British Columbia Hansard — 7 October 2021, p.m., Issue 105 (42nd Parliament, 2nd Session)

20211007pm-Hansard-n105

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session, 42nd Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (HANSARD) Thursday, October 7, 2021 Afternoon Sitting Issue No. 105 THE HONOURABLE RAJ CHOUHAN, SPEAKER ISSN 1499-2175

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTENTS Thursday, October 7, 2021 Afternoon Sitting Page Routine Business Introductions by Members..................................................................................................................................................... 3419 Tributes ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 3419 Frank Mitchell Hon. M.

Dean Orders of the Day Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 3420 Bill 12 — Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2021 Hon. M. Farnworth M. Morris M. Lee Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right) ............................................................................................................................. 3430 Hon. D.

Eby Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 3430 Bill 12 — Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2021 M. Lee Hon. M. Farnworth M.

Morris Report and Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................................................... 3433 Bill 12 — Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2021 Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 3433 Bill 17 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2021 Hon. G. Heyman P . Milobar E.

Ross Report and Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................................................... 3437 Bill 17 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2021 Throne Speech Debate(continued) ...................................................................................................................................... 3437 Hon. N. Simons K. Paddon

THURSDAY , OCTOBER 7, 2021 The House met at 1:03 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Introductions by Members Hon. M. Dean:It’s an absolute honour for me today to rise in this House to make a couple of important introduc- tions. Behind me, we have the former MLA Moe Sihota. He actually became president of the Y oung New Demo- crats in 1978, and he was the campaign manager for MLA Frank Mitchell, his predecessor. In 1984, he was elected as an alderman for Esquimalt, and in ’86, he ran as the NDP candidate in the riding of Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, replacing the retiring Frank Mitchell.

He held the seat and became the first Indo-Cana- dian to be elected to any federal or provincial riding. In 1991, he won re-election in the new riding of Esqui- malt-Metchosin and was appointed the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services, as well as Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs — becoming the first Indian- Canadian cabinet minister in a province of Canada. He continued to serve in several cabinet posts under the Har- court New Democrat government, as well as under the subsequent governments of Glen Clark and Dan Miller. I am also very honoured to be joined by former MLA Maurine Karagianis.

She was elected as a municipal coun- cillor in Esquimalt in 1996 and re-elected again in 1999 and again in 2002. She was first elected to the Legislature in the 2005 election to the constituency of Esquimalt-Met- chosin and was re-elected in 2009 to the new constituency of Esquimalt–Royal Roads and again in 2013. In her career, she has been opposition critic for MCFD, Transportation and the Ministry of Small Businesses and Revenue.

In 2014, Maurine was elected as official oppo- sition caucus Whip and served in that position until her retirement. [1:05 p.m.] Would the House please make our very esteemed guests very welcome. Tributes FRANK MITCHELL Hon. M. Dean: Our special guests are here today to show their respect and honour for the legacy, as I’m saddened to inform the House, of the passing of former MLA Frank Mitchell. In 1951, at only 25 years old, Mr. Mitchell was elected as a CCF member of the Legislature for Esquimalt–Port Ren- frew. He was re-elected in 1952 and defeated in the 1953 provincial election.

Never to give up, he was re-elected to this House in 1979 and again in 1983. Until his death, Mr. Mitchell was the last surviving member of a CCF caucus. A soft-spoken gentle giant of a man and a former police officer, Frank, together with his late wife Kay Mitchell, built a political machine in Esqui- malt that was the envy of the NDP . In fact, Frank and Kay first met at a CCF youth meeting, and after six years of courting, Frank finally mustered the courage to propose to Kay on Christmas Eve while on a rowboat ride off Saxe Point in Esquimalt.

For the full duration of their 68-year marriage, politics was a joint effort. Kay was the principal and architect of a political army large enough to knock three times on each door from Esquimalt to Port Renfrew in election cam- paigns from the 1960s to the turn of the century. That political foundation helped elect not only Frank but former Premier Dave Barrett, former Esquimalt MLAs Moe Sihota and Maurine Karagianis, as well as myself and our current Premier. Frank and Kay built their political dynasty on the notion that if you looked after people, they would look after you.

Frank was known for his commitment to strong constitu- ency service. Folks in the constituency knew that they could count on Frank to go to bat for them. Frank was a great believer in the adage that all politics is local. He focused on getting results for his riding. He helped local shipbuilders by saving the graving dock at CFB Esquimalt. Whether it be the Veterans Memorial Parkway, the highway to Sooke, seniors housing in Lang- ford or Lampson Street School, his fingerprints can be seen throughout the Esquimalt–Port Renfrew corridor. After the 1983 provincial election, Mr. Mitchell approached Mr.

Sihota to consider seeking the NDP nom- ination. It was because of his encouragement that Mr. Sihota became elected. Frank and Kay are survived by their two daughters. Excuse me for just a moment. I ask for a recess. Thank you. Mr. Speaker:The House will be in recess for a few minutes. The House recessed from 1:07 p.m. to 1:09 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Hon. M. Dean:Frank and Kay are survived by their two daughters, Erin and Maureen. He is survived by his grand- children and beloved sons-in-law, Cris and Glen, and many friends.

The family has asked that I make special mention of their friendship with Bob and Heather Phillips, from Otter Point. This province has been built through the courage, vision and leadership of every member that has had the privilege to take a seat in this chamber. I would like to take a 3419

moment to thank Frank, Kay and the Mitchell family for their enduring commitment to the cause of social justice, fairness and equality. Thank you. Orders of the Day Hon. M. Farnworth:I call committee stage, Bill 12, Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act. [1:10 p.m.] Committee of the Whole House BILL 12 — INSURANCE (VEHICLE) AMENDMENT ACT, 2021 The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 12; N. Letnick in the chair. The committee met at 1:12 p.m. On clause 1. The Chair:Would you like to introduce your staff, to start? Hon. M. Farnworth:Thank you, hon. Chair.

I’m joined by Nina Bindra and Anne Foy, both very cap- able, to assist. I look forward to the discussion. M. Morris:This question pertains to this clause and all the subsequent clauses in this particular bill. Can the min- ister confirm that this bill conforms with

section 3 of the Declaration Act, and what steps were taken to consult with First Nations across the province? Hon. M. Farnworth:This particular bill is composed of amendments. The original bill, which these amendments amend, was consulted on with First Nations. In this particular case, it’s been determined that these amendments are not expected to affect Indigenous people any differently than other members of society. So

article 19 is not unrelated, nor are there any other related articles. The bill that you see here before you today is the bill you see here before you. It’s not impacted by

article 3, which you were just referring to. M. Morris: How many First Nations communities operate in rural parts of the province, without the same access to medical facilities, to the resources that a lot of people need to help them navigate through the various systems here? [1:15 p.m.] I’m just wondering if there has been any consultation with First Nations to identify any deficiencies in this par- ticular bill, even though it amends the existing act, to see whether there were any questions that they might have had with the contents of this bill. Hon. M.

Farnworth:The original Bill 11 — there were consultations around that, and there were no concerns raised about that bill. These amendments just clarify cer- tain sections of that legislation. M. Morris:We’ll be getting into the meat and potatoes of some of the contents of this bill, which are unique. They do address some other concerns here. I’ll leave that for now but will probably touch on this later on in the discussion. Clause 1 approved. On clause 2. M. Morris:I will be deferring to my colleague from Vancouver shortly here.

One of the questions I ask with respect to clause 2, under 14.1(2): have there been any agreements entered into by ICBC with the government on any issues that relate to this no-fault insurance bill? Hon. M. Farnworth:There is one pre-existing agree- ment that has been modified over time, first in 1988 and then in 1994. But there are no other agreements under this section. M. Lee: I wanted to just follow on from the member for Prince George–Mackenzie’s line of questioning. When I look at, in clause 2, the definition of agreement….

Of course, this whole provision takes us back to 1973, and 1973, of course, is the genesis of ICBC, the whole forma- tion, under that previous NDP government, of ICBC itself. So the fact that this whole provision takes this whole Legislative Assembly back, what, 48 years, almost half a century, to the beginning of ICBC…. I would just like to ask: what was the arrangement back in 1973 that this pro- vision is changing now? Hon. M. Farnworth:It’s not changing anything. M. Lee:Okay. In terms of what the arrangement was…. As I determined, you have an agreement in 1988, which is referred to in the definition.

