Fifth Session, 41st Parliament

(2020) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, July 22, 2020

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 346

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Tributes

Gerry Reimer

Hon. C. James

J. Tegart

Dave Ravenhill

Hon. R. Fleming

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Gerry Reimer

A. Olsen

Presentation of Estimates

Supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2021

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M205 — Building Amendment Act, 2020

S. Cadieux

Bill M206 — Home-Based Craft Food 2.0 Act

I. Paton

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Sm̓algya̱x language

revitalization

J. Rice

Fraser Canyon highway

J. Tegart

Virtual music festivals and events in Maple Ridge and Mission

B. D’Eith

Infrastructure in Cultus Lake area

L. Throness

Community response to COVID-19

J. Routledge

Response to opioid crisis

A. Olsen

Oral Questions

Impact of changes to workers compensation system

J. Johal

Hon. H. Bains

M. Polak

Forest management practices and sustainability

A. Olsen

Hon. D. Donaldson

Protection of old-growth forests

A. Olsen

Hon. D. Donaldson

Impact of changes to workers compensation system

S. Bond

Hon. H. Bains

M. de Jong

Tabling Documents

Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, report, Invisible

Children: A Descriptive Analysis of Injury and Death Reports for

Métis Children and Youth in British Columbia, 2015 to 2017

Ministerial Statements

Allan Young

Hon. M. Farnworth

M. de Jong

Petitions

Hon. D. Eby

Tabling Documents

Civil resolution tribunal, annual report, 2016-17

Civil resolution tribunal, annual report, 2017-18

Civil resolution tribunal, annual report, 2019-20

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 14 — Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2020 (continued)

T. Stone

Hon. S. Robinson

Reporting of Bills

Bill 14 — Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2020

WEDNESDAY, JULY 22, 2020

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: M. Hunt.

Tributes

GERRY REIMER

Hon. C. James: I wish to acknowledge the passing of a legislative employee, a

former reporter, a father and a friend, Gerry Reimer. Gerry passed away

peacefully on May 8 after a brief but courageous battle with

cancer.

Gerry worked in Hansard broadcasting since 2013, following a long

career in television broadcasting with CBC, CTV, Shaw, Global and APTN,

and managing his own film production company. Gerry had an unreserved,

outgoing personality and a deep-seated sense of caring, friendship and

fairness that made him friends wherever he went. He was always there to

help anyone, from a co-worker to even a stranger on the street, in

whatever way he could, even if it meant a smile or a quick

joke.

I never passed by Gerry without remembering that smile; without

Gerry stopping to ask how you were doing, how your family was doing, how

your friends were doing. Then he’d take a quick minute to talk about

whatever cause he felt was important on that day to him and to the

people of his community.

Gerry is going to be missed by so many whose paths crossed with

his. He is survived by his children, Megan and Liam; his parents, Weldon

and Virginia; and his brothers, Randy, Don and Brad.

J. Tegart: I would just like to echo the words of the Finance Minister. It is

hard to lose a colleague and a friend. Our hearts go out to Hansard

today. Most people don’t know what Hansard does, but I can assure you

that MLAs know that Hansard makes us look good, makes us look

professional and does everything they can to make sure that the people’s

work is done in a transparent way.

[1:40 p.m.]

To Gerry’s family and friends, to his co-workers, our deepest and

sincere sympathy. I know he will be missed.

DAVE RAVENHILL

Hon. R. Fleming: I’d like to take a moment in the House today to pay tribute to an

education and sports hero from greater Victoria. Dave Ravenhill was a

husband, a father, a gifted teacher, a coach and a former professional

soccer player who died suddenly on July 20 this week.

Dave cofounded a legendary high school sports aca­demy in

school district 61, the Reynolds Centre for Soccer Excellence. He was a

proud member of both the Gorge soccer club and the UVic alumni team. He

played professionally for the Victoria Vistas in the Canadian Soccer

League, and he played in matches against teams like Chelsea FC and

Dundee United.

Dave gave himself selflessly and wholeheartedly to his students

and athletes. They called him Raves. That’s how he was known. He was

everything we could hope for in a teacher. He was generous, kind,

encouraging and grounded by deep integrity.

Tributes pour in from his former students, who are in shock just

two days after his sudden death. One theme emerges in those tributes

that we’re seeing. They credit Dave with developing their character, for

which sports was just a vehicle to do so.

There are so many highlights of Dave’s decades in the teaching

profession that illustrate his commitment to his students. I’ll offer

just one. Last month, of course, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Dave made

and organized house visits to ensure that student achievement awards and

ceremonies were delivered in grand style with a teacher parade, school

mascot, ceremonies and balloons, celebrating the students on their front

lawns with the Reynolds teaching staff.

Reynolds is asking anyone who wants to send a message to Dave’s

family to drop letters in the mailbox at the front door of the school

between July 23 and August 7. Given the health and safety measures

around the pandemic, Dave’s family is holding a private memorial

service. The Reynolds School community is planning for a much larger

celebration when it’s safe to do so.

Dave Ravenhill is gone far too soon at the age of just 57. He has

left a lasting legacy of passion and excellence for generations of

students who were so lucky to call him teacher, coach and

mentor.

On behalf of the Legislative Assembly, I ask that this House send

our deepest condolences to Dave’s family, his friends, his colleagues

and students at Reynolds secondary school, in Saanich, and to the entire

soccer community of greater Victoria.

To Dave’s friends and family, I say: “You’ll never walk

alone.”

May Dave rest peacefully forever.

Introductions by Members

J. Thornthwaite: I have three guests that are actually in Victoria, but because today

is today, they’re not physically in the building, unfortunately. I was able

to meet them earlier for lunch. I’d like Victoria and the House to please

make my friends from North Vancouver very welcome: Cheryl McBride and Linda

Sebo and Susan Simone.

J. Sims: I want to introduce two very special young women in my life. When I

became a mother, I really thought there wasn’t going to be a delight greater

than that till my first granddaughter was born, Emily Sims. When I held her

in my arms, instant love. Then, of course, when Emily gave me my

great-granddaughter, the delight was even greater.

This week they have joined me in Victoria — not actually in the

Legislature, but they are in the precinct. I’ve been able to spend some time

with them in the evenings.

Please help me welcome two of my favourite women to

Victoria.

Tributes

GERRY REIMER

A. Olsen: I also want to rise to honour the passing of Gerry, as my

colleagues have done. I want to acknowledge that he also had an impact

on the B.C. Green caucus, as we would run into each other often in the

hallways.

I wanted to raise my hands to all of the people in Hansard for the

loss here in the legislative precinct and to acknowledge the fine words

of my colleagues here from the other two parties.

[1:45 p.m.]

Presentation of Estimates

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES FOR THE

FISCAL YEAR ENDING

MARCH 31, 2021

Hon. C. James presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: supplementary estimates (No. 2) for the fiscal year

ending March 31, 2021.

Hon. C. James moved that the said message and the estimates

accompanying the same be referred to the Committee of Supply.

Motion approved.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M205 — BUILDING

AMENDMENT ACT,

S. Cadieux presented a bill intituled Building Amendment Act,

S. Cadieux: I move that a bill intituled Building Amend­ment Act, 2020,

of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be

introduced and read a first time now.

In doing so, I’d like to quote Thea Kurdi. She’s a Canadian expert

in accessible design.

“The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and our human rights

code were changed 35 years ago. The fact that our national building code

since then has created the accessible housing crisis that we face, not

just in British Columbia but across the country. Anyone interested in

sustainable design will know that if we look at our demographics, there

“For housing, that not only means ensuring all housing is built to

be accessible or, at least, adaptable so that it’s affordable to

renovate as owners’ or new owners’ needs change. It also means it 100

percent needs to be visitable so that all our loved ones, neighbours,

friends, business associates and family with disabilities can come over

for a meeting, a cup of coffee, a barbecue, to babysit or for a

visit.”

I know the House will know that I’ve said many of these things

before. Without action on the part of the provincial Legislature, this

shortage is only going to grow. One size doesn’t fit all. It’s clear

from the numbers of disabled people who can’t find accessible housing

and from the high demand for grants to fit adaptations to inaccessible

homes that this continues.

This bill would require that all new multi-unit housing built

required to meet the criteria for “accessible” in the Canada standards

act,

section B651-18, or be adaptable or be visitable.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

S. Cadieux: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M205, Building Amendment Act, 2020, introduced, read a first

time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M206 — HOME-BASED

CRAFT FOOD 2.0

ACT

I. Paton presented a bill intituled Home-Based Craft Food 2.0

Act.

I. Paton: I move that the bill intituled Home-Based Craft Food 2.0 Act,

notice of which has been given in my name on the order paper, be

introduced and read for the first time now.

Around our province are farmers, families and individuals who seek

greater opportunity to supplement their income and start new businesses,

many through the production and sale of low-risk food products right

from their own homes and farms. The act has been updated to include the

ability to make and sell temperature-controlled food, provided the

increased FoodSafe course is completed, bringing even more opportunity

for farming families to share their products.

At present, home-based food products can only be sold at a farmers

market. If someone is hoping to sell their products anywhere else, they

are subject to strict rules and regulations that a small operation would

not be able to meet.

The Home-Based Craft Food 2.0 Act would change this, allowing

small, home-based businesses making food products — like jams, candy,

pies, pickled vegetables, sausages, pizza, honey or bread, among other

things — to sell throughout the year across B.C., simply by obtaining a

local business permit and a FoodSafe certification. This legislation is

about opening up new opportunities and enabling farmers to increase

their incomes by using products from their own farms or their

neighbours’.

[1:50 p.m.]

This bill is about fostering new microbusinesses that could grow

and create value-added opportunities for farmers and all British

Columbians without impacting valuable farmland. In light of the COVID-19

pandemic and its impact on employment, it is more important than ever to

support microbusinesses that are good for the economy, good for farmers

and good for B.C.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

I. Paton: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M206, Home-Based Craft Food 2.0 Act, introduced, read a first

time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Sm̓algya̱x LANGUAGE

REVITALIZATION

J. Rice: Ama Sah. Good afternoon. As the members of this chamber

know, B.C. is home to dozens of different Indigenous languages. But like

much of the Indigenous culture across Canada, these languages have been

victims of centuries of colonial efforts to eradicate them in favour of

in my riding, are now fighting to keep their languages alive for future

generations. Most are doing so through traditional education, their

nation or through B.C.’s public school system, but some are using

technology and other innovations to ensure the survival of their

language.

Brendan Eshom is a recent high school graduate from Prince

Rupert’s Charles Hays Secondary School. He is a member of the Gitga’at

First Nation and a student of the

Sm̓algya̱x language. When he was

in grade 12, he wanted to take a

Sm̓algya̱x language course but

could not accommodate the course in his timetable.

Instead of giving up on learning his ancestral language, last fall

he decided to build a website, smalgyaxword.ca, to learn his language

and keep it alive. But simply building a website was not enough for him.

He took his idea an extra step further.

With funding from the Gitga’at First Nation, he de­veloped a

mobile app called Sm’algyax Word, based on his already successful

website. As of last week, his app had gone viral on the Apple app store,

becoming the 104th most popular app on the app store.

His app will help keep the Ts’msyen culture alive. In his own

words: “Illuminating Sm̓algya̱x means

revealing a world view that is unique to Ts’msyen culture.”

