

operating debt. As government, we’ve eliminated that operating

debt.

For the first time in 40 years, our fiscal picture is very strong.

We no longer have an operating debt. We have, actually, the highest GDP

in the country and the lowest unemployment. This means we can put these

resources to work for people. Our government knows that investing in

B.C. and in the people of B.C. and tackling these hard programs is the

best way to build a strong economy and a more secure future.

We’ve been hearing from parents: what better way to build a strong

economy than by investing in child care? It’s investing in child care so

parents can go back to work — to ensure that they can go to work and

invest back into the province. The people we’re talking to aren’t

jetting off to some foreign place, taking holidays. They are spending

their money back in the community. They are taking the money they are

saving and spending it right back in the community. That’s why

supplementary estimates are so important.

They also provide an opportunity for government to fund existing

programs or parts of programs through the ministry appropriations rather

than through the contingencies vote. Sometimes the contingencies vote is

used to cover program costs. But again, now that we’re close to the end

of the fiscal year and we have a very high degree of certainty about

program costs, we can move some of that program funding out of the

contingencies envelope and into ministry appropriations.

In this case, it’s a shift in funding sources for these programs.

Again, it’s an excellent way, through supplementary estimates, to ensure

we are supporting families in this province, ensure we’re putting more

money into parents’ pockets, make sure we are increasing spaces so that

we can make more child care for parents in the province.

[4:30 p.m.]

L. Throness: I’m confused by what the minister is saying. When you strip away

the rhetoric, she’s saying that she had the money. She had contingency

funds. They were available, but she chose not to use them. She’s letting

that money sit in the bank, I guess, or in the ledger of the ministry,

and she comes back to the House asking for more.

I’m simply wondering if she could explain why she didn’t want to

use those contingency funds and instead wanted to go with supplementary

estimates. Why was it necessary that she come back to the House for more

money?

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Again, I want to reiterate that supplementary estimates is a

normal practice as long as you do not have an operating debt, which we

no longer have — just to reiterate that.

I probably am quoting our esteemed Attorney General, a lawyer who

would understand the law and legal implications, who said that

supplementary estimates actually improve transparency. It gives an

opportunity for members, such as the member, to question where we’re

going with the spending and why we’re spending it.

We are spending it to improve the lives of British Columbians. We

have a transparency here now that we can do this. We’re taking this

additional almost $20 million to ensure that we’re providing better

services for British Columbians.

L. Throness: Well, it’s amazing to me that the minister says that she wants to

be transparent, but she refuses to answer the question. So let me pose

the question in a different way. Will the contingency funds that she did

not use go back to general revenue then, or will it be carried over into

next year’s budget?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Again, supplementary estimates do provide transparency. They

provide transparency about the programs that are detailed for these

supplementary estimates. Actually, the minister of state and I look

forward to the member’s questions about the programs that are being

funded through the supplementary estimates.

L. Throness: You know, I’m just stunned that the minister won’t answer my

question. Anyway, I’ll continue on. I’ll soldier on here.

The minister would call it unanticipated demand, and I would call

it going over budget. When did the minister become aware that there was

unanticipated demand and that she would choose — not need, but choose —

to bring forward the supplementary estimates?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: I’m very happy to say and I think it’s important to point out that

our two programs for which we’re doing the supplementary estimates here

today are going very, very well since we launched the Childcare B.C.

program.

The first one is the child care fee reduction program, for which

we work with providers so that they can join this program. It’s

non-income-tested, and it provides a fee reduction of up to $350 per

child. Many, many families — now we have over 52,000 children — are

benefiting from those spaces. Like the minister for MCFD has mentioned,

that means a lot of parents will be able to put more money into their

housing costs, putting quality food on the table and making sure that

they can balance their living costs. It means a lot to many

families.

We’re really happy to say that while, originally, we budgeted at

about 70 percent intake for this program, now it’s at 88 percent. This

means that this new program — the first time in B.C. that we’re working

with providers to lower parent fees, the first time that we’re expecting

a significant decline of our affordability measures — is going really

well. I think it’s good news for all those families who are benefiting

from those spaces.

The 12 percent difference, the overwhelmingly positive feedback in

the enrolment that we’re getting…. Each space means one more child and

one more family is getting some relief, finally, from their high-cost

child care fees. They’ve struggled for many, many years with the high

cost of living, high cost of child care, high cost of housing. Now they

can have a little bit of room to breathe. I’m really happy that we’re

able to do these supplementary estimates to be able to ensure that we

continue to support those families.