What was the purpose of the 1988 agreement? [1:20 p.m.] Hon. M. Farnworth:The agreement set out the terms on which ICBC reimburses the province for costs of cer- tain health-related services incurred by the province as a result of vehicle accidents. 3420 British Columbia Debates Thursday, October 7, 2021

M. Lee: Did that understanding and agreement exist between 1973 and 1988? Hon. M. Farnworth:There may have been informal agreements. I don’t know. In 1973, I was 14. What I’m telling you is that it was formalized, though…. A formal- ized agreement was started in 1988 and then subsequently updated again in 1994. That’s the earliest information that we have. M. Lee: I understand, Mr. Chair, the response of the minister. To clarify, then, what’s the purpose of referring the retroactive nature of this provision back to 1973? Hon. M. Farnworth:What this provision does is val- idate everything….

As I said, the earliest agreements are from 1988. As I also said, there may have been informal arrangements before 1988, from 1973 to ’88. This

section validates 1988 and subsequent, but it also validates pre-1988 as well, going back to 1973. M. Lee:There was a briefing arranged after the member for Prince George–Mackenzie spoke to this amendment bill on second reading. It would have been helpful to have it before we went to second reading. In any event, on the briefing that we had — when asked the question, “What is the value of the payments under this arrangement?” — this government is telling us: “Well, we’re not clear. We’re not clear what happened between 1973 and 1988. We’re not sure whether there was an agree- ment or an understanding.

It was informal; it wasn’t writ- ten. ” Certainly, that’s the point of this, though. Y ou’re asking this Legislative Assembly to take this all the way back 48 years to 1973, and this government can’t stand here in this chamber to tell us what the arrangement was. There’s a real lack of clarity here in terms of what this government is presenting. The dollar figure that was raised on that brief- ing — which I’ d like the minister to confirm — is that the estimated value of the transfers is $34 million a year. Is that correct? [1:25 p.m.] Hon. M. Farnworth:Y es, we’re probably looking at about $34 million.

That number is probably correct. I also want to make this point. This legislation was tabled on June 16. If the member wishes to make a com- ment about briefings, the legislation was tabled in the House on June 16. So he has had plenty of time to request or ask for a briefing. I just want to put that on the record. M. Lee: I appreciate that we had the briefing before we got to this committee stage, but obviously, there are more questions to be answered and addressed. So $34 million times 48 is $1.632 billion. Do we know what the amount was that was paid out under this trans- fer arrangement between 1973 and 1988?

Does this gov- ernment have an understanding as to how much occurred in that period? Is it safe to assume, in the absence of clarity, that it was $34 million between 1973 and 1988? Is that correct? Hon. M. Farnworth:Well, the $34 million is current. That’s what we estimate that is paid. But if you want to go back to 1988, 1973, then the member, instead of just saying 48 years times 34, should understand that there has been…. It’s called inflation since that time, and the amounts paid back then would have been significantly lower, also varying from year to year based on the acci- dent rate.

Y ou asked about the $34 million. That is the approxim- ate, at this point. But back then, obviously, the value of a dollar was…. Inflation was significantly…. The value of a dollar over time has inflated, so the costs would be — have been — significantly lower than they are right now, in straight dollar terms. M. Lee:I appreciate the clarification. What is the estim- ated value of the total amount paid under this arrange- ment since 1973 to 2021? Hon. M. Farnworth:I would be happy to get the best available numbers for the member. M.

Lee: Has there been any previous consideration of this arrangement between 1973 and 1988, in terms of doc- umenting the arrangement by way of an agreement? Hon. M. Farnworth:We’re not aware of any formal agreements. As I said earlier, what our understanding is, is that the 1988 agreement formalized whatever arrange- ments were in place at that time. M. Lee:For 15 years, ICBC operated under having been formulated by the NDP back in 1973, and there was no operative document that documented the arrangement. There was a complete lack of transparency, then, not only to this Legislative Assembly….

What we’re hearing from the government today — apart from “this is a generation ago;” I appreciate that — is there was no formal agreement between the Ministry of Health…. The parties to the 1980 agreement are stated to be the government of British Columbia, the Medical Ser- vices Commission and the B.C. Medical Association. That, at least, was in the amendment agreement in 1993. [1:30 p.m.] If we look at the agreement on its face, back in 1988, it was between the Minister of Health and the Insurance Corp. of B.C. So at the time, for 15 years, there was this arrangement that was put in place.

What was the basis, back in 1973, for this arrangement, then? Thursday, October 7, 2021 British Columbia Debates 3421

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think what’s important to remember is that the amendments before us are to make it very clear that the payments that were made were, in fact, legal and done in the right way. ICBC has the authority to enter into agreements. The member is asking questions about 1973, ’88. He’s going all NDP . I’ d remind the member that the codifying of the agreements took place in ’88, took place under the Social Credit, subsequently updated in 1994, during the term of the B.C. NDP . It has been in place since that time under Social Credit from 1988 through to 1991, under the NDP through 1996, under the B.C.

Liberals through 2001 to 2013. The agreements, the amendments, are designed to ensure that the payments that took place under govern- ments of every single stripe are validated from 1973 to the present day. M. Lee: Hence the reason why I’m going back to 1973. That’s what we’re being asked to review here in this House. The starting date of this wholly unusual retroactive nature, to go back 48 years…. It started under the NDP govern- ment. ICBC is their creation. This arrangement is their creation. I’m trying to understand: what was the basis of that arrangement?

I hear the minister say to me that that arrangement may or may not have existed. It may or may not have happened. We’re not really sure. Where did it start, then? Why are we going back to 1973? Clearly, in 1988, there was a decision that there needed to be a way to document the arrangement. I’m just trying to trace back to the origin to understand the nature of this arrangement in the first place. We’re being asked in this House to confirm an arrangement that was first entered into, as far as I can determine….

On the face of the pres- entation of the legislation we’re being asked to vote on in this House, it’s 1973. It’s not 1988. This minister can talk about subsequent governments, but this started in 1973. Again, what is the basis of the arrangement that we’re being asked to approve that started in 1973? Hon. M. Farnworth:This is about health payments made to people, motor vehicle accidents, and ensuring, without any doubt, against anyone who may decide that they wanted to litigate, that those payments were made lawfully, which they were. These amendments explicitly ensure that that has taken place.

That’s what it’s about. [1:35 p.m.] Now, I understand the member wants to go back to 1973. In 1973, ICBC was created, and it’s served this province well for 48 years to date, despite efforts some- times by others who wanted to get rid of it. That being said, it’s here, and we are ensuring that there’s no doubt that those payments, with these amendments, were lawfully made. The procedures — whether from ’88, when they were formally codified, and updated in 1994 — have been in place for all that time and are perfectly legit- imate and legal. That’s what this is about. M.

Lee: At any time, has this Legislative Assembly been informed of this arrangement? Hon. M. Farnworth:In fact, yes, they were, hon. Mem- ber. In fact, the contents of the 1988 agreement, including its 1994 modification, were disclosed publicly — for example, in 1995, inHansard. M. Lee: In the arrangement in 1988, were there any changes in that agreement that were different from what the arrangement was that ICBC was operating under between 1973 and 1988? Hon. M. Farnworth:We’re not aware of any differences. M.

Lee: Can the minister summarize for this House the differences between, and the purpose for, the 1994 agree- ment versus 1988? Hon. M. Farnworth:Prior to 1994, ICBC only reim- bursed for costs of injuries caused by ICBC insureds. In 1994, ICBC also started reimbursing for costs of injuries sustained by ICBC insureds, regardless of who or what caused them. M. Lee: In response to a question I had a few questions ago, the minister talked about the transition of successive governments in this House. Of course, as I’ve said from the outset, this arrangement is an NDP creation in the first place.