It’s humbling to witness the ongoing revitalization of the

language, thanks to its speakers, learners and advocates. I’d like to

recognize and thank Brendan for his amazing work of helping to

revitalize the Sm̓algya̱x language,

and I’d like to encourage those who wish to learn more about Ts’msyen

culture to download his app to practise your

Sm̓algya̱x.

T’oyaxsat’nüün. Thank you.

FRASER CANYON HIGHWAY

J. Tegart: I want to ask members today: do you have a favourite highway in

British Columbia? I know I do, and I’d like to share with you why I

consider it my favourite route.

A number of years ago I was fortunate enough to spend a few weeks

on the Oregon coast. No doubt it was beautiful. But I have to say I

drove home to Ashcroft up the Fraser Canyon, and the Oregon coast has

nothing on our Fraser Canyon. The next time you want to take your family

on a great day trip out of the Lower Mainland, might I encourage you to

consider driving up the Fraser Canyon.

The mighty Fraser River itself is incredible, as it winds its way

through the canyon. It’s hard to believe they used to take

paddle-wheelers to transport goods and services to Yale, to service the

Gold Rush Trail. Yale Historic Site is a great first stop to experience

and learn about the gold rush and its impact on the canyon people. They

have a great teahouse, which is lovely for lunch, and a visit to the

Chinese cemetery is a must.

[1:55 p.m.]

From Yale, you begin to travel through a series of tunnels through

to Boston Bar. Think about stopping at Hell’s Gate and experiencing the

thrill of riding the tram across the Fraser River and learning about the

history of Hell’s Gate.

If you like to hike, turn off at Alexandra Bridge and take a

stroll over the old bridge, over the river. You’ll see hiking trails all

through the canyon that will take you to vistas, high in the mountains,

to look down upon the canyon. It will remind you of how fortunate we are

where we live here in British Columbia.

As you can tell, I’m a passionate advocate for travel through the

Fraser Canyon. It’s a great way to take Dr. Bonnie Henry’s advice: stay

close, stay outside, and stay safe.

VIRTUAL MUSIC FESTIVALS AND EVENTS

IN MAPLE RIDGE AND

MISSION

B. D’Eith: For some of these festival organizers, this pandemic has meant

cancelling events. However, some groups managed to adapt their events to

our new reality with virtual programming. Today I wanted to highlight

some of these great events that are continuing in my

community.

I want to first give a special shout-out to Michelle Demers and

the entire board of the Mission Music Folk Festival Society, and

volunteers, for producing this coming weekend’s virtual Folk at Home.

Thanks to their dedication, Mission homes will be filled, for yet

another year, with amazing music.

The folk fest is deeply committed to highlighting new voices. Of

nine performers, five this weekend will be led by or include female

artists, and every artist on Saturday is Indigenous. I’m also thrilled

to be, on Friday, introducing the night’s headliner, the amazing

funk-soul group Raincity, whose drummer happens to be my eldest son,

Sheldon.

Streaming live music will also be heard in Maple Ridge with

Country Fest. Country Fest has been going strong since 1901. This is the

first occasion during peacetime when Country Fest won’t be an in-person

concert. It’s worthy of note that Country Fest continues to give back.

In fact, select artists will be given two days of free studio time at

the amazing Studio Downe Under. So even now, Country Fest is giving back

to the community.

I’d also be remiss if I didn’t mention the Fraser River Indigenous

Society for hosting their virtual National Indigenous Peoples Day. They

put together an incredible video production featuring Indigenous dance,

song and art.

Also, earlier this month, I had the honour to participate in

virtual Canada Day celebrations with the city of Maple Ridge and the

district of Mission. On that day, I also was honoured to be able to play

the piano, even though it was virtually. I played “Amazing Grace” and

Leonard Cohen’s “Hallelujah” on the piano for the reverend and

worshippers of the Holy Spirit Anglican Church in Whonnock during the

Canada Day services.

These organizations have shown an awe-inspiring amount of

resiliency. I want to thank all of them for continuing, virtually,

during this very difficult time.

INFRASTRUCTURE IN CULTUS LAKE AREA

L. Throness: My constituents in the Cultus Lake area are experiencing the

growing pains of popularity. Well over a million tourists flock to its

beaches every year, and new residential projects are popping up around

the lake.

Over the past few years, we’ve enjoyed real success in improving

access to this region. We’ve built a $12 million bridge over the Vedder

River, added two roundabouts that move traffic efficiently in and out of

the lake and provided a new emergency exit through Soowahlie

territory.

I’m working on a number of other projects. Many non-residents park

on Columbia Valley Highway and then walk to the beach. We need to find a

way to accommodate these people without compromising their safety and

that of the driving public. Cultus Lake residents rely on a large, and

failing, septic system, so I’m working to obtain an infrastructure grant

to construct a modern system that won’t contaminate the lake.

A

section of Columbia Valley Highway runs right next to the water.

This summer there was a serious accident there. I’m committed to

improving the safety of that stretch of road.

Columbia Valley, just south of the lake, has its own issues. I’ve

been working with a private provider to bring high-speed service to that

area by obtaining access to federal funds.

Maple Falls Road has a problem with annual flooding, and

eventually we’ll need to have a community discussion about a second

access route to and from the Columbia Valley.

Finally, the lake itself is under the threat of eutrophication, as

high amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus feed into it from several

sources, including a million tourists every year who visit Cultus Lake

Provincial Park, served by an increasingly outdated septic system right

beside the lake.

[2:00 p.m.]

I want my constituents to know that I’ll work hard to ensure that

residential development is well managed, that aquatic life is preserved

and that both tourists and residents have safe access to one of the most

beautiful places B.C. has to offer.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO COVID-19

J. Routledge: Before COVID, I used to host monthly coffee meetings in my

community office. I miss those meetings. They anchored me, as a

representative, in the life of my community and gave me confidence that

we were on the right track.

Last Saturday we were able to restart our coffee meetings. Now we

meet by Zoom, and I’m happy to say that a lot of new faces have joined

us. As you can imagine, we had the same conversation everyone in B.C. is

having right now. We shared anecdotes about people and businesses who

just might not be following Dr. Henry’s guidelines, and we asked

ourselves: whose job is it to enforce COVID compliance?

That is an important conversation, because it acknowledges that so

much of the polite behaviour we take for granted, like shaking hands,

sharing food and crowding up to make more room for others, may no longer

be appropriate. It also encourages us to reflect on how we internalized

social norms in the first place.

How, in the age of COVID, do we consciously and deliberately

change behaviours that are largely unconscious? How do we make it second

nature to maintain a distance of six feet from those outside our bubble?

How do we remember to disinfect our hands after we’ve touched a door

handle or pushed an elevator button? How do we remember to take face

masks with us when we go out?

Then there’s the question of enforcement. Do we start by issuing

tickets and imposing penalties in order to change behaviour, or do we go

there only as a last resort, when voluntary compliance and our sense of

the greater good aren’t equal to the threat? How we answer those

questions might very well define us as a society or redefine

us.

In choosing a path forward, let’s be motivated more by love than

by fear.

RESPONSE TO OPIOID CRISIS

A. Olsen: In April 2016, B.C.’s provincial health officer declared a

provincewide public health emergency. Since the declaration, more than

3,700 British Columbians have died from a preventable overdose. Overdose

deaths have become the leading cause of unnatural deaths in B.C. since

2016. The societal stigma associated with drug use leads many to use

drugs alone and hidden, increasing their risk of dying. Overdose deaths

in the province have become so pervasive that there has been a measured

decrease in life expectancy at birth for all British Columbians.

Overrepresented subpopulations in these deaths are Indigenous peoples

and males 30 to 59.

One substantial factor in the ongoing overdose crisis is B.C.’s

highly toxic illegal drug supply. There is widespread global recognition

that the failed war on drugs and the resulting criminalization and

stigmatization of people who use drugs have not reduced drug use but

instead increased health harms. The predominantly criminal justice–based

approach that channels people who use drugs into the criminal justice

system does not address what is ultimately a health issue.

These quotes came from the April 2019 report Stopping the

Harm: Decriminalization of People Who Use Drugs in B.C. They

are the words of our widely acclaimed provincial health officer Dr.

Bonnie Henry. In the 15 months since that report was published, more

than 1,709 more British Columbians have died from an overdose. The

report notes: “A growing number of public safety officials are

critically re-evaluating the current approach of prohibition and

criminalization of people who use controlled drugs in

Canada.”

It’s time we act on Dr. Henry’s single urgent recommendation to

decriminalize the people who use drugs in our province.

I believe we should go further. Let’s ensure that they have a safe

supply of pharmaceutical-grade alternatives, needed to further minimize

the threat of poisonous street drugs, that is truly accessible to those

who need it.

[2:05 p.m.]

Oral Questions

IMPACT OF CHANGES TO

WORKERS COMPENSATION

SYSTEM

J. Johal: At a time when small businesses are at the most vulnerable, the

Minister of Labour is choosing to make it more difficult for job

creators. The business community is pleading with this government:

“Surely you can appreciate the harm Bill 23 poses, through the

imposition of additional long-term costs, to employers as they continue

to cope with difficult operating decisions, reopening challenges and

other considerations surrounding whether they will survive.”

To the Labour Minister: will you stop being dismissive of small

businesses and listen to their serious concerns?

Hon. H. Bains: Let me say this. Injured workers in this province have not seen

any improvement in benefits through WCB in the last 20 years. They have

come to almost every MLA’s office, and they have made it clear to all of

us, time and again, that the system is not fair. It’s not working for

them. Their families have contacted our offices — that the system is

letting them down.

We are taking small steps in improving their benefits and

modernizing the WCB system, at the same time ensuring that the

employers’ premiums will not rise. I think that is a prudent approach.

That is a balanced approach. That is the right approach. That’s why

we’re taking it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a

supplemental.

J. Johal: This is also about survival of these very businesses. These

employees, these people, have to have jobs to go back to. That’s what

we’re talking about here. Just three weeks ago — I remind this minister

how he mishandled the layoff policy and had to do a U-turn. I remind him

of that.

The minister talks about consulting. He did that yesterday. The

problem is he doesn’t listen. That’s the problem here.

Only 16 percent of B.C. businesses have any confidence in this

government in helping them succeed. I have the survey right in front of

me. It’s done by the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, the B.C. Chamber

of Commerce and the Business Council of B.C.: 16 percent. Not even one

out of five businesses feel that this government is working for

them.

I have here a quote from the homebuilders association. They sent

in a letter to this government saying: “Many businesses are not in a

position to pay back the many taxes and fees that have been deferred,

let alone bear any new costs.”

Will this minister finally listen to hard-working small business

owners and press the pause button?

Hon. H. Bains: Let me remind this member, as well, who the workers are that we

are talking about. These are our front-line workers. They are risking

their health and their families’ so that they can go there and take care

of our loved ones and provide care to those who are sick with

COVID-19.

What the opposition is saying is: “We expect you to go and care

for our loved ones, but God forbid, if you contract COVID-19, you’re on

your own.” That is the wrong approach.

We’re going to stand with those workers. We’re going to provide

them the support that they need during the toughest time that they’re

going through. At the same time, we are not raising premiums for the

employers. It’s the right approach. It’s a balanced approach.