The second item, of course, is the maintenance fund, which is

another important way that we are supporting child care providers and

educators, who work so hard every single day to support our young

children and families in child care spaces. Currently, we have approved

funding for 716 applications. The intake has been, overwhelmingly,

really positive, which means an extra $1 million that is going into this

program. Those spaces will mean that we’re supporting providers, whether

they’re private or non-profit, to maintain the health and safety and

ensure the quality of those spaces.

One provider, for example, told me that she has always been hoping

to get some money. She’s a small, family-based provider hoping to get

some funding to support her to renovate her floor, because she started

to get concerned about safety issues. Then, because of this funding,

she’s able to do that, so children can enjoy high-quality early learning

in a safe environment. We’re really proud of those intakes, and those

dollars are really going to benefit providers, educators, children and

families in our communities.

L. Throness: Well, I appreciate the speech, but I don’t know if the minister

even heard my question, because she didn’t address it at all. I would

point out to the House that she has not answered as to when she became

aware that the demand was unanticipated and that they had erred in

anticipating demand.

The minister spends about $150 million a month. It is an avalanche

of money that flows out of her ministry. My question is: when she began

to realize that the demand was unanticipated, that they had made a

mistake, that the integrity of her budget was in question, what concrete

steps did she take to instruct her officials to strive to bring the

budget under control and to manage that within the envelope that the

House approved a year ago?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: This is really the first time — after parents and families have

been struggling with the child care chaos, with the high cost of child

care — that we are working together with providers, through this fee

reduction initiative, to make sure that we can help parents to provide

the first relief ever and lower parent fees for the first time in B.C.’s

history, through working with providers.

The fee reduction program. Because it’s a new program, we’ve been

closely managing and monitoring this program really well. We’re learning

along the way, through our conversations and engagement with providers.

It’s been a huge success.

I remember that when the program was first out, the member

opposite was very concerned about low intake. Now we’ve exceeded our

expectations. It’s 88 percent of the providers that are joining the

program, close to 90 percent. There are some providers, the Indigenous

providers, that don’t charge a fee at all and that have not been in the

program, but we’re working with them to make sure that we continue to

fund the fee reduction initiative to support families. Every space that

we’re funding means that one more family will be able to get that extra

relief that they have been awaiting for many years.

I think it is an important celebration. We are working within our

budget. I hope the member opposite is not suggesting that — with this

overwhelmingly good demand from parents and providers to join this

program — we should stop funding this program.

[4:50 p.m.]

If the member truly believes in investing in children and

families, I hope these supplementary estimates are really a celebration

of the success of how this program, for the first year, has gone so

well. We need to continue this work to support all families and children

that are benefiting from those two programs.

L. Throness: We are truly ships that pass in the night on this discussion,

because I’m asking questions and not getting any answers or even a

remote response to what I’m saying. I find that alarming, and I want to

tell you why. I think these supplementary estimates really bring into

question the management practices of the government.

Let me go through a recap of what we’ve learned so far. As soon as

the operating debt is eliminated, the supplementary estimates come out

within a few months. They’re not small. They’re $375 million. That’s

almost 1 percent of the total 2018 budget.

Next, the ministry is spending without permission. They’ve already

started spending, even before the supplementary estimates were put out.

Although the estimates for 2018 were approved by this House, these ones

have not been. But they’re already spending, and they don’t know how

much, or maybe they’re not telling how much. I don’t know.

Next, they’ve asked permission for more money when they didn’t

need that money, when they’ve already said that they have contingency

funds in place. But they’ve come out asking for supplementary estimates

anyway. Then they won’t say what they’re doing with their existing

contingency funds. They refuse to say whether they’re giving them back

to general revenue, whether they’re transferring them to next year or

whether they’re just sitting there, nor why they didn’t use

them.

Finally, they refuse to answer whether they took any steps to

control the overage, even though they’re spending $150 million a month,

which is an enormous fiduciary responsibility.

My question is this: has the minister built any contingency funds

into her 2019-2020 budget so that this doesn’t happen again?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I just want to clarify this for the member to make sure he

understands it. Contingencies are held in the Ministry of Finance.

Supplementary estimates provide an opportunity for government to fund

existing programs or parts of a program through ministry appropriations,

rather than through the contingencies vote. This offers transparency so

that the opposition can understand where money is being spent. So this

is about transparency and being upfront with where money is being

spent.

L. Throness: I actually suspect that they wanted the contingency funds for

spending in other areas, and that’s why they decided to go to

supplementary estimates. Regardless, I’m going to move on here and

target the fee reduction and just talk about the fee reduction

initiative for a moment.