It was documented, as it turns out, for the first time in 1988. I didn’t hear, though…. Let me just rewind the tape here. Was the agreement of 1988 also tabled in this House, and was the Legislative Assembly aware of that agreement? Hon. M. Farnworth:I’m not aware of the ’88 agreement being tabled in the House. M. Lee:So for 21 years, this Legislative Assembly wasn’t aware of this arrangement that was transferring dollars back from ICBC to the Ministry of Health. We have a verbal agreement, some understanding between 1973 that the NDP created, for 15 years.

Then they entered into an agreement that documented the arrangement, and that wasn’t even brought to this House. [1:40 p.m.] Then you fast-forward to 1994. That’s when the NDP government came back. They expanded the scope of the arrangement. They made it so that regardless of whether you’re at fault, your benefits effectively would be lowered because your physician costs would be paid back to the Ministry of Health. Again, to the minister, what was the basis and the pur- 3422 British Columbia Debates Thursday, October 7, 2021

pose of expanding the scope of this arrangement under that 1994 agreement? Hon. M. Farnworth: The 1994 agreement, again, expanded on the concept, which is good public policy, that those who cause the accidents and those who are respons- ible for the injuries should in fact bear more of the costs. At the same time, it also expanded the range of costs that would be reimbursed and that were eligible for reimburse- ment. That’s why the changes were made or the update was made at that point in time. M.

Lee: To be clear, we’re talking about expanding the amount of payments that would be made both for those who are not at fault — this is back in 1984, and the NDP were already talking about no-fault — but at the prejudice of the claimants, because it would reduce the amount of payment that they would receive for their

part 7 benefits. They have to pay out, off the top, the physician fees, which in today’s dollars could amount to about $33,000 to $35,000 out of maybe $150,000 before this government increased it to $300,000. The point is that when you look at the history of what we’re being presented — an unwritten agreement between 1973 and 1988, unclear about whether it was operating or not and unclear about what was being transferred or not — this Legislative Assembly has had only two opportunit- ies, as far as I can see, to consider this matter.

The second one is today. [1:45 p.m.] The first one was in 1995, under an NDP government — an NDP government that was looking at an agreement that was expanding the scope of this arrangement — this arrangement that had, between 1973 and 1988, been unwritten. It was written in 1988 but was not brought to this Legislative Assembly. The only time that this Legislative Assembly has looked at this arrangement is twice — both times under the NDP . Coincidently, they were the ones who started it. I think it’s very material to be talking about what happened in 1973.

The government doesn’t seem to have all the answers here. We’re operating under a guise of some lack of clarity, to say the least. When the government brought forward that agreement to the Legislative Assembly, what was the nature of the approval, if any? Hon. M. Farnworth:ICBC is authorized to enter into agreements. There was no requirement for the Legislature to approve or to legislate an update to the agreement. And I’ d just like to point out that the member seems now to have a problem with this.

He’s going: “Oh, it’s the NDP in ’73 and only ever been discussed twice — once in 1995 — by the NDP and the other now by the NDP . ” That’s fair enough. He seems to have a real problem with that. I really have to ask the question: what was he doing for 16 years when he sat on this side of the House? Was it a problem then? Were the issues that we’re dealing with, the policy that’s in place — was it a problem then, for the 16 years you sat on this side? Was it a problem for Social Credit when they sat on this side? Clearly not. The point is this.

This legislation is about ensuring that payments that are made under a policy that was in place through successive governments…. It’s that absolute clar- ity that they were made in a valid way. That’s what’s hap- pening. M. Lee:The minister, with a smattering of applause, can talk about what it’s been like to be in this House. He’s been in this House a lot longer than I have, of course. But let me just say this.

We’re talking about an arrangement again that was created by the NDP , that was changed in 1995, finally documented and now is being legalized 48 years later in a retroactive nature going all the way back to 1973. As far as I can see, this Legislative Assembly…. It’s only been brought to the attention of the Legislative Assembly maybe incidentally in 1995. It wasn’t an approval, as the minister just said, but now we’re being asked to approve this arrangement — this arrangement which started under the NDP in 1973. Why now? Hon. M.

Farnworth:As I said, there is the potential of a class action lawsuit, and we want to make sure that we’re protecting the interests of British Columbians on the method of payments that were made under successive gov- ernments, regardless of political stripe. [1:50 p.m.] Y es, I have been in the House a long time. As I pointed out a few minutes ago, for 16 years the opposition sat on this side. There were one, two, three, four, five B.C. Liberal ministers in charge of ICBC, under which this policy and arrangement operated, the way in which payments were made were operated.

It was fine then, it’s fine now, and it was fine before then. It was done on good, sound public policy, and similar actions such as what we’ve been deal- ing with here today have been instituted in other provinces that have public auto insurance, such as Manitoba and Saskatchewan and, to a certain extent — because they have a different system — in the province of Quebec. Again, I just put it on the table. That’s what this legisla- tion is about. It’s nothing nefarious. It’s not taking anything away. It’s just validating that what was done, was done cor- rectly and in the basis of good, sound public policy. M.

Lee: I will say…. Y ou know, when I talk about this Legislative Assembly, I’m talking about all members in this House, of course. So if, as a member of this Legislative Assembly, I’m standing here talking about a bill that’s being presented, and I’m thinking about those who have preceded me on this floor…. I’m not sure that anybody had this opportunity to Thursday, October 7, 2021 British Columbia Debates 3423

review the nature of this arrangement. That’s what we’re being asked to do today. The fact that the NDP created it, then they modified it, and now they’re trying to fix it. Those are just the facts. The fact that there were suc- cessive governments in between…. This Legislative Assembly never saw it. Never saw it in 1995. It’s seeing it today. So this government has a responsibility for what it’s doing right now, and it’s accepting the responsibility to address it. So let me ask the minister. When we talk about the references in this arrangement, the Insurance (Vehicle) Regulation,

section 88(4.1)(6), says: “The corporation” — meaning ICBC — “is not liable for any expenses paid or payable to or recoverable by the insured” — again, we’re talking about

part 7, benefit recipients — “under a medic- al, surgical, dental or hospital plan or law, or paid or pay- able by another insurer, except expenses referred to” below. And it states it out. To the minister, there are a number of applicable legisla- tive instruments here. This is one. At least, it has been one. So to the minister: how is it that this arrangement has been operating contrary to what’s set out in that regulation? Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll make this point. It’s the province that pays the health care costs. That’s the arrange- ment with ICBC.

They pay the health care costs first, and then ICBC will reimburse for some of those costs. That’s how it works. [1:55 p.m.] I’ d also make this other point, because the member does sort of seem to want to say: “Well, it’s the NDP that brought this up and the NDP brought this up” and “Oh, 1995 was the first time in opposition. ” I’ll remind him that there is at least…. Well, there is one member on the opposition who was here in 1995 and would have been here when this was raised and subsequently became the minister responsible for ICBC, just as other members of this House have been responsible for ICBC.

So to some- how suggest that “oh, this is the first opportunity that the House…. ” Government, which is responsible for ICBC, has a cabinet and has a minister in charge. There is nothing nefarious and there is nothing secret about this. This is — as I keep saying and will continue to say — based on good, sound public policy, and we are ensuring that the interests of the public here are protected and that that makes it crystal-clear in any litigation that payments were made properly and in a legal way. M.

Lee: All I’m saying, of course, is that in the absence of any specific approval required by this Legislative Assembly under any applicable legislation, there wasn’t that opportunity. The minister can talk about subsequent members of successive governments and the roles that they might play, but I’m just talking about members of this House being asked to approve legislation which, given the nature of $34 million a year — what some might con- sider to be an additional tax of some nature — should be brought to this House. Coming back to the specific

section of the insurance regulation. As the minister just indicated, the province pays those health care costs. ICBC is asking to reimburse the Ministry of Health for those costs. ICBC is effectively taking from the entitlement or the payout or the coverage the dollar amount, the benefits, available to a person — an insured person, a British Columbian — those costs. That’s where the money is coming from. It’s coming out of the pockets of those injured British Columbians. This particu- lar regulation says, in effect, that ICBC is not required to pay for the costs of those medical expenses.