M. Polak: To listen to the member, you’d think that the concerns being

raised are somehow being raised by nameless, faceless corporations.

That’s just not the case. We’re talking about family businesses. They

aren’t sure if they’re going to even survive through the

pandemic.

One of those is Western Pacific Enterprises. It employs 1,000

British Columbians. This is a family business. It’s a family business

that has grown into one of western’s Canada’s largest electrical

contractors. President David Fettback says: “I am writing to express

severe and significant concerns, and I ask you to protect all the

workers and employers of B.C. from this undue risk and not make the

contemplated changes as proposed.”

Will the Labour Minister finally listen to employers like David

and their significant concerns?

Hon. H. Bains: When COVID-19 hit us unexpectedly, our government acted very

quickly to provide support to businesses, because many them….

Interjection.

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: The member said we haven’t. A $5 billion package was brought in by

our Minister of Finance — $5 billion. Out of that, $1.8 billion for

businesses, $700 million in a property tax break, a permanent break, for

the whole year. That’s one of the largest tax breaks in the history of

this province for businesses.

Wake up, Member. We have been working with businesses. We are

listening to them. That’s why all of the other benefits for employers,

supports for employers, deferred taxes, cut taxes….

Mr. Speaker, when you take a look…. In addition to what I’ve said,

we have worked very hard with the federal government to make sure that

they get the 75 percent wage subsidy. We allowed restaurants to purchase

alcohol at wholesale prices, saving them 25 percent. We provided $10

million in grants to tourism organizations to support marketing

campaigns for the summer.

On top of that, the WCB has allowed employers to defer their

premiums for six months and waived premiums for certain other employers.

And they will continue to enjoy subsidized rates.

The government has done so much for businesses. Yes, we understand

we need to do more — $1.5 billion also set aside for reopening our

economy. We work with businesses. We care about businesses. At the same

time, we are not going to ignore the health and safety and the rights of

workers. That is a balanced approach. That’s why we’re taking

it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Langley on a supplemental.

M. Polak: Well, just as with the issue around the temporary layoffs and the

questioning and the answers that the minister gave at that time, his

answers today show he doesn’t understand the concerns that businesses

are raising. He clearly doesn’t.

David is particularly concerned with making COVID-19 a

schedule 1

presumption. Here’s a place where the minister might want to listen to

some of the consultations, because 92 percent of the submissions on that

issue have been from employers who don’t support the measure. Here’s

what David writes: “This statutory intervention signals your support for

a manifestly flawed policy measure that has no scientific or medical

evidence to support it. This is unacceptable.”

This is not the opposition making up concerns from business. These

are real people with real family businesses who may not be able to stay

in business.

Minister, what that means is they may not be able to continue to

employ these people. They need their jobs.

Will the minister relent, finally — don’t wait as long as you did

for the last issue — and pull this? Listen to these people.

Hon. H. Bains: I have a letter from the employers groups, Monday. I have another

letter from representatives of the workers. There are over two million

workers working today to keep our economy going. The representatives of

the workers are saying this, on the other hand.

Employers said that they are concerned about their costs. We

recognize that. We understand that. That’s why we are bringing in a

package that is very modest. We are not proceeding with the

recommendations that came from Mr. Parr. Had we gone ahead with Mr.

Parr’s recommendations, it certainly would have cost employers money. It

would have cost $700 million to the WCB accident fund. We didn’t proceed

with that. We are proceeding with the recommendations that will not

raise employers’ pre­miums.

Here is what the other side is saying. In 2002, the B.C. Liberal

government brought in changes that continue to have a profound and

devastating impact on benefits to injured workers and their families.

That resulted in a 13 percent loss of benefits to injured workers. From

2002 to 2005, they’re saying the rehab budget was slashed by 98 percent

and has never recovered to pre-2002 levels.

[2:15 p.m.]

They’re saying that at the same time, the subsidy to the employer

continues on. Between 2007 and 2018, it was valued at $1.8 billion.

They’re saying that while Bill 23 makes meaningful improvements for

injured workers and their families, there is much more work to be done.

Bill 23 represents an initial set of revisions that only begin to repair

the damage done by the previous government.

We, as a government, have a responsibility to balance the two

opposing interests here. That’s why we’re bringing in a package that is

modest and that is measured. It will not raise premiums for the

employers. In the meantime, it will provide health and safety protection

for the workers and give them support when they are injured or they need

support from WorkSafeBC.

FOREST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

AND

SUSTAINABILITY

A. Olsen: I think it’s important to get on the record that the $5 billion

that was approved was approved by every member of this House. It was a

multipartisan effort to ensure the people of British Columbia were

supported during this COVID-19 crisis.

This government has promised to bring in reforms to the Forest and

Range Practices Act, which governs how forestry is done in British

Columbia. The regulations and legislation that govern forestry in B.C.

are entirely focused on maximizing timber supply. Values like

biodiversity, water quality and wildlife can all be managed for, yes,

but only without unduly reducing the supply of timber. This

fundamentally undermines our ability to manage forests and our forestry

industry sustainably.

Reforms are absolutely essential to begin to shift our management

regime away from an exclusive focus on timber supply to the detriment of

all other values and towards sustainable management of our forests for

all the values they hold. Yet so far, the government won’t bring them

in.

My question is to the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource

Operations and Rural Development. Will he introduce the necessary

changes to the Forest and Range Practices Act by this fall session to

begin the shift towards more sustainable management in our

forests?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you to the interim Leader of the Third Party for the

question. I’m happy to discuss our plans around forestry

reform.

We’re committed to reforming the forest sector. That’s to improve

public trust in how we sustainably manage forests, public trust that was

damaged under the previous government. We’re committed to ensuring that

the publicly held natural resource, the forests, benefit, first and

foremost, communities and workers.

We’ve taken policy, regulation and legislative actions in the

three years we’ve been government. We’ve created fibre recovery zones so

that less waste is left on the forest floor after harvesting. We’ve

focused on increasing value over volume out of the forest with our mass

timber initiatives. We’ve ensured that forest stewardship plans must be

updated, at minimum, every five years. We’ve also embarked on five

forest landscape planning pilot projects around the province.

We are committed to introducing more positive changes, including

legislation, as a government and as the unpredictable events created by

COVID-19 permit.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader, Third Party, on a supplemental.

PROTECTION OF OLD-GROWTH FORESTS

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for the response.

Working around the edges is not enough on this. Forestry in B.C.

is broken, and it needs fundamental reform. Over the past number of

decades, we’ve seen the loss of tens of thousands of forestry jobs as

well as the continued liquidation of some of our most pristine and

highly productive old forests. Yet this government is delaying bringing

in the basic, preliminary reforms to legislation to start us down a

better path.

We’ve spent this past week asking the government what steps it’s

taking to reform the industry, protect old growth and support workers in

communities to transition. While the minister has acknowledged some of

the problems before us, nothing has changed on the ground, and we don’t

see a plan for the future. In fact, a friend recently recounted to me

that he has personally witnessed recently old growth being “hammered on

our coast.”

The longer that this government delays on changing course, the

worse the outcomes in our forests and forestry-dependent communities

are.

[2:20 p.m.]

Once again my question is to the Minister of Forests, Lands,

Natural Resources Operations and Rural Development. We’ve heard lots of

words in the last couple of days; I’m looking for just one. Will his

government pause logging in old-growth ecosystems at the highest risk

until a plan is in place, yes or no?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Once again, I am happy to answer questions around the management

of the forest resource in the province. Our government is absolutely

committed to implementing a new, sustainable and comprehensive

old-growth management strategy. That’s why we commissioned the

old-growth strategic review. The panel toured the province and provided

a very comprehensive report.

As I said in my response to the member’s question on this topic on

Monday, we’ve committed to publicly release that report within six

months of receiving it. We received it at the beginning of May. We’re on

track to meet that commitment.

As for any actions that will arise as a result of the report, it’s

important to remember that the terms of reference clearly outline that

we will engage in a government-to-government consultation with First

Nations before setting policy direction in response to the report.

That’s in the spirit of respect. Acting unilaterally without first

conducting those government-to-government discussions would not be

respectful.

IMPACT OF CHANGES TO

WORKERS COMPENSATION

SYSTEM

S. Bond: To use the Labour Minister’s own language, the person that needs

to wake up is the Minister of Labour. He touts his work with businesses,

yet that has resulted in another nine-page document where businesses

express significant concerns. That’s the second time in mere weeks that

he has been called out. The minister just doesn’t get it. Workers need

jobs, and this bill means thousands of jobs are potentially at risk.

Yesterday the Labour Minister even called the significant concerns

expressed by businesses across British Columbia an “ideological block,”

once again being dismissive.

Those representing the hardest hit sectors in our economy have

also signed the letter: the Retail Council, Restaurants Canada, the B.C.

Hotel Association and the Tourism Association of B.C. In fact, here’s

what the Tourism Association said just yesterday: “More than 90 percent

of the tourism businesses won’t make a profit this year. We are at the

edge of the cliff.”

The tourism sector has been devastated. They are desperate. Maybe

the Tourism Minister will stand up today, stand up for the sector she’s

supposed to represent, and ensure that her government does no more

harm.

To the Tourism Minister, will she stand up and tell her colleague

about the devastation this bill could cause her sector?

Hon. H. Bains: As I said before, we are very, very concerned about the economic

situation that we’re all going through. It’s a worldwide pandemic. It is

hitting us all.

We are doing everything that we can to listen to businesses and

work with them. There is the Premier’s Economic Recovery Task Force.

Those issues are discussed there: how we help them to restart the

economy. I think we should be proud in this province, due to the

leadership of Dr. Bonnie Henry and the leadership of our Health Minister

and of our Premier. We’re listening, and we are then moving ahead to

help businesses to restart the economy. That help is there.

I must say that’s why our package that we have brought in is very

modest. It will not increase costs of the premiums to the employers. At

the same time, it will improve workers’ health and safety. Protecting

workers’ health and safety should be everyone’s concern here. We should

all support that. When they are injured or become sick at the workplace,

they need support. We must provide them with that support. The system

that we have is 20 years old and isn’t working for the workers right

now. That’s why those changes are being recommended.

[2:25 p.m.]

I know the B.C. Liberals have an ideological block when it comes

to workers’ rights in this province. Their track record is clear. You

don’t help workers by ripping up their collective agreements. You don’t

help workers in this province by eliminating benefits for injured

workers.

We are going to support the workers. At the same time, we’re going

to work with the employers so that their cost doesn’t increase. That is

the right thing to do. That’s why we’re doing it.

Mr. Speaker: Members, before we move on to the supplementary question by the

member for Prince George–​Valemount, did anyone find that her

talking was over­ridden by background noise?

An Hon. Member: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Because it is, we perhaps can offer the member another question as

well. Okay. Thank you.

The member for Prince George–Valemount on a

supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, you know, it’s one thing — it’s pretty rich — for the

minister to stand up and talk about seeking advice and input. It’s a

completely different thing to actually listen to it. In fact, this

minister has a track record as well. He simply ignores the concerns that

are expressed by businesses and job creators across the

province.

Let’s look at the numbers. One hundred thousand full-time and

part-time jobs have already been lost in the tourism sector alone.