The minister or her officials knew very well a year ago, when the

fee reduction program began, how many eligible spaces there would be.

She could have set a maximum budget for that, so that if there was 100

percent buy-in to the program, then all those spaces could have been

funded in the budget. But perhaps she expected that not every provider

would opt into the program. What was her assumption for opt-in rates

when she set the budget for the fee reduction initiative one year

ago?

Hon. K. Chen: We are very thrilled that this is a new program. The fee reduction

is a program to help parents lower parent fees. In only a year, the

program has been overwhelmingly very successful. The 70 percent intake

that we set…. Because this is a new program, we want to encourage

providers to join, to help us to work together to make sure we reduce

child care fees.

When we first started this work as a new government with a new

program, one of the biggest challenges we had was that child care was

never a priority for the former government for many, many years. This is

the first time we’re pulling the data, pulling the information together

to work with providers.

We set that as a number to hope that we’ll be able to have the

majority of providers join this program. It is an option, not mandatory

program. Providers can join and get extra support for their operating

funds. We’re providing more benefits, not just for families but also for

providers that we work together with. I’m really happy to say, through

these supplementary estimates, that our current intake of 88 percent

means 11,000 more spaces than we expected. Our getting this fee

reduction is overwhelmingly a good success, and those 11,000 spaces

represent 11,000 children.

[5:00 p.m.]

Like the Minister of Children and Family Development has

mentioned, every family has a story. Every family means that when they

are getting this relief, they’ll be able to pay more for their

groceries. They’ll be able to pay more for their housing and

transportation costs. I think this money is significantly supporting

families, children and British Columbians in our communities.

L. Throness: The minister assumed that only 70 percent of providers would opt

in. She was therefore anticipating opposition. I can’t imagine not being

able to give away 19 million bucks. But the reason she was not able to

give that away is because it was a coercive program. So they must have

assumed that 30 percent of providers would not opt in. I think it’s sad

that they would do that.

My next question is…. So 88 percent of child care spaces have

opted in. Just so I know, what percentage of eligible providers does

this represent?

Hon. K. Chen: The eligible providers with the spaces to choose to opt in is

about 60,089 spaces. The ones that applied to opt in, with our latest

data, is 54,498 spaces.

L. Throness: I thank the minister, but that wasn’t my question.

My question is: what percentage of eligible providers does this

represent? Does the minister not know that?

Hon. K. Chen: I hope I understand the member opposite’s question.

If you’re talking about the number of providers, we have it as

organizations that we have. The actual eligible organizations to opt

into this program is 2,988 organizations. The ones that have applied to

opt in as organizations is 2,746 organizations and providers. The

percentage of those organizations that have applied to opt in is 92

percent of the organizations.

L. Throness: So is the extra amount of $19 million, or nearly that, being

requested on the assumption that 100 percent of providers — and their

spaces, of course — will opt in? If not, what is her prevailing

assumption now in making up the supplementary estimates?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: This funding would accommodate this very successful program until

the end of the year, which is the end of March.

L. Throness: Again, I would point out that the minister didn’t answer my

question. But let me soldier on.

The child care maintenance fund is out of money, and only

emergency applications for repairs are being accepted, which is the

reason why we’re adding $1 million. Will these estimates replenish the

fund and be able to address all the applications that are before it and

allow it to be opened up again? When will that money be spent? Will that

be spent in this fiscal year?

Hon. K. Chen: Yes, the funding is to accommodate the overwhelmingly successful

demand for this year. Now the program is only open for emergencies. When

I said “for this year,” it’s the end of the fiscal year, just to

clarify.

L. Throness: I’ve inquired with some former ministers, and they tell me that

there’s always some slippage in ministers’ budgets. Does the minister

forecast any unspent dollars, any slippage in her budget this year that

would go back into general revenue? If so, how much is that

slippage?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I just want to tell the member that we carefully manage our

budget. Based on current spending and projections, we will fully utilize

the budget to meet the needs of children and families right across the

province. We are not anticipating any slippage.

L. Throness: Sometimes permission can be given from the centre for carryovers

in the next fiscal year. Are there any funds in the minister’s budget

that she’s planning to carry over into fiscal 2019-2020?

Hon. K. Conroy: The answer would be no.

L. Throness: At times, in the public service, officials will come to the end of

the fiscal year — and we all know about that — in the month of March.