So how is it that we have this arrangement that is doing that? That is my question to the minister. Hon. M. Farnworth:These payments are not intended to — nor do they — take away from people’s benefits. In accordance with how medical costs are covered in the province, the province is the first payer, is the payer. ICBC, as I said a moment ago, subsequently reimburses for some of those costs. M. Lee: Well, I mean, I think that we’re talking about the route through which these payments are occurring, but effectively, the arrangement is that ICBC is transfer- ring these costs to the Ministry of Health.

Is that not correct? [2:00 p.m.] Hon. M. Farnworth: We are a single-payer health insurance system. The province is the payer of those health costs, and, just as in many other jurisdictions, in this case, ICBC, the public insurer, reimburses the province for some of those incurred costs. M. Lee: When we look at the parties to this master agreement again, it’s between the province, through the Ministry of Health, and ICBC. That’s the channel through which these payments are being made.

Effectively, the reading of the regulation would suggest that ICBC should not be paying to MSP the cost of physi- cian visits arising from motor vehicle accidents or injuries, since those medical expenses have already been paid or are payable by MSP . So again, a strict reading of the regulation itself would suggest that is what is occurring here. [S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.] Again, how is it that this arrangement that we’re being asked to bless, in effect, complies with what is set out in the regulation? Hon. M. Farnworth:I’ll make the following comment in response to that question.

In essence, that is the subject of any litigation. This legislation, as I repeatedly said, now 3424 British Columbia Debates Thursday, October 7, 2021

ensures that payments are validated and were made in a completely legal way — so there should be no issue in that regard — and that the policy and the arrangement, in terms of the province being the payer and ICBC reim- burses some of those costs, is good for both the province and for the insurance ratepayer. M. Lee: I think that we…. In asking this question three times and getting a response the same way three times without the minister coming out and saying it, although he just referred to it, I can understand the minister’s response. Meaning, I understand the words he’s saying.

It doesn’t address the specific question I’m asking, in terms of the concern, but it does give the government’s position. That position, of course, is the same position that they’re tak- ing…. Well, let me ask you this. Is that the position of the gov- ernment in response to any claim, class action or other- wise, through litigation? [2:05 p.m.] Hon. M. Farnworth:The regulation does not prohibit ICBC from reimbursing health care costs.

The arrange- ments that have been in place through successive govern- ments, under which payments have been made — and in which, by the province in terms of covering health care costs by ICBC in reimbursing for some of those health care costs — were, certainly, formalized in ’88. Informal arrangements prior to ’88, or what existed, have served this province as good public policy through successive govern- ments. This legislation ensures that that is the case. M. Lee: I think what I’ll do is just move over to another question related to clause 2. There are other considerations about this arrangement.

For example, under the Canada Health Act, it sets out the funding that the province of B.C. would be receiving for insured health services. Specifically, under

section 2 of the Canada Health Act, it has an exception. That exception is for services. It doesn’t include any health services that “relates to workers or workmen’s compensation. ” That’s the wording in the act. There isn’t a similar carve out for these kinds of insured health care services, for motor vehicle accidents. In order to receive the transfers from the federal government, there are certain principles that the province needs to follow. To the minister, does the province currently receive…?

Is it the minister’s view — would he agree — that currently, under transfers under the Canada Health Act, that the province does receive funding for insured health care ser- vices for those people who are injured in motor vehicle accidents? Hon. M. Farnworth:The province does receive Health Canada health transfers for health care for British Colum- bians. It does not specify where those transfers are to be spent, unless it was for a specific area, such as equipment.

I remember once, when I was Minister of Health, we did some transfers to buy MRIs and things like that, but the federal government does transfer money to the provinces — Health Canada transfers — but they are for health care. Then the province — who is responsible for health care, obviously — runs the health care system. M. Lee: In the general response the minister just gave, just to be clear, we are in agreement, then, that the province receives funding from the federal government for the cost of insured health services, which is a term that’s defined within

section 2 of the act, as I mentioned earlier. The only exclusion from that, as much as the minister referred to…. [2:10 p.m.] It is definitely a general definition — “insured health services means hospital services” — and, more import- antly, at least pertinent to this bill committee debate, “physician services and surgical-dental services provided to injured persons…. ” Then it does have that exclusion that I mentioned earlier in terms of health services related to “workers’ or workmen’s compensation. ” The minister did say in his response that there isn’t any particular level of detail.

I think I would connect that up with what I just referred to, other than this definition, which would suggest, then, that the funds this province is receiving, like other provinces in Canada, can be put towards physician services for those people who are injured in motor vehicle accidents. Is that correct? Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll make these comments in response to the question. Y es, there is, indeed, that carve- out for WorkSafe claims. There is no such carve-out for auto vehicle accidents. We do, indeed, receive moneys from Canada health transfer.

The province is the first payer in the insurance cases in terms of health care costs. We get reimbursement from ICBC for some of those costs, and our policy is in line with the Canada Health Act. M. Lee: Mr. Chair, can I just ask the minister to contin- ue his comment in terms of: how is it that the province’s policy or approach is in line with the Canada Health Act? What does the minister mean by that? Hon. M. Farnworth:We are a single-payer publicly funded health care system. M.

Lee: Y es, and I think that gets us back to some of the principles for which British Columbia can receive the funding relating to public administration, comprehensive- ness, universality, portability and accessibility. Just coming back, then, in terms of…. I don’t hear any difference in opinion or view in terms of the nature of what those federal transfers can be put towards. So that Thursday, October 7, 2021 British Columbia Debates 3425

does invite the question: if it’s the case that the province of B.C. is receiving from the federal government health cost transfers for insured health services and that can be put towards the cost of health services provided by physicians for people who are injured persons in motor vehicle acci- dents, why is there a need then for ICBC to transfer the same amount for those physician services to the ministry if they’re already receiving funding from the federal gov- ernment? Hon. M. Farnworth:I’ d make this point. The health care system is far more than automobile accidents. The health care system is cancer.

The health care system is diabetes. The health care system is a broken leg. The health care system is losing your vision. The health care system is heart surgery. The health care system is mater- nity wards. The health care system is a myriad of health services applied that people need. That’s what the health care system is. [2:15 p.m.] So to sort of say: “Oh, we’re getting these moneys from Health Canada, so why on earth should you be reim- bursed by ICBC…?” There’s also sound public policy that those who cause the accidents bear some respons- ibility in terms of those costs.

That policy has been in place, as the member likes to point out, for decades — under successive governments, when they sat on this side of the House for 16 years. What this legislation is doing is ensuring that the pay- ments that were made, that there’s absolutely no doubt that they were made in the appropriate way. Our policies are in line with the Canada Health Act, plain and simple. M. Lee: Well, I mean, there are two things about what the minister said there, but let me just take the second one first. Y es, we did touch on no-fault.

Effectively, under the 1994 agreement, the NDP government expanded the scope of this arrangement from those who were at-fault drivers to pay out this additional cost out of their benefits back to the Ministry of Health. This, again, was an arrangement that was in place from 1973 and then docu- mented in 1988. In 1994, under an NDP government, they expanded it to put that burden on people, regardless of their fault.

We know, in the debates that we’ve had in this House over the last two and a half, three years, including the bills that led to this amendment today, that this govern- ment continues not to see that difference. The coverage under the so-called no-fault regime is available for at-fault drivers and those who are not at fault. This government doesn’t see the difference. That’s what they did in 1994, and that’s what they’ve done on no-fault as well. I think that it’s very clear that the NDP have a particular bent on this.

Obviously, we all recognize that the health care system serves more than just people who are injured in motor vehicle accidents. Family members, parents, grandparents, children, all have experienced, unfortu- nately, other needs for our health care system, which is under strain. We don’t have to get into that right now. Just to put this in perspective, we’re talking about $34 million that is being transferred that the Ministry of Health is looking for from ICBC. What is the total, because I don’t have this readily at hand, although I could probably look it up in the Canada health report.