They’re warning that a further 120,000 jobs are at risk. It demonstrates

just how fragile the economic situation is for the tourism sector. That

is why the tourism association signed the letter that says, and perhaps

the minister will want to listen to this part: “Bill 23 will add

significant costs…. It is ill-timed, ill-considered and ignores

broad-based and repeated requests from the business community to do no

harm.”

Again to the Tourism Minister, will she stand up and tell the

Labour Minister that Bill 23 will add significant costs for the tourism

sector and that now is not the time to add costs and put thousands more

jobs at risk?

Hon. H. Bains: Mr. Speaker, the background noise really, really helps me get up

and answer the question. It seems like there is some sawing going on in

the back, and some people are working.

Let me say this. There are two sides to this. There are workers;

there are employers. Both have opposing interests. Both have taken

different positions on Bill 23. The workers’ representatives are saying

that Bill 23 doesn’t go far enough, that the damage of the last 20 years

isn’t going to be fixed by Bill 23 and that we need to do

more.

Businesses, of course, on the other side, are saying that they’re

concerned with their costs. That’s why we, as a government, are taking a

responsible, balanced approach to make sure that the businesses’ cost

isn’t increased and that, at the same time, improves the health and

safety and the concerns of the workers, as I say. That’s why we’re doing

what we’re doing.

Let me read you a statement. It says here: “Our continued ask has

been to help business reduce red tape and administrative burdens.

Today’s changes are on the pathway to achieving reduced administrative

burdens to help employers and employees. More needs to be done, but this

is a good start.” This comes from the second-largest board of trade in

the province, the Surrey Board of Trade.

M. de Jong: I think we just heard the adversarial nature that is

characterizing the minister and the government’s approach into this

important matter. The cards and letters continue to flow in today from

the British Columbia Construction Association, which writes: “Now is not

the time to introduce measures that increase costs, add to the

regulatory burden or create further uncertainty for B.C.

employers.”

[2:30 p.m.]

It’s not just added costs, because, you see, the minister and the

government also want to impose new rules regarding directors’ personal

liability, which are going to make it even more difficult for small

non-profits and community service agencies to retain and recruit the

directors they need.

Who was asking for that change? Who on earth was asking for that

change, and why does the minister think that the ideal time to introduce

a new element of uncertainty by dealing with an issue that, quite

frankly, nobody knew was a problem — doing that in the middle of the

worst recession in living memory?

Hon. H. Bains: That provision exists in the Employment Standards Act right now.

That provision existed in CRA. It is enabling WorkSafeBC to collect

unpaid premiums from the very few employers who don’t do that. It is to

create a level playing field, and I think they would agree with that.

There are employers who pay their bills on a timely basis. They obey the

rules. But there are a few who don’t. WorkSafeBC requires certain

additional tools so that they collect those unpaid premiums by giving

them these extra tools.

Let’s talk about some of the other changes that we are talking

about. Allowing WorkSafeBC to provide preventa­tive medical

treatment, which could save the whole system money. Providing such

health care to a first responder, for example, on a timely basis, could

help a claim that would end up being more severe for the injured worker,

more costly for the workers compensation system. This meaningful change

is good for the whole workers compensation system.

All of those recommendations that we are talking about came

through four different reports that we commissioned. They consulted

widely. They came back with a recommendation by Mr. Parr. He combined

all those recommendations in his consultation and came back with the

recommendations, but understanding the tough times, the challenging

times that business and the economy is going through right now, we did

not proceed with the costly recommendations that they

recommended.

That’s why we went with only those that will not increase the cost

to the employers but at the same time have meaningful support for the

workers when they need it and enhance their health and safety. That’s

what the purpose is behind this bill. It is the right approach, and it

is the prudent approach.

M. de Jong: Well, that’s not what community service organizations

think.

Let’s say I am one of those organizations in Langley, Prince

George, Cranbrook or Surrey, for that matter. I need volunteers to help

guide my organization. It’s already tough, because in the midst of the

recession, people are worried about whether their business is going to

survive. They’re worried about their job. They’re worried about the

safety of their family.

Now I have to tell a prospective director that the minister and

the government have decided to create new legal tools that will impose

an additional personal liability that will allow WorkSafe to come after

them personally if there is an issue involving WorkSafe for that

community service organization.

Well, what does the minister think the answer is going to be from

these people, and how do you think community service organizations are

going to fill those directorships, with people confronted by that

additional challenge?

Again, I ask him, who asked for this? Who asked for this, what is

the urgency, and what is the minister’s argument for imposing this

additional uncertainty in the midst of the worst recession in living

memory?

Hon. H. Bains: It came through consultation. I did not…. It came through

consultation. The recommendations….

Interjections.

Hon. H. Bains: You see, when the truth hits them, how they react, because they’re

not used to it.

[2:35 p.m.]

Workers of this province have not seen improvement for 20 years.

That’s why we are taking small steps to promote and enhance their health

and safety at workplaces, because a healthy workplace is a productive

workplace. We all want all workers to go to work and come home safe and

healthy at the end of their shift. That’s the goal. That’s why we are

making these small steps at a tough time and, at the same time,

supporting the employer, the businesses, by not raising their

premiums.

It’s a balanced approach, and I know every time we talk about

improving workers’ health and safety, giving additional benefits to the

workers, they howl that the sky is going to fall. But that’s their track

record. We’re not going there. We’re going to support the economy, the

employer and the workers and their health and safety. That is the right

thing to do. It’s expected of the government to do. Workers of this

province expect us to do it. That’s why we’re doing it, because it’s the

right thing to do.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour to present a report from the Representative

for Children and Youth intituled Invisible Children: A Descriptive

Analysis of Injury and Death Reports for Métis Children and Youth in

British Columbia, 2015 to 2017 .

Ministerial Statements

ALLAN YOUNG

Hon. M. Farnworth: I rise to make a ministerial statement. Notice has been provided

to my colleagues on the other side and the Third Party.

It is with heavy hearts that today we mourn the tragic loss of

Const. Allan Young, a 16-year member of the Abbotsford police

department, remembered for his love and devotion to family and friends,

his thick Scottish accent and a wonderful sense of humour. Constable

Young served in the British Royal Navy and immigrated to Canada in 1997,

where he joined the Toronto police service in 2000 and served for four

years. Allan moved to British Columbia and joined the Abbotsford police

department in 2004.

We are all filled with grief at this sudden and tragic loss. Today

our thoughts go out to Constable Young’s family and colleagues in the

Abbotsford police department. Police officers across this province and

across this country, and our colleagues in this House who are themselves

former peace officers…. Whether on or off duty, police have an

unwavering commitment to our safety and protection, and we sincerely

thank all our women and men of law enforcement and give gratitude as

they put their lives on the line for all of us.

I know that yesterday one of the legislative precinct security

members who protect this place, who had been in the police force,

commented to me that as a police officer, you never truly leave the job

behind when your shift ends. You are always on duty. Sadly, Constable

Young paid that ultimate sacrifice doing just that.

Our thoughts today are with the family, friends and colleagues of

Constable Young at this very difficult time.

I would ask this House to send our sincere condolences to his

family.

M. de Jong: Allan Young’s sense of duty, as we have just heard from the

Solicitor General, to serve and protect our citizens transcended the

uniform that he wore so proudly. Tragically, he has paid the ultimate

price for acting upon those instincts on a day when he was under no

obligation to do so.

Our thoughts and prayers, of course, are with his family, his

extended family and his co-workers at the Abbotsford police department.

He left us in the service of others, but he left us too soon.

Petitions

Hon. D. Eby: I rise to present a petition from BCDiabetes with over 12,800

signatories in favour of PharmaCare coverage for glucose monitors for type 1

diabetes.

[2:40 p.m.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Eby: I also rise to table reports from the civil resolution tribunal for

2016-17, ’17-18 and ’19-20.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued Committee of the Whole for Bill 14,

Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes Amendment Act, (No. 2).

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 14 — MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND

HOUSING STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (N o . 2),

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 14;

S. Gibson in the chair.

The committee met at 2:43 p.m.

The Chair: As we know, the division was deferred to later on today for

section 3, so it’s my understanding that this will be stood down,

section 3, and we’ll now proceed with

section 4 today.

Section 3 stood down.

section 4.

T. Stone:

Section 4 of Bill 14 deals with some changes to rules around

depreciation reports.

[2:45 p.m.]

My first question to the minister would be this. The minister has

mentioned several times, in comments that she’s made in and out of the

House, about the changes in this

section addressing the reality that the

previous government left a supposed loophole with respect to

depreciation reports. Yet while there are some changes here related to

the depreciation reports in

section 4, in

section 12 of this very same

bill, there are regulation-making powers that the government will have

with respect to depreciation reports.

I’m just wondering if the minister believes that referring to the

closing of loopholes in this provision, when the minister is actually

still going to allow for exceptions to the changes she’s proposing

through the new change in

section 12 later in the bill…. I’m wondering

if she feels that it was legitimate and fair criticism to refer to

loopholes in the legislation prior to these changes here

today.

Hon. S. Robinson: Encouraging stratas to repair and maintain their common property

and assets, we know, will help to alleviate insurance costs. We also

know that stratas that have and act on depreciation reports are likely

to get lower risk and, at the end of the day, save owners money in the

long run. Prescribing this information by regulation will allow

government to create more stringent, robust and flexible depreciation

reporting requirements to encourage stratas to repair and maintain their

common property and assets. Far too many strata corporations were

exempting themselves, and this has contributed to the problem that we

have before us.

For example, depending on further consultation — this is, I think,

what the member was referring to — regulations could be introduced to

limit or eliminate the ability of the strata corporation to waive or

defer a depreciation report requirement by a three-quarter vote or

introduce a more consistent template for reporting. So there’s certainly

some consultation that needs to be done. We want to enhance the

depreciation reports so that, at the end of the day, strata corporations

have a more robust understanding what the needs are, going forward, that

will help with insurance rates.

I have to say that enhancements to depreciation reports have been

recommended by the Condominium Home Owners Association as well as the

Insurance Bureau of Canada.

T. Stone: Thanks to the minister for that.

I guess the challenge in understanding the government’s intent

here…. When the minister, on the one hand, has made a lot about the fact

that, through this particular section, the government has decided to

“close a loophole” that currently allows for the deferral of

depreciation reports, only to allow for the prescribed regulations,

which would be determined at some later date, to allow for exactly that

— the deferral of depreciation reports — it is a bit

confusing.

The minister, in her last response, used both…. In describing the

regulations that will be developed after further consultation, she uses

the words “stringent” and “flexible” in the same sentence. That’s

somewhat confusing.

[2:50 p.m.]

I’m wondering if the minister could walk us through what the

circumstances might look like that would be provided for in these

prescribed regulations and that would allow for stratas to continue to,

in some cases, defer the depreciation reports.

Will that be based on the type of strata? Will she take into

account the very different realities of the different types of stratas —

the condo, apartment-style strata versus a bare land strata, which has a

different reality wrapped around it? Will the prescribed regulations

that determine these circumstances be based on the appraised dollar

value of the strata, on the strata’s common property asset, on the size

of the strata and the number of units involved? What would those

circumstances look like that would, again, through a prescribed

regulation, enable the deferment of a depreciation report?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member talked about different types of stratas — they’re quite

varied — as well as different sizes of stratas. We recognize that it is

a varied strata landscape. It’s for that reason that we are going to be

doing a robust consultation to make those determinations so that we can

get a very balanced perspective. That information will be reflected in

the regulation.