They will race to spend their entire budget before the funds disappear

at the end of the fiscal year. We call it March Madness. Can the

minister assure us that there will be no accelerated amount of $20

million or more that will be needlessly spent in the month of March —

which begins tomorrow, by the way — that instead could have been used to

manage this overage?

Hon. K. Conroy: The answer would be no.

L. Throness: Thanks to the minister. How can the minister assure us that she

will not have unanticipated demand again next year, perhaps by the same

amount, perhaps by much more? Has she planned for an overall $20 million

increase in the program areas covered by these supplementary estimates

for next year?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: I am more than happy to discuss this in more detail for our next

year’s estimates. When the member opposite asks the question again,

you’ll see an increase for our next fiscal, and then we’ll be able to

provide more details in those discussions.

L. Throness: I know I’ve been inquiring quite intensely of both ministers,

because this is a brand-new thing. There’s never been a child care

program in the way that the government is doing it.

The minister’s budget for the coming year has risen to $2.065

billion. That’s an increase of $272 million in a single year, which

includes the planned $180 million increase. Then she got another $92

million, which is a 15 percent increase in just one year.

The minister has just begun to spend. Last year’s budget predicted

that her ministry will spend $182 million in the present fiscal year on

child care alone. The supplementary estimates are in child care alone,

so the ministry’s gone over the child care portion of her budget by $20

million, or 11 percent, in one year. But next year she will have almost

double that amount to spend in child care alone. That’s $357 million

plus whatever small other bits that she received in the budget. Is it

still correct that she will spend, in the upcoming fiscal year, on child

care alone, $357 million?

Hon. K. Chen: I have to say I’m more than proud and honoured to be able to do

this work, because child care, for the first time, is the provincial

government’s top priority — after families have been struggling for

years and years with the cost of child care, not being able to access

quality child care spaces, when providers and educators are struggling

in the system, with low wages and lack of support. This is the first

time this is a top priority, and we’re proud of this priority, as we

have shown in the support for the sector and for families in

B.C.

In terms of next year’s estimates and the next fiscal year, I’m

more than happy to have a discussion in more detail when we do next

year’s estimates.

L. Throness: Well, $357 million is an enormous sum of money. The year after

that, her budget is set right now to be $464 million. I’ll assume that

that’s the case, but I’ll ask in estimates, as she says.

Both ministers are managing a suite of new programs with many

unknowns in the future. There’s the possibility of variation in demand

and supply, and there are a thousand details yet to be worked

out.

If the ministry overspends by 11 percent over the next two

forecast years, the taxpayer will be dinged with another $90 million in

supplementary estimates, and when you forecast that out to when the

government completes its child care plan, which is supposed to cost $1.5

billion a year — but that’s a ten-year-old estimate; it’s probably much

more than that — a similar overage would amount to about $150 million a

year.

My final question to the minister: what extra checks or processes,

what concrete steps is the minister taking now to stop the coming

hemorrhage of taxpayer dollars, to help her to get control of a runaway

budget in coming years?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: We’re going to continue to monitor the progress of all of our

programs and, at the same time, continue to be fiscally responsible like

we’ve done during the past year while we invest in children and families

in B.C.

L. Throness: I wonder if I could ask one thing for clarification. The Minister

of State for Child Care talked about 60,089 spaces. I didn’t get to

write all of that down because she said it quite quickly. So there are

60,089 spaces, and there are 54,000 something and that represents

something. Could the minister clarify that for me?

Hon. K. Chen: I think what the member opposite is referring to is when I was

talking about the fee reduction program and, in terms of spaces, that

the actual eligible spaces to opt into this program is 60,089 spaces.

And the spaces that have applied to opt in to the fee reduction is

54,498 spaces. We’re more than happy to provide a detailed report to the

member opposite for his information.

L. Throness: Actually, I’m not looking forward to a great deal more detail. I’m

not too optimistic.

The House Leader suggested that we talk for a little longer, so

let me ask a couple more questions.

Interjection.

L. Throness: It’s okay; we don’t need to? Then that’s all.

Vote 18(S): ministry operations, $19,900,000 — approved.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion

of the supplementary estimates 2018-2019 of the Ministry of Children and

Family Development, the Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills and

Training and the Ministry of the Attorney General and ask leave to sit

again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:23 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[5:25 p.m.]

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported resolutions, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolutions, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

morning.

The House adjourned at 5:30 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES:

MINISTRY OF CITIZENS’

SERVICES

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); D. Routley in the

chair.

The committee met at 1:36 p.m.

On Vote 19(S): ministry operations, $50,000,000.