But just to ask the minister, given that he raised the matter: what is the total amount of that health care transfer from the federal gov- ernment to the province annually? Hon. M. Farnworth:Y ou raised the issue of health care transfer payments, not me. The Chair:Through the Chair, of course, Minister. Hon. M. Farnworth:So I would make this comment. Look, the amount that you get from health care transfer payments from Ottawa is a subject of Health estimates, and you’ll have plenty of time in the spring session to ask what the health transfer payments are that we get from Ottawa. M. Lee: Y es.

I have a copy of theCanada Health Act Annual Report here. Unfortunately, I don’t have a full copy of it. So the pages that would presumably set that amount out I do not have here for easy reference. I’m only saying the minister made a comment that sug- gests that whatever the amount is — which, presumably, is more than $34 million — it is to be put to other good uses. There’s no dispute about that. [2:20 p.m.] The fact of the matter is that this province is receiving funding that can be put to the physician services for those British Columbians who are injured in motor vehicle accidents.

I guess that the question could be: why isn’t that the case? Hon. M. Farnworth:I’ll come back to the same answer that I have given, which is that it is good public policy that those who create the risk bear some of the responsibility, in terms of the costs associated with those risks. And yes, this province gets health transfer payments, as does every other province, just about — and the other provinces that have public auto insurance as well. Again, I’ll just repeat that this legislation is…. There’s nothing nefarious about it. There’s nothing secret here. The way in which….

When you guys sat on this side for 16 years, the Finance Minister would have been very much aware that coming into the finances of the province would have been revenue or transfers or the medical costs. Reim- bursed medical costs is the best way to put it — the reim- bursed medical costs for some of the medical costs that 3426 British Columbia Debates Thursday, October 7, 2021

the province paid out as the first payer in our single-payer public health care system. It’s as straightforward as that. M. Lee: I have just been informed by one of my col- leagues that the amount of annual transfers is in the order of magnitude of $5½ billion a year — $5.6 billion in 2020-21 and $5.8 billion estimated in 2021-2022. So it’s a large sum of money, as we would expect, and $34 million out of $5.8 billion is obviously a small fraction. Of course, as the minister would say, and we all would agree, there are lots of needs for those health care dollars in our province.

The minister just brought up an interesting comment that I’ d like to ask him about, then, in terms of the arrange- ment. Certainly, I do understand, and I’m sure all mem- bers of the House understand, that other provinces are receiving similar transfers. That’s not a matter in dispute here. But since the minister raised it, can he tell this House if there are other similar arrangements in place for other provinces in terms of the transfer of driver-related ICBC costs of this nature? Hon. M. Farnworth:As far as I understand, yes — Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Quebec.

It’s the same approach taken by this province with the similar way in terms of dealing with payments. It’s the same that has been done in those jurisdictions as well. M. Lee: Has there been any legal challenge of that arrangement in those other jurisdictions? Hon. M. Farnworth:Not that we’re aware. M. Lee: This arrangement has not ever been tested in the courts? Hon. M. Farnworth:Not that I’m aware of. [2:25 p.m.] M. Lee: I appreciate the minister’s willingness to have this discussion at the committee stage, appreciating the circumstance in which this bill is being brought forward.

The exchanges that we’re having, hopefully, are helpful to create some understanding about the nature of what we’re being asked to approve. But I would say that the responses and the ability to assess the responses, given the nature of the regulatory framework, can be somewhat challenging. I’ d say that, obviously, the government is in this cham- ber giving its response in a way that would not prejudice its responses in any court proceeding. I understand that. The minister has not had to refer to that, but I do appreci- ate that that may well be the case.

It makes for a challen- ging discussion, though, because we’re not really getting to the heart of the matter. I feel personally, not being able to study the transcript of the response, that we’re not really getting to the issues at hand. I do think that the ability to discuss this provision and to understand it is important. I appreciate that the minister and the members of the ministry team that are with the minister are providing some nature of responses to the questions that I am posing on behalf of our opposition caucus. It’s clear, Mr.

Chair, that the government does not see any concern relating to how British Columbians are being asked to pay, out of their benefits, the specific costs of physician services. Can I ask the minister…? I understand that there’s some sort of internal ICBC policy relating to when those partic- ular costs would be paid out, such that it would not super- sede the top limit on the benefits payable to an injured British Columbian. Can the minister please describe, to this House, the nature of that policy and the purpose of it? Hon. M.

Farnworth:No, the internal policy of ICBC was that the payments were not to come out of people’s benefits, and that’s the case. M. Lee: Is that at all times? Or is it only if it’s going to exceed the maximum benefit limit that an injured British Columbian is entitled to under

part 7? Hon. M. Farnworth:At all times. M. Lee: I understand, although that is the policy, that that hasn’t been the case and that ICBC has to acknow- ledge that on some occasions, funds have been pulled away from their benefit payments. There has been some element of mistake that ICBC has apologized for, for some injured British Columbians.

To the minister: how many cases has that occurred in, in terms of ICBC having to apologize that they made a mistake despite the policy being in place, where there has been a reduction in the amount of the benefits payable to have come out of what that person was entitled to — an amount payable for physician visits? How many times has that occurred? [2:30 p.m.] Hon. M. Farnworth:I thank the member for the ques- tion. There are over 100,000 claims a year on average. Whenever there is a system like that, there will occasion- ally, as the member has remarked, be a time that a mistake is made.

As I said, ICBC is reviewing approximately 500 in order to make sure that there are no errors. But if any errors are found, then restitution is, in fact, made. The appropriate amount is paid. M. Lee:With that policy in place, how does that qualify, in any nature, the amendment that’s being proposed here in terms of…. If that policy is being followed within ICBC and there are some number of mistakes that have been made — could be administrative, could be otherwise…. But assuming even if that administrative policy was fol- Thursday, October 7, 2021 British Columbia Debates 3427

lowed 100 percent of the time, what’s the concern in terms of what’s being addressed here by way of this amendment? Hon. M. Farnworth:This legislation has no impact on the accident benefit claims. M. Lee: Just coming back to our discussion previous.

That is the concern around what is already being provided under the Canadian Health Act to this province and what might be a situation where we’re talk- ing about the same taxpayer paying their federal tax — having those funds effectively being transferred to this province for provincial health care coverage — and that coverage being made available to those who have been injured in a motor vehicle accident and need to see a physician and those costs being paid out again, from ICBC to the ministry, even though the province is receiving funding for the same services.

Is there any consideration by this government that what we’re being asked to approve here, by way of this amend- ment, is effectively in terms of the transfers that are being made? When we talk about the costs of health-related ser- vices as defined under 14.2(1) of clause 2 of this bill, is that effectively considered as a tax? Hon. M. Farnworth:No. M. Lee:If that’s the government’s view, why are we look- ing at this amendment then? [2:35 p.m.] Hon. M.

Farnworth:In response to a potential class action, that there can be no doubt that these payments that were made under successive governments, whether they be Social Credit, NDP , B.C. Liberal were made in a lawful manner.

Whether the Solicitor General or the minister respons- ible at the time for ICBC were members on the other side or my side, whether the Minister of Finance at the time, who would have known about transfers coming, accident reimbursements, health care reimbursement costs coming from ICBC, whether it was Kevin Falcon, who was the Minister of Finance when this was operating or whether it was a Finance Minister on our side — all of those were done in a completely lawful way, no doubt about it, in line with the Canada Health Act. M. Lee: Let me just try and stick to the matter at hand here.

The timing of this amendment being raised was com- municated by the Attorney General of this province back in April to the lawyers for the plaintiff. It certainly talked about the legal agreement being negotiated in 1988 between ICBC and the Ministry of Health and then setting out the arrangement — and that the agreement in 1994, as amended, has been operative since then. The purpose of the timing of this letter…. To the min- ister: it was written at what juncture of that litigation pro- ceeding? Hon. M.

Farnworth:My understanding is that the letter the member is referring to, or the communication the member is referring to, was sent back in April. Then, of course, the bill was tabled June — I think June 15 or June 16, somewhere around there — of this past year. M.

Lee: As the minister says, the letter makes reference to communicating to the lawyers for the plaintiffs that the government intends to propose legislation for considera- tion by the Legislature. [2:40 p.m.] The intention is that the proposed legislation will include provisions that are explicitly retroactive and provide clear statutory authority for the reimbursement of costs of health-related services by ICBC.