T. Stone: As the minister and her team in the ministry develop these

prescribed regulations, will the minister be taking into account the

realities that smaller stratas have unique circumstances and

characteristics? They are often very well governed, but because of the

unique circumstances of their size, being very small, many of them need

flexibility with respect to depreciation report requirements.

Hon. S. Robinson: The answer is yes.

T. Stone: Will the minister ensure that the absolute requirement of

depreciation reports doesn’t create an unnecessary financial burden on

strata corporations, strata owners, that are already facing significant

financial distress due to the realities of soaring strata insurance

costs?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, the intent here, of course, is to encourage stratas to

repair and maintain common properties and assets. The idea behind the

depreciation report is to understand exactly what investments need to be

made — again, to save owners in the long run.

[2:55 p.m.]

That’s, I think, something we can all agree on in this House: that

the value of depreciation reports is about making sure that buildings

are maintained and that repairs are done so that, at the end of the day,

the strata corporation and, of course, the strata owners can save money

in the long run.

T. Stone: Well, I understand that. But to the minister, what protections

will she be building into these prescribed regulations to ensure that

the absolute requirement to do the depreciation report, which she says

is closing a loophole, is not going to add additional financial burden

to strata corporations that are already struggling due to the soaring

strata insurance costs that they’re having to deal with?

Hon. S. Robinson: Like I said, this is what the consultation is for. This is why

engaging with various stakeholders to identify how to best move forward

with this so that we can, at the end of the day, really get robust

depreciation reports where they’re needed so that we can get the

investments needed in the right place…. That would also lower risk and

so reduce insurance premiums as well as have well-maintained buildings.

That, at the end of the day, will reduce costs as well.

T. Stone: Is the minister contemplating, as part of the new requirement for

depreciation reports, that there would be a flexibility around the dates

that those depreciation reports would have to be submitted? Or will

there be a universal deadline that all stratas will have to work towards

and meet?

Hon. S. Robinson: How this actually gets implemented is a key focus of our

consultation with all the stakeholders. We’ll have that question as part

of our consultation process.

T. Stone: Will there be any kind of transition period for this requirement?

More specifically, when would a strata that has just recently deferred a

depreciation report be expected to commission and conclude a

depreciation report?

Hon. S. Robinson: As I said earlier, we’re going to continue, certainly, consulting

with our partners in the strata sector this fall so we can develop the

necessary regulations. We want to move quickly on this. This is a

priority file for us. A phase-in period will be necessary so that strata

corporations and depreciation report providers do have time to adjust.

We need to remember that depreciation reports now typically happen on a

three-year cycle.

But I also want to say, for the record, that stratas should not be

waiting for these changes to come into effect to really act proactively

to address any maintenance deficits. They really ought to be improving

their risk profile so that it makes them, certainly, more attractive to

insurers and saves strata owners, of course, in the long run.

[3:00 p.m.]

T. Stone: Well, I understand that. I think the issue that we’re hearing from

a lot of strata corporations, a lot of strata owners, is what the new

world is actually going to look like.

Again, in this

section 4…. The minister, with a lot of fanfare,

has pointed to it as the closing of a loophole. In reality, the loophole

has not been closed, because in

section 12, which comes later in the

bill, there is a new regulation-making power for the government to

develop and implement prescribed regulations that would outline the

circumstances by which depreciation reports would not be required,

presumably.

I think it’s incumbent on the minister to provide, if not the fine

details of what she and her government are thinking here, at least some

general guidelines that will guide the process of consultation. The

minister has acknowledged there’s a wide variety of different types of

stratas. I want to really emphasize the importance, therefore, of

understanding what the government’s intent here is, because the

depreciation report requirement, the universal requirement that the

minister says she wants to impose, barring some exceptions that will be

made through regulation, is going to impact different stratas in very

different ways.

The minister knows well that one of the most common types of

stratas that’s growing rapidly around the province are bare land

stratas, where you have the common property asset mix. It’s a very

different look and feel and a very different reality from the common

area asset mix in a 20 or 30 tower condo building. A townhouse complex

that might have four units side by side is, again, a very different

profile. So the requirements in a one-size-fits-all approach are just

not going to work for some of these stratas.

When can the minister confirm that the consultation that she

refers to…? When is that consultation process going to begin? When is it

going to end? When will the government actually be making decisions on

this piece — i.e., fleshing things out a bit so that everyone in the

strata sector understands exactly what the new prescribed regulations

are going to be, relating to depreciation reports and under what

circumstances exceptions would be allowed? What would be the timing for

the implementation of these new rules? Will there be transition timing?

Will there be protections built in to ensure that this doesn’t become an

onerous additional financial burden?

When can we expect some answers and details on all of the above,

which presumably will come as part of a consultation process in the

weeks ahead?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: We are and have been in consultation with the sector in the

development of this legislation. Consultation is going forward. We’re

prepared to start imminently, with the intent of bringing in regulations

this fall.

I just want to point out, you know, that the member has recognized

there are very diverse types of stratas, different sizes. These are all

things that we’re very alive to. That is why we need to do the

consultations so that we can find the right balance — recognizing the

variety of strata frameworks, different strata types — so that we can

have a more robust system that works better on the ground for these

folks who live in different types of stratas.

T. Stone: Well, recognizing that this

section comes into force only after

the regulations are developed, that will be, again, at some point in the

future.

A two-part question for the minister. First, what is the exact

timeline or deadline that she has set for the consultation to be done,

for the regulations to be developed and for strata corporations, strata

owners, to know what the rules are pertaining to depreciation reports?

And secondly, recognizing that that’s likely weeks, if not months, down

the line, how does this

section provide any immediate relief for strata

owners who are facing soaring strata insurance costs here and

now?

Hon. S. Robinson: We’ve been moving quickly on this because it is a critical bill.

We believe we need to move quickly. I think there’s a desire on all

sides to move quickly to address this problem. As part of developing

this regulatory model, our intent and our plan is to not make it a

linear process but to consult as we develop so that it’s a parallel

process so that we can move as quickly as we can on this. We know that

we need to move quickly, and we’re putting every element in place to do

it as quickly as we can.

T. Stone: Well, one word I don’t think would be right to describe the

minister’s pace or the government’s pace on bringing forward solutions

to address this strata insurance crisis is “quickly.” The minister used

that word many times in her last response. I certainly have heard many

words of frustration from strata owners around the province who are

facing these massive increases in their insurance premiums and

deductibles and related monthly strata fees and one-time special

assessments in many cases. Nobody is commenting or noting that the

government is moving quickly on any of this.

[3:10 p.m.]

We even tabled an amendment yesterday that would put on the table

a strong commitment from government, a signal from government that it

would be willing to pursue the whole concept of self-insurance in this

space — again, as a creative solution to say to strata owners we

recognize the magnitude of the problem, and we’re going to put some

ideas on the table. The minister was not interested in that. So I

wouldn’t say “quickly” is a word that describes the government’s

approach to addressing the challenges in strata insurance.

I’m going to ask again. I do think that in light of the fact that

the vast majority of this bill…. Fourteen of 16 sections don’t kick in

until regulations are developed, and there’s more consultation and

engagement to be held. When are the details going to be determined in

the prescribed regulations that relate to depreciation

reports?

This is a really important piece, a self-declared piece of the

government’s action plan. People have a right to know when. What is the

target date? To say, “We’re working on it quickly. We want it to happen

as soon as possible,” is not good enough. Are we talking weeks? Are we

talking months? Are we talking before the end of the year? Are we

talking next spring? What does that timeline look like for the creation

of the prescribed regulations around depreciation reports?

Hon. S. Robinson: I already said that our intent is to — we’ve been in consultation

— carry on these regulatory conversations imminently, and our intention

is to have regulations in place this fall.

T. Stone: Okay. So this fall. We’ll hold the government to that. I would

encourage, on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of strata owners out

there, moving as expeditiously as possible. Let’s try to get these

regulations developed sooner than the fall, if possible.

That concludes my questions on

section 4, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Are there any further comments by members on

section 4? Are

there any further remarks to address

section 4, Members?

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

The Chair: Any comments on

section 5, Members?

T. Stone: One question on

section 5. If the provisions in

section 5 are

meant to encourage repairs, what is the timeline that we might see this

provision have a meaningful impact on strata insurance rates?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Again — we spoke about this yesterday — we need to recognize that

the dynamics driving these increases are playing out in the private

insurance industry and that government itself doesn’t regulate pricing.

The issue of insurance is complex, and it is impacted by many factors,

including the cost and availability of reinsurance in the global

market.

This amendment and others…. What it aims to do is to give strata

owners and corporations more transparency and tools so that they can

plan and be more proactive. They can do the investments that they need

to do. That will deal with the high costs of strata insurance, and it

will bring relief over time. This is an important step.

I try to imagine that if, ten years ago, some of this work had

been done, perhaps there wouldn’t be such challenges today.

T. Stone: Well, even three years ago, we weren’t seeing increases in strata

insurance premiums in the neighbourhood of 30, 40, 60, 100, 500 percent

like we are today. This crisis has unfolded on the minister’s watch. It

has unfolded on the government’s watch.

The solutions, the suggestions that we’ve been trying to bring

forward, including the amendment that has been proposed by the member

for Abbotsford West yesterday, were to urge the government to seize this

opportunity to signal the need for some significant change here, to be

proactive in positioning some significant change. That’s what we’re

trying to do. The government has opted not to embrace that

suggestion.

I guess my last question on this

section 5, just kind of a

recurring theme through the back and forth we’ve had on this bill up to

this point, is: what aspect of this particular change, what aspect of

this

section 5 is actually going to provide strata owners relief in the

immediate or in the short term?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, I want to say that the suggestion that we canvassed

yesterday won’t provide immediate relief, as the member somehow seems to

suggest. As I pointed out yesterday in my comments on that previous

section, it would actually make things worse, not better.

Right now there is opportunity for self-insurance, and we are in

conversation with…. And we’ve heard, certainly, from private

organizations that are interested in exploring that further. That’s

certainly an opportunity, going forward. So for him to suggest that

their suggestion somehow is the magic pill or the silver bullet, I

think, is not accurate, because that, too, would pose some significant

challenges.

Having said that, I think that with this particular section, what

we’re doing here is that the majority vote requirements, as opposed to

the usual three-quarter vote requirement, will help to support the

maintenance and repair of the common property and common assets of the

strata corporations.

Some strata owners have argued that the use of the phrase “as

recommended in the most current depreciation report” means that the

majority vote threshold, permitted under

section 96(b)(i)(A)(II), only

applies during the same year that the depreciation report estimated that

an action was needed. For example, the depreciation report may advise

that the windows are expected to require replacing in, let’s say, 2025,

given their estimated service life. Deleting the word “as” removes the

implication that the estimated year is essential to the ability to

proceed with the majority vote.

Stratas need a more clear and flexible legislative authority to

repair or replace items, regardless of the date estimated in the

depreciation report. Without needing a three-quarter vote of the owners,

it allows stratas to do the necessary repairs. That, I have to say, will

make a difference in the risk assessment, and that, in the long run,

will certainly be a benefit to them on their insurance rates.