The Chair: Does the minister have an opening statement?

Hon. J. Sims: I do. Thank you very much.

Good morning — or good afternoon, everyone. The morning just flew

by. First, I would like to acknowledge the territory of the Lekwungen

peoples, including the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.

I would also like to acknowledge ministry staff that are here

today, led by my deputy minister, Jill Kot, and thank them for the

amazing work they have done to prepare for estimates and also for the

ongoing work they do each and every single day to make sure that the

ministry operations run smoothly.

I’m honoured to be here today to introduce the supplementary

estimates for the Ministry of Citizens’ Services. Supplementary

estimates are a normal government practice. Up until a decade ago, they

were common in B.C., but they ended while our province maintained an

operating debt. For the first time in 40 years, I’m proud to say we’ve

eliminated this debt, and our fiscal picture is strong. We have the

highest GDP in the country and the lowest unemployment rate. This is

good news for British Columbians. It means we have additional resources

to help more people in our province.

Our government knows that investing in the people of B.C. and

tackling the hard problems are the best ways to build a strong economy

and a more secure future. Every day our government delivers the services

British Columbians rely on, and the engine powering this is the Ministry

of Citizens’ Services.

My ministry is both the face and backbone of government. From

front-end representatives at our 65 Service B.C. centres to our back-end

cybersecurity engineers to our procurement specialists, from our staff

managing provincial buildings to those helping drive connectivity

investments, we are the centre of where service excellence,

transformation and innovation are happening within our

government.

As the need for services expands across government, so does the

work of this ministry. The ministry’s budget for 2018-19 was $524

million, which was revised to $580 million. Due to our government’s

prudent fiscal management, we’re now able to do more for British

Columbians.

As the 2018 fiscal year comes to an end, my ministry has been

allocated an additional $50 million to further expand high-speed

Internet services throughout British Columbia. This will benefit people

living in approximately 200 rural and Indigenous communities in this

province. The broadband service speeds will align with the new CRTC

standard of a minimum of 50 megabits per second.

[1:40 p.m.]

This investment is an important step in achieving our government’s

commitment to true, lasting reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. It

will help ensure Indigenous communities have the technologies they need

to participate in the digital economy and are better able to access

health services and educational opportunities. This funding will also

help government leverage the new CRTC broadband fund, which supports a

wide variety of connectivity projects.

I’m pleased to say that my ministry has had great success working

with our federal partners and the private sector to expand connectivity

in our province. We’ve been able to leverage funds from our connecting

B.C. program and work collaboratively with our partners on behalf of

rural and Indigenous communities. This approach means our dollars go

further and benefit more people. We will also continue to work with

local governments to help them maximize the potential of high-speed

Internet so they can achieve greater economic, social and environmental

benefits in their communities.

Working to connect all British Columbians to affordable high-speed

Internet, regardless of where they live, is a priority for me and my

ministry. I’m incredibly proud of our staff and the progress we have

made so far. Since we formed government, projects to improve broadband

are underway or completed in 417 communities, including 74 Indigenous,

which is about 43,000 households. I’ve seen firsthand the positive

impact of high-speed Internet in communities, towns and cities

throughout the province.

In Trail, new digital technologies are helping reduce the

environmental impact of manufacturing and create more innovative local

companies. By acting on the community’s desire to live sustainably and

working with local entrepreneurs, Metal Tech Alley is creating

high-value products from what would previously have been manufacturing

waste. The result? High-paying jobs, environmental benefits and economic

growth.

To help innovative companies grow, Selkirk College in the West

Kootenays is creating new programs so students can develop digital and

entrepreneurial skills and young people can get good-paying jobs closer

to home. Connectivity is helping many B.C. communities transition from

resource-based economies to economies that are diversified and

growing.

I’m proud to be part of a government that is focused on making

life better for people in our province. Our investments in connectivity

are opening doors, bringing people together, providing new opportunities

and creating local jobs. Our government is charting a path to a more

affordable, balanced and hopeful vision for all British

Columbians.

Now I look forward to taking your questions.

S. Thomson: I appreciate the opportunity to ask some questions here. Thank

you, Minister, for the opening statement, and welcome to all the staff

that are supporting.

First, I want to send appreciation for the briefing that was

provided to us the other day on the preparation for overall estimates. I

see today kind of as a bit of a warm-up for the main estimates, because

we’re dealing with a specific supplemental to the estimates here. But

there certainly will be some questions around that.

I think I do need to make a comment to begin with. The minister

commented that this is a normal procedure. We went away from it for

awhile, w