Just to look at that particular communication by the Attorney General, when the Attorney General, on behalf of the government, is communicating that this legisla- tion that we’re looking at today provides clear statutory authority, what exactly are the specific areas that the government is of the view that it needs to provide that clear statutory authority? Hon. M. Farnworth:It was on the basis of the poten- tial of the class action suit, and we felt it was important that the plaintiffs also be informed that government was considering this so that everybody is operating on the same basis of facts. M.

Lee: For the purpose of the class action suit, as you and others might appreciate, the nature of these litigation proceedings is such that there is quite a bit of analysis done and documents provided for consideration — affidavits and other statements of claim. Presumably, of course, the government of B.C. has had the opportunity to review the nature of the claim and what has been brought forward.

So I can only assume, of course, for the purpose of this discussion, that there is some con- cern relating to the nature of the claim — that there is some element that I’m sure, of course, the government would not comment on here as to concerns as to wheth- er there is clear statutory authority for the reimbursement of costs of health-related services by ICBC. That is what the Attorney General communicated to the lawyers for the plaintiff as to what this legislation is about.

Presumably, as the minister has responded, this legis- lation addresses — these are my words; these aren’t the minister’s words — the concerns raised by the potential plaintiffs in the class action, assuming they get certified. They’re not. As I understand it, the class action has not yet been certified, so we have not gotten to that next step. But assuming they proceed and assuming a class action is 3428 British Columbia Debates Thursday, October 7, 2021

heard and that that is the substance of it, there are some challenges there that this government wants to address. This puts us in a tough position. Clearly, given the nature, we’ve canvassed a few of the issues that might be of concern, and we may still take the opportunity to canvass some other issues here, at least on this particular provision of clause 2. It does put members of this House in a position where we’re being asked to make legal an arrangement that has been questioned — questioned more than just a spurious type of litigation claim.

Because I presume, of course, that if the Attorney General of our province thought that this claim was non-material, non-significant — that is, the gov- ernment of B.C. would have a defensible position — we wouldn’t be going to all of this.

We wouldn’t be intro- ducing legislation that is retroactive 48 years to the time where the NDP created this. [2:45 p.m.] I will just, only for the purpose of this proceeding, invite the minister to comment, if he chooses to at all, on the challenge that this government is putting this Legislative Assembly in when we are passing retroactive legislation of this scope — $34 million a year, the claim that is being brought on behalf of a very large class of British Columbi- ans. These are British Columbians that would’ve received

part 7 benefits over 48 years, who were involved in motor vehicle accidents. Effectively, this government is being asked — for us as Members of the Legislative Assembly — to substitute our judgment for the court’s. I’ d ask the minister to comment in response to my con- cerns. Hon. M. Farnworth:I understand the member’s ques- tion, and I’ll offer these comments in response to it — that is, that for the last 48 years, we have had sound public policy when it comes to health care costs and the reim- bursement of health care costs by ICBC to the province.

We believe — in fact, we are confident — that this has been very much in line with the Canada Health Act, that the public policy has served this province well in terms of pro- tecting the province and ratepayers, that this legislation is about ensuring, without a shadow of a doubt, making crys- tal-clear to any court, that that is in fact the case. M.

Lee: I suppose, though, it stands to reason that the timing, which I was getting at earlier, of the letter from the Attorney General to the legal counsel for the plaintiffs and the timing of the introduction of the legislation in June — recognizing that we’re not sitting until, now, October — is such that the government is of the view that the shadow of doubt, as the minister raised, is a risk. It’s a risk that the courts would rule against the province for an arrangement that’s been in place for 48 years.

Again, I stress this because this was created in 1973, as far as I can determine, because that’s what the retroactive nature of this amendment is for. So as far as I see, what we have is a government that is part of a party that created this in 1973, enlarged it in 1994 and ’95, and is now trying to make it fully legal beyond a shadow of a doubt. That’s a pretty big onus that the government is placing on the Members of this Legislative Assembly, given that — as I mentioned earlier, and we got to this — this House has never had the opportunity to review this arrangement.

I appreciate that there have been successive governments, but we are being asked holus-bolus to be looking at this amendment to make legal beyond a shadow of a doubt this arrangement, in the face of a court proceeding that is rep- resenting all British Columbians who have been involved in motor vehicle accidents who are subject to and receive

part 7 benefits. When you stand back and look at this, we have a responsibility to ensure that this is reviewed, adjudicated in a proper forum. I don’t take lightly, and would I suggest that all members of this House do not take lightly, the passing of legislation of this nature, to have that far ret- roactive effect — 48 years, $34 million a year, what some estimate to be $1 billion. That’s significant. [2:50 p.m.] The fact that this has all happened under an NDP gov- ernment watch….

That’s why members of the opposition caucus are here speaking about this, speaking about the fact that this government, with an Attorney General that has once again weighed into a legal dispute by basically, effectively, informing the counsel for the plaintiffs, “Oh, you know what? That little legal claim that you have against us — well, we’re just going to make it go away. ” It’s more than a shadow of a doubt. It’s reasonable con- cerns that have been raised. Now we’re being asked to pass this legislation to address it, to fix it, in the course of a pro- ceeding.

This is, some would say, important for British Columbi- ans to have a voice, to have the ability to take their dispute with the government to court. Y et we have the chief leg- al officer of our government here, the NDP government, once again putting his hands on the scale to tip them in the government’s favour in such a way that this government is now introducing legislation that puts back the legal effect of what has been happening, once again under an unwrit- ten agreement, since 1973. Documented for the first time in 1988. Expanded again in 1994 under an NDP govern- ment. And now we’re addressing it here.

I’m very uncomfortable with being presented legislation of such a significant impact. To the minister, does he not see the importance of enabling and allowing British Col- umbians to have their day in court, as they’re trying to do? That they should stand down this particular provision of the bill, such that British Columbians have the opportun- ity to have their dispute with this government addressed through the court system, as they should? Hon. M. Farnworth:I’ d like to remind the hon. mem- Thursday, October 7, 2021 British Columbia Debates 3429

ber that this legislation will not stop the litigation. It will not stop the litigation. What it does do is ensure that payments that were made by ICBC for health-related costs for the last 48 years, which has been good public policy that has served Social Credit, NDP , B.C. Liberal governments…. I’ll remind the member that while he may not have been in charge of ICBC, may not have been the Minister of Finance, current colleagues certainly were.

Former colleagues of some members of the House, who have aspirations to be back in this House, certainly were and did not have a problem with the policy that was in place. What this is doing is ensuring that sound public policy was absolutely valid. The idea that somehow this is unique or has not been done before…. I would remind the mem- ber, because he’s familiar with UBC and the UBC parking and towing that was retroactively done away with by the previous government when they were on this side….

This is about ensuring and protecting the interests of British Columbians, both in terms of taxpayers and of ratepayers. As I keep saying, it’s nothing nefarious. It’s not secret. The plaintiffs were told that this would be coming back in April. The legislation was tabled in June. The oppo- sition has been able to review and see this legislation. [2:55 p.m.] It’s been sitting out there from June 15 to July 1, from July 1 to August 1, from August 1 to September 1, from September 1 to October 1 until now. There has not been a big uproar, because people look at it and go: “Oh, yeah. Y ou know what? Okay.

It makes sense, what’s being done. ” That’s what’s happening here today. I appreciate the discussion. I appreciate the questions, and I appreciate the member’s interest in this legislation. But let’s also recognize that this is also the right thing to do. M. Lee: Well, you know, I think, obviously, those who are moving this forward, and on behalf of other British Columbians who have had their benefits challenged by this…. And, obviously, all the payments from ICBC. I mean, that does affect ratepayers. All those payments that went out from ICBC to the Ministry of Health.

That was another way to increase costs for those ratepayers. There is an impact here, and I dare say that the nature of this challenge is of far greater scope than the example the minister provided. I think if this was about doing the right thing, I think there are other people who certainly disagree, and they’re outside this chamber. I appreciate that the minister has a good understanding of history and has a good understanding of the timeframe from which we’re talking about — 48 years — but we’re also talking about since April and June. I appreciate that the minister can count down the months.