T. Stone: I’m not wanting to debate the amendment that was tabled yesterday.

We’ll have a vote on it later today. But again, I come back to the very

different approaches here. We have tried, on the one hand, to offer some

suggestions that would provide some immediate financial relief. We

suggested the waiving of the 4.4 percent insurance premium tax on strata

insurance premiums. The minister and government have said no to

that.

We suggested an extension of the property tax deferment program to

include strata owners under significant financial distress. No interest

in doing that with government.

We’ve suggested a water damage prevention program that would help

strata owners make the kinds of investments in maintenance and upgrades

to prevent major water damage events from occurring in the first place.

No interest in the government in doing that.

On a separate track, yes, we did suggest yesterday, through the

amendment from the member for Abbotsford West, a concept that would

represent systemic change. It’s a very proactive suggestion that, if

examined, would result in systemic change, as opposed to the minister’s

approach, the government’s approach, which has been to, effectively,

focus on tinkering with the Strata Property Act through sections like

this one.

The minister cannot say it would provide immediate relief because

it doesn’t provide immediate relief. There’s nothing in this bill that

provides any relief here and now for seriously financially distressed

strata owners. That’s highly regrettable.

[3:25 p.m.]

With that, I don’t have any further questions on

section 5,

Mr. Chair.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

T. Stone:

Section 6 is the

section that will enable strata corporations to

access their contingency reserve funds in order to obtain and maintain

insurance.

My first question to the minister would be this. We’ve heard — and

I’m sure she has as well — from a lot of strata owners who have said:

“Great. We are facing a 200 percent increase in our premium this year.

Sure, there’s a $70,000 gap in what we had budgeted for insurance this

year as a result of that, versus the actual costs that have come in. So

sure, let’s go and access our contingency reserve fund.” The strata in

question might have the dollars in their reserve fund to do exactly that

in the first year.

The question to the minister is: what do they do in the second

year? What do they do in the third year? What do they do beyond this

first year if, in actual fact, a strata corporation has substantially

depleted or even entirely depleted their contingency reserve fund in

order to pay for insurance?

What are they supposed to do in the subsequent year, barring the

unimaginable reality of these international insurance companies coming

forward next year and saying: “Oh, good news. We know we hit you with a

200 percent increase to your premium last year. We’re going to give that

all back to you and reduce your insurance premiums this forthcoming year

by a couple of hundred percent”? What are stratas supposed to do beyond

that first year, where they likely have significantly depleted their

reserves that are in that fund?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I think it’s important to note that the act does require that the

strata corporation obtain and maintain property and liability insurance.

Their bylaws may require other coverages as well. But in some cases, the

necessary expenditures to get insurance can exceed what was approved in

the budget. Strata corporations may also be made aware of changes to

insurance coverage without enough lead time to give proper notice and

draft resolutions to be voted on at a general meeting. They have to

bring everyone together, and that can take a significant amount of time

to do that.

This amendment would clearly indicate the prevention of

significant loss. That includes expenditures required to obtain and

maintain required insurance. This is available in future years as well.

This is when they haven’t budgeted sufficiently for insurance, and they

need to act. There is an opportunity here for them to do so.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

T. Stone: Well, I understand that. My question was: what is the strata

corporation supposed to do in year 2 if, in year 1, they substantially

depleted their contingency reserve fund in order to cover insurance

costs? What are they supposed do in subsequent years if their insurance

rates continue to remain at that high level or, God forbid, continue to

increase further?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I know that strata corporations spend time putting together

a budget based on good data about what the costs are going to be for the

coming year. That is how they develop what strata fees are. This

particular amendment is…. Should there have been a situation where there

hasn’t been sufficient budget….

I do imagine that many that have been challenged with the

insurance premiums are getting good data around what they can expect for

the coming year so that they can budget appropriately. This is a change

so that, should it not be sufficient, they can access their reserves in

order to cover those costs.

The Chair: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson.

T. Stone: Thank you, Chair. Welcome to the chamber.

Okay. To the minister, I’m again just looking for an answer to the

question.

[3:35 p.m.]

Considering that the minister has made such a big deal about the

ability that this legislation provides, or will provide should it be

passed, for a strata corporation to be able to access its contingency

reserve fund to pay insurance costs, when you run the numbers on any one

of the scenarios, the hundreds of stratas that have contacted us — I

know the minister is receiving the same letters, because they typically

are sent to her and copied to me or vice versa — this will result in a

lot of these strata corporations depleting their contingency reserve

fund.

They won’t have anything in that contingency reserve fund, or they

certainly won’t have the ability to access those funds in a subsequent

year. Perhaps this measure is not the panacea. It’s not the viable

solution to the skyrocketing insurance challenge that’s facing so many

strata corporations. Does the minister agree?

Hon. S. Robinson: I never said that this was a panacea. What we said was that we

were going to give stratas tools to address a current situation, based

on an interim report. There’s more information coming with the final

report, but in the meantime, we felt it critical to act to give strata

corporations more tools, to bring in more transparency. This is one more

tool to give strata corporations the flexibility that they need to

manage their budgets and to address the maintenance of their

buildings.

T. Stone: Let the record show that the minister was not able or willing to

answer the question: if a strata corporation depletes their contingency

reserve fund in the first year, how are they supposed to access it the

second year if their insurance costs haven’t gone down — or, God forbid,

have gone up?

My next question on this point would be this. We just spent a

considerable amount of time talking about depreciation reports and the

minister’s decision to remove the ability to defer a depreciation

report, except for some prescribed circumstances which we won’t know

about for many months. The whole argument that the minister makes about

the underlying policy rationale for removing the ability to defer

depreciation reports — again, as she says over and over — is about

ensuring that strata corporations are investing in the maintenance and

the upgrades of their buildings.

That requirement in this bill seems to be greatly at odds with the

provisions of this

section 6, where the minister is essentially saying,

“Strata corporation, go ahead and access your contingency reserve

funds,” the very funds that are supposed to be there for strata

corporations to be able to fund unplanned or significant upgrades and

maintenance issues that take place in their buildings. Does the minister

agree that there is a conflict here, in terms of the underlying policy

purpose of the new depreciation report requirements, as detailed in

sections 4 and 5 of this bill, and the contingency reserve fund

provisions of this

section 6? Is there a contradiction here,

Minister?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: This

section is about giving strata corporations flexibility. If

they haven’t been adequately putting reserves away, then they really do

have difficult decisions to make, but this gives them some flexibility

in the short term to help get them on the right track.

The other thing I think it’s important to recognize…. This is the

tension. The member is accurate. There’s tension between these two

principles. But it’s also why, as part of consultation, we need to talk

about a phase-in period so that stratas have the time to adjust. We

recognize the importance of doing that.

T. Stone: Enough said, I suppose, on this

section — other than to say again

that there does seem to be tremendous inconsistency in the depreciation

report changes that this bill includes, as well as the contingency

reserve fund changes. They seem completely at odds with one

another.

That concludes my questions on

section 6. If there’s no one else

that has questions on

section 6 — I don’t have any questions on

section

7 either — I’d be happy to move to

section 8.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

section 8.

T. Stone: This

section deals with an important change to the current

requirement of insurance coverage being in place that provides for full

replacement-cost coverage. I have a few questions here.

I guess the first question would be: what would be the

circumstances that the minister might have in mind that would allow for

not requiring insurance at full replacement value?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: This

section is about ensuring that strata councils that are

unable…. We’ve been hearing about some that are unable to get full

replacement insurance, through no fault of their own, and are no longer

compliant with the Strata Property Act.

I want to make it really clear to the House that this is not

lowering the replacement-value requirement. We expect that strata

councils will make every effort to get full replacement coverage, if

possible. This change is being made to acknowledge the current market

realities and prevent strata councils from being non-compliant with the

Strata Property Act through no fault of their own.

T. Stone: Just to be absolutely clear, the intention here is for stratas to

go out and seek 100 percent replacement cost coverage. If they can’t

obtain that…. We know that a growing number of stratas are finding

themselves, as the minister says, offside with the legislation. They’re

finding themselves in a position of not having full replacement-cost

coverage.

I think the latest numbers I saw, industry analysts were

suggesting that there’s a growing and significant number of stratas that

are kind of in that ballpark of 60 to 70 percent coverage that they’re

able to attain, leaving a 30 to 40 percent gap.

Is it then going to be a continued expectation that stratas will

seek 100 percent replacement-cost coverage and that only in the

situations where they can’t obtain it, there will be some provisions

that will allow for that to happen and for the strata to not be offside

with the requirements in the Strata Property Act?

Hon. S. Robinson: That’s correct.

T. Stone: What does the minister believe is an adequate level of replacement

cost coverage, if it’s not 100 percent? Let me back up and rephrase

that. First, does the minister believe that 100 percent replacement-cost

coverage is absolutely the required ideal on a go-forward

basis?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: We certainly do believe, of course, that 100 percent is the ideal.

This amendment is about, again, keeping strata corporations from being

offside of the legislation. So it does reflect current market

realities.

Having said that, we do have work to do to get the market working

better so that stratas can get 100 percent coverage. That’s work that

we’re continuing to do. We’re looking forward to the final report from

the BCFSA that will help to do that, as well as continuing to consult

with all sides of this current situation to address the significant

increase in insurance rates.

I have a sense of where the member might be going, so I’ll wait to

hear his next question.

T. Stone: Well, we’re in big trouble if you can read my mind,

Minister.

My next question would be this. If it’s the minister’s view that

100 percent replacement cost coverage is the ideal, and there is, I

think, some intent here to provide a bit of a stopgap measure so that

stratas that can’t obtain that 100 percent are not offside with the

Strata Property Act….

If 100 percent is unattainable, what is the minister’s view of

what an acceptable level of replacement cost coverage would be?

Certainly, there must be some consideration in terms of what that

prescribed regulation would actually say. Will the ministry and the

government be good with 60 percent replacement cost coverage, 70, 80?

What level of replacement cost coverage would the minister deem to be

acceptable if it isn’t 100 percent?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Stratas have the opportunity to determine what they’re most

comfortable with in terms of their insurance needs. This is about making

sure they’re not offside. What I can share with the member is that we’ve

certainly been hearing that the Insurance Bureau has been working very

closely, one-on-one, with strata corporations that are struggling to get

full replacement value. They’ve been bringing partners to the table to

get as much insurance as they can. Really, at the end of the day, it’s

up to the strata corporations to make the decisions that best meet their

needs.

T. Stone: What replacement cost coverage percentage is the minister

comfortable with? I appreciate that she has said that strata

corporations will have a comfort level in terms of a level they’re

comfortable with. What level of comfort will the minister have with

respect to a percentage of replacement cost coverage that is less than

100 percent?

Again, we really tried to hammer this point home in second

reading. The reality is that strata corporations, strata owners, are

making these gut-wrenching financial decisions, like, now. They’re

making significant decisions that impact the financial realities of

their strata corporation now, in light of the massive increases in their

premiums and so forth. It’s cold comfort to these folks to hear that

there is going to be a consultation. There’s going to be engagement.

It’s going to be months down the road before we know where this is going

to land.

If it’s not 100 percent, again, is the minister comfortable with

80 percent? Is she comfortable with 60 percent? What is that percentage

that the minister would be comfortable with, for replacement cost

coverage, if it’s not at 100 percent?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member was talking about the tough decisions that strata

corporations need to make. They are tough decisions. They’re very, very

difficult. This amendment is about not wanting to add to their stress by

not only having to make tough decisions, but we don’t want them to be

offside of the act. This is about making sure that they’re not offside

of the act and reducing some of that stress.