But the fact of the matter is that it doesn’t change anything. We’re still being asked to review this piece of legislation in front of the House today in committee stage. We’ve been at this for a couple of days in terms of other bills that have come in front of this House. This is the opportunity to have that discussion.

When the minister says they’re doing the right thing, I’ve just got to say about doing the right thing that this government has repeatedly had a history, a track record, of overriding the rights of injured British Columbians, that, as we know, we had an Attorney General that changed the rules of court. That was a rule pulled back. We’ve had an Attorney General that has been in conflict at the same time that he’s been the Minister Responsible for ICBC. That is the situation that we are in the backdrop of what’s being addressed. That occurred over some years under the government. The Chair:Excuse me, Member.

I recognize the Attor- ney General. Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right) Hon. D. Eby:I rise on a point of personal privilege and reserve my right to speak to it later. The Chair:Thank you. I believe that would be…. Is that a point of order? Or is it a point of personal privilege? Hon. D. Eby: Point of personal privilege, the allegation that I was in a conflict, which I do not believe is true. The Chair:Thank you, Attorney. Please proceed, Member. Debate Continued M. Lee:Well, this is something that I have spoken about in the House at length, Mr. Chair.

The member for Van- couver–Point Grey is certainly aware of that. We’ve had much discussion about that in the past, and he knows my views very well. My concern, of course, is that he wrote this letter too. This letter…. Even though he’s not the Minister Respons- ible for ICBC any longer, this minister is. It is still yet another example where the heavy hand of government has come over top of the rights of injured British Columbians — not just going forward, but looking back over 48 years.

Again, how is it that the government is now putting in place or bringing forward this legislation in light of the lit- igation that is in front of the courts? [3:00 p.m.] Does the government not have a concern that it is effect- ively quashing the rights of those claimants to bring for- ward that claim? Hon. M. Farnworth:I’ll just repeat what I said earlier, which is that this legislation will not stop the litigation. 3430 British Columbia Debates Thursday, October 7, 2021

M. Lee: We don’t have the opportunity to speak to the minister who wrote the letter to the lawyers on behalf of the claimants. So I’ll just raise this with the minister here, which is that certainly the Attorney General, on behalf of the government, did have some understanding that there would be some impact on the above-mentioned actions.

If the minister referred to the letter, he would know that it says: “While it will be within the discretion of cab- inet to introduce such legislation” — that’s happened — “and within the discretion of the Legislature” — which is what’s happening now — “to pass such legislation, I write to inform you of this intention, which is to propose this retroactive legislation, which, if passed will have an impact on the above-mentioned action. ” [N. Letnick in the chair.] What is the reference and what is this to mean, from government’s view, that it would have impact on the above-mentioned action? Hon. M.

Farnworth:It will not stop litigation, but what it certainly does is…. The legislation, as it’s laid out, will make it crystal-clear that the health care payments made by ICBC were done in a completely lawful and proper way. That’s what the legislation is all about. M.

Lee: One example of the lawful nature of the arrangement is the concern that this arrangement is effect- ively another tax, that there is a double payment going on here, that the province of B.C. is already receiving the funds to cover physician visits for those injured in motor vehicle accidents by coming under the Canada Health Act from the federal government. We covered that earlier. This arrangement, by transferring further funds to cover the same amounts, is going from ICBC to the Ministry of Health and that effectively is a double-dip, a double tax of some nature.

That payment scheme, for example, has nev- er been approved by this Legislative Assembly. In response to a question I asked earlier, the minister responded with a short answer, no. But this is part of the challenge, which is that that is a concern, on its face, as to whether this charge — this additional charge, this trans- fer of amounts, this levy — is an amount and a payment scheme and arrangement that has never been approved by this Legislative Assembly. Just so we’re all clear here, this will be the first oppor- tunity in 48 years that we can approve this arrangement.

If there is any concern relating to this being an unconstitu- tional or illegal tax, part of the elements of that is the fact that it needs to be approved by a legislative body. It’s the principle of no taxation without representation. This can’t be done on a handshake deal, which is what was happen- ing between 1973 and 1988, expanded again in 1994 by the NDP government, created in the first place under 1973. [3:05 p.m.] As members of this Legislative Assembly, we’re being asked to judge that. We’re being asked to make that go away, if that was a concern.

Just to address that concern, I think it is helpful if the minister is prepared to share a little more than one word. I didn’t ask the question this way, I will admit. So I will ask the question a slightly different way, which is: could the minister share with this House the view of the government as to any concern as to why this is not an unconstitutional tax? Hon. M. Farnworth:I think the fundamental response to that question is that we do not believe this is a tax. It’s that straightforward. The details, as the member points out, obviously would be argued in litigation.

This is a public policy that has been in place. It is based on accepted principles in terms of a policy around those who have the risk, cause the accidents, have a higher proportion of those health care costs to pay. That’s how things have operated. This is totally in line with the Canada Health Act, as I’ve said a number of times now — the single-payer principle — and ICBC reimburses some of those costs. It does not come from benefits. It is not a tax. The government is confident that that is very much the case. M.

Lee: I hope the minister does appreciate, obviously, that as members of the opposition, we don’t have the bene- fit of any further explanation beyond what the minister has said, which makes it very limiting in terms of our ability to assess how we would support this provision. There are, on its face, at least, serious questions and con- cerns being raised about this arrangement in the courts by nature of this claim. By virtue of this amendment to the legislation, this will effectively address…. I mean, I’m sure the government is not going through this to leave any holes in this.

Let me ask this question to the minister. It’s a slightly different way of approaching this. In view of the claim against the government of B.C., does this amendment address all of the potential challenges that can be raised in the nature of that litigation claim? Hon. M. Farnworth:No, it does not. The Chair:The committee will recess for ten minutes. The committee recessed from 3:09 p.m. to 3:18 p.m. [N. Letnick in the chair.] M. Lee:Mr. Chair, thank you for that recess. I just wanted to bring us back to the discussion.

Cer- tainly, the minister has heard our concerns about the nature of this provision, in the face of the active litigation claim that’s coming in front of the B.C. courts. I just wanted the minister to comment, if he’s aware of the Thursday, October 7, 2021 British Columbia Debates 3431

decisions that have been made in the past, looking at these sorts of retroactive pieces of legislation. [3:20 p.m.] As the minister has talked about this, he demonstrates that the government is familiar with both the arrangement and, certainly, the retroactive fix, so to speak, to address this.

I presume, and I just want to confirm, that the min- ister is familiar with, and his team advising him are aware of, the Supreme Court of Canada decisions that have con- sidered legislation of a retroactive nature that has been put forward to address other types of concerns relating to unconstitutional tax issues — whether there has been an assessment made as to whether there is any challenge in terms of even this legislation coming forward, in the face of that claim. Hon. M. Farnworth:It is the government’s position that this is not a tax and that this is the appropriate way for us to proceed.

Of course the case, if it gets to court, will be argued in court, but the government is confident that this is not a tax. M. Lee: I just want to draw the minister’s attention, then, to some of the court decisions of the highest court of our land, the Supreme Court of Canada. There is a decision,Kingstreet Investments v. New Brunswick, a 2007 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where Mr.

Justice Dickson said the following: “If a statute is found to be ultra vires the Legislature which enacted it, legisla- tion which would have the effect of attaching legal con- sequences to acts done pursuant to that invalid law must equally be ultra vires because it relates to the same subject matter as that which was involved in the prior legislation. If a state cannot take by unconstitutional means, it cannot retain by unconstitutional means. ” This provision and this statement seems to speak to the situation that we’re in here.

Again, has the government assessed the viability of this legislation in the face of this legal claim? Hon. M. Farnworth:I appreciate the member’s ques- tion and the statement. I’m aware that that applies to an unconstitutional tax case. It is the firm belief of govern- ment that this is not a tax. Retroactive legislation is some- thing that has been used before and, no doubt, at various times into the future by successive governments, may well be used again. But we have, as government, the view that this is the appropriate legislation, that the path being chosen is the appropriate one.