I want to be really clear. It’s not about my comfort level. It’s

about how stratas…. Making sure that they’re not doubly burdened, and

this relieves them of that burden.

T. Stone: The reality is that strata corporations, strata owners, are making

financial decisions as we speak and are making them based on what the

current rules provide for.

[4:00 p.m.]

A change in the full replacement cost coverage amount —

presumably, it should have an impact on the premiums that are charged to

that strata corporation and, through the corporation, the strata owners

by their fees. Understanding what percentage the ministry, the minister,

will consider acceptable…. At the end of the day, it’s the minister and

the government that she’s part of that will make the decision around

when those prescribed regulations are developed — what that acceptable

percentage of full replacement cost coverage will be if it’s not 100

percent. I think that’s the clarity that we’re striving to achieve

here.

I guess a related question would be this: what process does the

minister envision putting in place that will facilitate this piece? As

the minister has explained, to this point, the intention will continue….

She can correct me if I’m wrong on any of this, but what I’ve heard is

that the intention for a strata to seek to obtain 100 percent of full

replacement cost coverage will still be there. However, if they’re

unable to obtain it, there will be provisions that will ensure that

they’re no longer offside with the act.

What does that process actually look like? What is the minister

contemplating? A strata corporation finds out from their broker that

they’re no longer covered at 100 percent. The best that can be offered

is now, you know, 70 percent cost coverage. Is that strata going to have

a certain timeline that they have to go to the Ministry of Municipal

Affairs, to advise them in writing? Is there going to be an adjudication

process or some kind of evaluation process? What does the timeliness of

that look like?

Can the minister speak to the process of how this — let’s call it

an exemption from the 100 percent full cost replacement coverage

requirement — would actually, in practical terms, be rolled out for

strata corporations that are unable to obtain the 100

percent?

Hon. S. Robinson: The strata council will have to make every effort, and they have

to demonstrate to their members — they are accountable to their members;

that means the owners — that every attempt has been made to get full

replacement value. If a member doesn’t believe that that’s been the

case, then they can go to the civil resolution tribunal.

Again, this is about unburdening them. We’ve heard from just a

handful of councils that they were unable to get 100 percent coverage,

so in this case we said: “Okay, we’re not going to hold you to the

legislation, but you still have to make best efforts.” And they have to

be accountable to their members, because that’s ultimately who they’re

accountable to.

[4:05 p.m.]

T. Stone: Well, again, just for clarity here, I think we all understand that

the councils are accountable to their members, or the owners of the

strata. What does the process look like, in practical terms, for a

strata corporation being essentially deemed by the province — through

the Strata Property Act, presumably, or in related regulations — to be

off the hook insofar as meeting the 100 percent replacement cost

coverage requirement? What does that process look like?

If it’s the government’s intention to maintain the 100 percent

replacement cost coverage requirement, all the while allowing for

exceptions where a strata council or a strata corporation cannot obtain

the 100 percent, at what point…? How does the process actually unfold,

in prac­tical terms, that provides the strata corporation, from

government, with, essentially, a green light that the corporation can

proceed with less than 100 percent replacement cost coverage?

Hon. S. Robinson: The strata corporation will have to demonstrate that they’ve made

best efforts, and they’ll have to communicate that to the members.

There’s another item later on in this bill that speaks to material

changes and communicating clearly and early with members so that they

have an understanding about what the material changes are, as well as

demonstrating to their membership their best efforts to receive as close

to 100 percent as possible if they could not get 100 percent coverage.

They need to be able to demonstrate that, again, to their

membership.

T. Stone: Is the approach of government, then, going to be that the 100

percent replacement cost coverage requirement will be a guideline, like

a suggested best practice, a target, and that the encouragement will be

there to do all you can to get 100 percent, but that if you don’t get

100 percent — as long as you can look your members, other strata owners,

in the eyes that you’ve made the best effort — you’re not going to be

offside with the Strata Property Act. Is that what the minister is

saying?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: This amendment is about striving to get 100 percent replacement

coverage. In the rare circumstance where they can’t, this is about

giving strata corporations just that flexibility when they can’t get the

100 percent because the product just isn’t available to them in the

market. This, again, just keeps them from being offside of the

legislation. But the commitment is to get 100 percent where they can and

as close to 100 percent where they can.

T. Stone: Let’s run one scenario here. Let’s say a broker says to a strata

corporation, upon renewal of their policy: “Good news. We’ve actually

got two options for you now. One option is for 100 percent full

replacement value coverage. The other option is for 90 percent

coverage.” The 90 percent option is considerably less expensive than the

first option. Will the Strata Property Act and related regulations

require the strata corporation to go with the 100 percent replacement

cost coverage option, or will the strata corporation have the choice in

that situation?

Hon. S. Robinson: The act is clear: for a full 100 percent replacement value, if the

product is available.

T. Stone: Okay. If that’s not going to change, that will still be the

hard-and-fast requirement.

Then I’m still trying to understand what will let the strata

corporation off the hook formally, from the government’s perspective. I

get that they have to look their strata owners in the eyes. But

certainly, if the minister is saying that to pursue 100 percent

replacement cost coverage is still going to be the legal requirement,

there must be some process the minister is contemplating that will

formally advise the strata corporation that they’re okay at 90 percent,

at 80 percent or at whatever the amount is that they were able to

obtain, if it’s short of the 100 percent.

I’m really hoping the minister can provide her thoughts on what

that practical process — that review, evaluation, whatever you want to

call it — will look like that will make it okay for a strata corporation

not to be at 100 percent full replacement cost coverage but at some

lower amount.

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Once again, it’s only okay to have less than 100 percent if the

product is not available to them. They are required to obtain the

maximum coverage that is available to them. Just like everything else in

the Strata Act, they are accountable to their members.

T. Stone: I wanted, for the purposes of discussion on this section, to touch

on the bare land strata piece again. I mentioned it in an earlier

question to the minister on a different section. I know the minister

probably shares the view that I do that bare land stratas are very, very

different than a more traditional condominium-type strata. The

common-area assets — that mix — are very, very different with a bare

land strata. You’re talking about a common property that is much less

reflected in buildings and more in asphalt, concrete, walls, common

gardens and those kinds of things.

I’m wondering if the minister, as part of the changes here around

full replacement-cost coverage, is taking into consideration a lower

than full replacement-cost coverage on an asset mix for a bare land

strata, which is very different than other types of stratas. Is that

something the minister is thinking about or willing to consider, or is

it the intention to move forward with the continued requirement for 100

percent replacement cost coverage for every type of strata — townhome,

condo, apartment, bare land strata — moving forward? Will they all

continue to be required to obtain the 100 percent replacement cost

coverage?

Hon. S. Robinson: The answer is yes. Again, we need to remember that the insurance

products change based on which kind of strata it is as well. There are a

multitude of opportunities for different products, for different strata

types. I guess that the short answer is yes.

T. Stone: Okay. I think we’ve raised this in the House as one example. I

just want to reiterate this and ask a question around it, in the context

of the subject that we’re talking about at the moment. It’s that

Penticton example, which we’ve mentioned a few times. It’s a strata that

had a fire, without coverage, because they couldn’t get full replacement

cost coverage. They’re now obligated to renew on a prohibitive 100

percent policy with a premium that actually may bankrupt the strata. The

premium has gone up so high that it may actually bankrupt the

strata.

Could the prospect of bankruptcy due to that premium being so high

be cause enough to allow for a less than full-replacement cost coverage

amount for that particular type of situation?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Part of our consultation is to identify extenuating circumstances.

But let’s be really clear here. This really is about ensuring adequate

protection for strata owners. That’s the principle here — that we’re

making best efforts and that we want strata corporations to be making

best efforts so that there’s as much insurance as possible. Only when

they can’t get a product, when it’s not available, does this amendment

address that so that they’re not offside of the legislation.

T. Stone: If a strata corporation will be continued to purchase 100 percent

coverage at any price, even though, as I asked a few questions ago,

there might be a much less expensive option for, let’s say, 90 percent

coverage…. If the minister is going to continue to insist on 100 percent

replacement cost coverage in all situations as the desired outcome, does

the minister not believe that such an approach is actually giving

continued carte blanche to the insurance industry to continue to jack up

the insurance rates on strata corporations and strata owners, as they

have over the last year or two years?

Hon. S. Robinson: To the member’s question, our consultation is about getting a

better understanding of what those extenuating circumstances are in

order to best determine this question of 100 percent coverage. I also

want to remind the member that mortgage lenders often require 100

percent. So that’s certainly an element that is well recognized in the

industry.

[4:25 p.m.]

There is certainly, like I said earlier, a final report coming

from the BCFSA. Combined with all these other tools, it is about getting

the insurance system back to a healthier balance.

T. Stone: The minister’s comment about the consultations that will take

place on this particular provision, as all provisions in this bill, I

think is a good segue to my last question on this section, and it would

be this.

Again, from a timing perspective, respecting the fact that

hundreds and hundreds of strata corporations around the province are

making excruciatingly difficult financial decisions respecting their

insurance, moving forward, when can they expect the consultations on

this piece to be concluded and the regulations to be developed and

publicly released? Is the timing within weeks? Are we talking, again,

the fall, as the minister has stated on some other sections? What does

that timing look like?

I would just say…. I urge the minister, on behalf of so many

people we’ve talked to on this or that we’ve heard from on this, to

expedite the work on this piece so that people have the clarity that

they need in order to factor it into these really difficult financial

decisions that they’re making.

Hon. S. Robinson: As I’ve said before, our consultations are imminent, and our

intention is to bring in regulations this fall.

The Chair: No questions on

section 8, I understand, Member?

T. Stone: Yeah, sorry. One more question.

The Chair: Okay. Proceed.

T. Stone: Thank you, Chair.

I was remiss in asking this before the timing question a moment

ago. The research that we’ve done in the official opposition and the

industry folks that we’ve spoken to…. We’ve had several different folks

confirm for us that in the past 55 years, here in British Columbia,

there has only ever been one claim for a total loss.

Does the minister have stats that indicate otherwise? When

government is insisting and the minister is insisting on continuing with

a hard-and-fast rule around the 100 percent replacement cost coverage as

the desired level of coverage that’s in place, isn’t she requiring a

degree here of over-insurance that history indicates isn’t really

necessary? Again, one total loss in the strata space over the last 55

years in British Columbia.

[4:30 p.m.]

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, we need to remember that mortgage lenders also

require 100 percent, so we want to make sure that there are certainly

opportunities for people to purchase homes. But I want to make sure that

the member understands that if you only get 80 percent coverage, and you

have a $50,000 claim, it only covers 80 percent of that claim, and

there’s still a gap. It’s not just about 100 percent coverage meaning

100 percent of the building. It’s for whatever the claim is — 100

percent of the claim, 50 percent of the claim, 80 percent of the claim.

That certainly, I think, is the…. I want to make sure that the member

understands that that’s what that means.

T. Stone: Yes, I do understand that that’s what it means. I guess the

question was focused more on: does the minister feel that there is an

element of overinsurance being required here? When we look at the

requirement for 100 percent replacement cost coverage against the

backdrop of only one total loss in this space in the span of the last 55

years…. I mean, that’s what industry analysts and folks in the industry

have advised us in the official opposition. I was looking for whether or

not the minister had some other statistics that she was privy to that

were contradictory to what I suggested there.

In the interests of time, I’ll move on. That’s all the questions

that I have on

section 8. I have no questions on

section 9 or

section

10, so I’d be happy to move to

section 11.

Sections 8 to 10 inclusive approved.

section 11.

T. Stone: A couple of quick questions on this section. The first would be

this: has the minister decided what the cap level will be? Is she

considering a liability cap level in line with other jurisdictions? We

know Alberta recently put in a cap of $50,000 here. Just trying to get

an understanding of where the minister’s head is at and where

government’s head is at around what this cap level might actually look

like here in British Columbia.

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: This is another element for imminent consultation with

determination on the regulation coming this fall, and we’ll certainly be

looking at other jurisdictions to help in that consultation

process.

T. Stone: Is it the minister’s sense that she may proceed or government may

proceed with a liability cap that varies depending on the type of

strata? Secondly, will the liability cap be linked to the liability

insurance caps that are actually available to the individuals in

question? Thirdly, will this individual owner’s liability cap be linked

to the strata corporation’s deductibles in any way?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member’s questions are all part of the

consultation.

T. Stone: Can the minister provide us with a sense of timing, again, related

to when that consultation will be concluded and we will have answers —

people in the sector, in the space will have answers — on what this

indivi­dual cap will actually look like?

Hon. S. Robinson: As I said earlier, the consultations are imminent, and we will

have the regulation ready this fall.

Section 11 approved.

section 12.

T. Stone: Just one quick question. I know we canvassed the depreciation

report changes in an earlier section, but there was one question that I

just wanted to make sure was on the record. I’m hoping that the minister

can answer.

As they’re doing their consultation and they’re developing the

prescribed regulations on this issue of changes to the depreciation

report requirements, I’m wondering: will the minister be open to

considering different levels of depreciation reports — meaning, perhaps,

circumstances where a depreciation report based on a detailed inspection

is required versus general observations versus quantitative updates to

previous versions of depreciation reports?

Hon. S. Robinson: That’s all going to be part of the consultation. And to anticipate

the member’s potential next question, that consultation is imminent, and

we expect to have the regulation in place for the fall.

Section 12 approved.

section 13.

T. Stone: I have no further questions on

section 13. We canvassed everything

I was hoping to canvass as part of our discussions on

section

Section 13 approved.

section 14.

[4:40 p.m.]

T. Stone:

Section 14 deals with banning referral fees. I’m just wondering

what data was presented to the minister that really highlighted the

prevalence of referral fees for insurance sales to stratas.

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to be clear on the record that this is limited. We did

hear, get some data, from the Insurance Council as well as the

condominium home owners. We heard that there were seven property

management companies that participated in this activity that we know

of.

T. Stone: Just to be clear, the minister made the decision to ban referral

fees based on information from seven property management companies

across the entire province of British Columbia. Did I hear that

correctly?

Hon. S. Robinson: I would say that that’s sort of preliminary, but I also want to

remind the member that property management companies can service

hundreds of strata properties, and that affects, of course, then,

hundreds of strata corporations.

T. Stone: Can the minister tell us how common referral fees are? Can she

illustrate that commonality in percentage terms or dollar values or

percentage of total policies sold? What is the prevalence of referral

fees in the industry?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: We don’t have hard numbers, because it’s not a transparent fee.

What I can tell the member is that this was raised by the Condominium

Home Owners Association. They raised this issue as a problem. I’m just

going to read a quote from a report that we received from them into the

record, because I think it speaks to this particular challenge. They

said:

“As of this report, there are several companies that are receiving

commissions, either directly through their brokerages or a parent

company or holding company. In some agency examples, brokerages are

disclosing they may receive or may be permitted to receive a fee from

third parties, with no particulars or amounts being disclosed to the

strata corporations, including the origin of the fee or the

amount.

“In another example, a gross percentage fee is being disclosed,

either as a share of the insurance brokerage amount or an amount of the

total cost of the insurance, without any disclosure of the actual amount

received. There are also indications on the disclosure that this had no

impact on the increase or cost of insurance.

“However, with no disclosure of the amounts earned as commissions by

the insurance brokers, the methods of how insurance rates are

determined, or the disclosure of the actual amounts received and paid,

there is no evidence to indicate that the additional commission has not

increased the cost of the insurance.”

According to the report, “Rates have been documented” — where they

have been documented — “as high as 8 percent of the gross policy

values.” It’s for that reason, hon. Chair, that this amendment is

here.

T. Stone: Can the minister confirm whether or not the B.C. Financial

Services Authority collected data with respect to how much the referral

fees contribute to the price of strata insurance premiums? Perhaps she

could express that in percentage terms. What percentage of the total

cost of strata insurance relates to referral fees that are provided by

brokers to property management companies and others?

Hon. S. Robinson: This particular item came out of another report from the B.C.

Condominium Home Owners Association, and the FSA has been tasked with

looking at the insurance side.

T. Stone: Just to confirm, is the minister saying that her government is

proceeding with a provision in the legislation that she can’t actually

quantify, that she can’t quantify the problem that this particular

provision is seeking to address? It would seem to me that to take a

measure such as this one to ban referral fees may sound like an

attractive thing to do. It may very well be the right thing to do. What

I’m looking for here is what the underlying basis, the financial basis,

is for doing so.

One would think that the minister would be able to provide some

sense of what portion of the overall strata insurance premium — the cost

to the strata corporation, the cost to strata owners…. What percentage

of that cost actually relates to referral fees? I’m not hearing from the

minister that she has that quantification well understood or well in

hand, yet she’s proceeding with this provision in this legislation. Is

that correct?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Like I said to the member earlier, there’s no transparency in

this. So that level of quantification is…. We’re not able to access it

because it gets buried. But also, from a consumer protection

perspective, we know that that’s not appropriate. We have been able to

identify at least seven property management companies that use this, and

given their responsibility for hundreds of strata corporations, this

will certainly have an impact.

T. Stone: I have no further questions on

section

Section 14 approved.

section 15.

T. Stone: Well, this

section deals with enabling the enforcement of the

referral fee ban provided for in

section 14. My question would be this.

What will this enforcement process actually look like?

Hon. S. Robinson: Contravention of the prohibition on referral fees will be an

offence for which a person may be prosecuted and subject to a fine of

not more than $25,000 for an individual and $50,000 for a corporation.

So, for example, insurance brokers may face suspension or revocation of

their licence, along with an administrative penalty of up to $25,000 for

an individual or $50,000 for a corporation.

T. Stone: No further questions on

section

Section 15 approved.

section 16.

T. Stone: Can the minister tell us what the timeline will be when it comes

to non-renewal notifications by insurers?

Hon. S. Robinson: So this is part of consultation that is starting imminently and

will be in regulation this fall.

[4:55 p.m.]

T. Stone: Can the minister imminently respond to my next question before the

fall? The question would be: does the minister believe that 30 days is

appropriate? We’ve received a lot of feedback in the official opposition

from folks that 60 days, or even perhaps a bit longer than that, might

be more helpful and more appropriate. Does the minister think that 30

days is truly adequate in this situation?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think, understanding the context that we’re working in right

now, strata councils only get one or two days. So 30 days is certainly

an improvement and really working to balance the needs between the

strata corporation and the insurance brokerages and us. That’s really

the balance that we’re looking to achieve.

T. Stone: No further questions on

section

Section 16 approved.

section 17.

T. Stone: I’m just wondering. Again, I think the minister has heard a theme

— well, a few themes — from us in the official opposition, one very

important one being the timeliness of these consultations and

engagements that will continue. The minister says they will imminently

proceed with regulations, decisions around regulations, to be ready for

the fall. When I hear that, I also realize that that coincides with the

timing of the Minister of Finance’s economic recovery

framework.

Has the minister pushed for strata crisis financial relief to be

part of the government’s economic recovery framework, and could we

expect to hear some details about that in conjunction with the

announcement of regulations that pertain to this act in September of

this year?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member will recall that we tabled this in February, March —

before COVID, whenever that was — so our intent has been to move on this

sooner than we’ve been able to, given that the Legislature wasn’t

sitting through the spring. This body of work is completely independent

of the COVID situation that is before us.

T. Stone: No further questions, Chair.

Thanks to the hard-working men and women in the ministry for the

briefings that they’ve provided us ahead of time and the many questions

that we have posed today, the background that they provide the minister

and the support for all of us. We really appreciate it.

Section 17 approved.

The Chair: The only outstanding item is the title. We’ll have to leave

the title, I am advised, given our time constraints here.

[5:00 p.m.]

Noting the hour, the committee is going to wrap up

consideration of the title of Bill 14. We’re going to be, pursuant

to the sessional order regulating hybrid proceedings of the House….

As members will know, we deferred a division, which will take place

shortly, on the amendment proposed by the member for Abbotsford

West, which appears on the order paper, to

section 3 of Bill 14,

Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes Amendment Act, which we’ve

been discussing today.

Members, pursuant to the sessional order regulating these

proceedings, the House will stand recessed until 5:10.

The committee recessed from 5:01 p.m. to 5:10 p.m.

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

The Chair: Members, we’ll call the committee back to order.

[5:15 p.m.]

Members, we’ll proceed with the deferred division vote. The

question is whether the amendment proposed by the member for

Abbotsford West to

section 3 of Bill 14, Municipal Affairs and

Housing Statutes Amendment Act, shall pass.

[5:20 p.m. - 5:25 p.m.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 41

Ashton

Barnett

Bernier

Bond

Cadieux

Clovechok

Coleman

Davies

de Jong

Foster

Hunt

Isaacs

Johal

Kyllo

Larson

Lee

Letnick

Martin

Milobar

Morris

Oakes

Paton

Polak

Redies

Reid

Ross

Rustad

Shypitka

Stewart

Stilwell

Stone

Sturdy

Sullivan

Sultan

Tegart

Thomson

Thornthwaite

Throness

Wat

Wilkinson

Yap

NAYS — 43

Bains

Beare

Begg

Brar

Chandra Herbert

Chen

Chouhan

Chow

Conroy

Darcy

Dean

D’Eith

Dix

Donaldson

Eby

Elmore

Farnworth

Fleming

Fraser

Furstenau

Glumac

Heyman

Horgan

James

Kang

Leonard

Malcolmson

Mark

Mungall

Olsen

Popham

Ralston

Rice

Robinson

Routledge

Routley

Simons

Simpson

Sims

Singh

Trevena

Weaver

The Chair: We’ll return to the legislation and the bill. We’re going to

go back to

section 3, I am advised by staff, because the amendment

failed. We’ll now proceed with

section 3 and seek comments on this

section.

Section 3 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to just take a moment to thank the staff, who worked

diligently. I want to thank the members who participated in this

committee.

I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:27 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 14 — MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND

HOUSING STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (N o . 2), 2020

Bill 14, Municipal Affairs and Housing Statutes Amendment Act (No.

2), 2020, reported complete without amendment, to be considered at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until Mon­day, July 27, at 10

a.m.

The House adjourned at 5:28 p.m.

Copyright © 2020 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

chamber proceedings are available at www.leg.bc.ca .

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.