I repeat again, this is not an unconstitutional tax. It is not a tax. M.

Lee: Just as we proceed through this bill, I would ask again the minister to address a comment I raised earlier in terms of the timing and the sequence of this amendment being considered by the House at this time in the face of the litigation claim ahead of the decision to be rendered by the court in terms of whether the class action will be certified, and then to move forward through further judicial proceedings. [3:25 p.m.] It certainly would be, with the amount of issues that we’ve canvassed here today and the responses that gov- ernment has provided through the minister, that there are quite a number of issues to be addressed here, issues that are not easy to assess in this forum because there is some degree of complexity involved with the legislative frame- work and the ability and the preciseness and clarity of the responses that the minister can provide while this matter is in litigation proceedings.

I appreciate that we’ve been receiving fairly general, definitive — at least the way that the minister is express- ing it on behalf of government — responses because the position of the government of B.C. is under review and in dispute. It would seem appropriate to myself and other mem- bers of our caucus, including the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, that we ask the minister to consider standing down this particular clause 2 — that the other parts of Bill 12 be considered but that clause 2 not be moved forward for approval.

Certainly, we would not support that adoption at this time, in face of the litiga- tion proceeding. Would the minister consider standing down this partic- ular clause 2? Hon. M. Farnworth:I appreciate the discussion that we have been having, and I appreciate the questions from the member and, obviously, his interest and the role that he is in, asking questions as one of the oppos- ition critics on this piece of legislation.

But as I’ve out- lined, I think the government has made its position clear in terms of the direction and the way in which they’re proceeding with this particular issue and the legislation before us. So respectfully, I would have to decline his request to stand down this section. The Chair:As we’re constantly learning in this position, apparently the correct procedural way to do it is, when I call for the vote, to vote against the clause. Anything else on clause 2? Clause 2 approved on division. On clause 3. M. Morris:Just a couple of questions on clause 3. I see that some

definitions have been moved into

section 113 under clause 3 here.

Definitions have changed slightly here, and I’m just wondering what the reason and the rationale was for changing these. The definition of “dependent child” under sub (

b) now includes “on the date that a benefit under this

Part 3432 British Columbia Debates Thursday, October 7, 2021

becomes payable. ” I’m just wondering: why was that par- ticular definition changed to that? Hon. M. Farnworth:It’s been changed for internal con- sistency. There’s no substantial change to what the defini- tion specifically means. M. Morris:Thank you for that. It talks about a prescribed class of persons under sub-

section (c). Would that be the same as the prescribed por- tion under

part 7 of the regs, under “supported child”? Hon. M. Farnworth:No, they are different. One defin- ition deals with enhanced care going forward. The other deals with the system that was. Clause 3 approved. On clause 4. M. Morris:Just for clarification. A lot of this is technical in nature, I guess, just changing from one format to anoth- er, and some

definitions are changing in here. [3:30 p.m.] I’ve looked through this very carefully, and I don’t see any issue to raise from clause 4 to clause 34. Clauses 4 to 34 inclusive approved. Title approved. Hon. M. Farnworth:I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment. Motion approved. The committee rose at 3:31 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and Third Reading of Bills BILL 12 — INSURANCE (VEHICLE) AMENDMENT ACT, 2021 Bill 12, Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2021, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division: [3:35 p.m. - 3:45 p.m.] YEAS — 51 Anderson Bailey Bains Beare Begg Brar Chandra Herbert Chant Chow Conroy Coulter Cullen Dean D’Eith Dix Donnelly Dykeman Eby Elmore Farnworth Fleming Furstenau Glumac Greene Heyman Horgan Kahlon Kang Leonard Ma Malcolmson Mark Mercier Olsen Osborne Paddon Popham Ralston Robinson Routledge Routley Russell Sandhu Sharma Simons Sims A.

Singh Starchuk Walker Whiteside Y ao NAYS — 22 Ashton Banman Bernier Bond Cadieux Clovechok Davies Halford Kirkpatrick Kyllo Lee Letnick Milobar Morris Oakes Paton Ross Rustad Stone Sturdy Tegart Wilkinson [3:50 p.m.] Hon. M. Farnworth:I call committee stage, Bill 17. Committee of the Whole House BILL 17 — PROTECTED AREAS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 2021 The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 17; N. Letnick in the chair. The committee met at 3:52 p.m. The Chair:Minister, would you like to introduce your staff first? Hon. G. Heyman:Thank you very much, Chair.

Joining me on my right is Rumon Carter, and on my left is Brett Hudson. On clause 1. P . Milobar:A few overarching questions, I guess, at the beginning, for the minister, given that a lot of this is semi- housekeeping as we move through. And this will come as no surprise to the minister that the first few questions will be around UNDRIP and consultations that have taken place overall. I’m wondering if the minister can give us an idea of how much consultation, and what shape that took, with Indi- Thursday, October 7, 2021 British Columbia Debates 3433

genous communities throughout this bill and the overall bill in its entirety? Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. We in fact conducted extensive consulta- tions, as we do with all of our actions in changing parks boundaries and establishing parks and naming parks and discussing management issues.

Specifically, we consulted with First Nations on the establishment of the new park, the park and conservancy additions, the boundary modifications, the renaming pro- posals and the cancellation of Elk Falls Protected Area. [3:55 p.m.] Where we did not consult was on the replacement of the boundary descriptions for Lakelse Lake Park with an offi- cial plan and the administrative update to the boundary description for Ellison Lake. These were strictly adminis- trative changes and do not impact the boundaries or man- agement of the lands in any way.

We also consulted with the Attorney General’s ministry about whether our level of consultation met the require- ments of various court decisions, pieces of legislation, as well as our own Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and acted accordingly. When we get to each specific section, I’ d be quite happy to detail the specific consultations for each one of the sec- tions of the act. Clause 1 approved. On clause 2. P . Milobar:I’m just wondering if we could get that fur- ther description of the consultation that took place. How were the area bands decided? Were the area bands all con- sulted?

Was it provincewide, as well, in terms of other organizations? We’ve heard that from various ministries — that various provincial Indigenous groups have been consulted, not individual bands, on some legislation. So to get a flavour of what actually happened in

section 2 consultation…. Hon. G. Heyman: I’ll answer the second part of the member’s question first. We consult directly with the nations that have interests, rights and title to areas where we are considering establishment may mean adjustments, additions to particular parks. We do not consult with provincewide umbrella organiz- ations on these, because they’re not directly impacted. It’s the nations with rights and title. Specifically with respect to

section 2, the K’ ómoks First Nation; the Wei Wai Kai First Nation; the Wei Wai Kum, otherwise known as Campbell River Indian Band; and Homalco First Nation were consulted between 2011 and 2019. B.C. Hydro consulted on the proposed land exchange in 2011 and 2012 and provided notification to the Laich- Kwil-Tach Treaty Society in June of 2012. B.C. Hydro also met with the K’ ómoks, Wei Wai Kai and Wei Wai Kum First Nations in 2018 and ’19 to ask for final comments or concerns regarding the land exchange.

The K’ ómoks First Nation, the Wei Wai Kai Nation and the Campbell River Indian Band have impact-and-benefit agreements with B.C. Hydro, and they provided letters of support as part of their IBAs. [4:00 p.m.] The Homalco initially responded with no objections, reserving the right to further comment after completing traditional land use and archaeological studies. At a sub- sequent meeting in May of 2018, they raised objections, citing their own asserted territorial rights to the land. B.C. Hydro followed up, citing the previous responses on record from Homalco First Nation, but received no fur- ther response.

Clause 2 approved. On clause 3. P . Milobar:I’m wondering if the minister…. It looks like Beatton Park, located up by Fort St. John…. Would this be considered in the area of the Blueberry River First Nations, and if so, how would the recent court ruling be taken into account, with any changes contemplated within this piece of legislation, with Beatton Park? [S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.] Hon. G. Heyman:As the member will know, the change to Beatton Park was the addition of 23 hectares of private land, which was purchased by the ministry in 2007, and 11 hectares of foreshore next to the private land addition.

Consultation was initiated with Blueberry River First Nation in April 2019 — the answer is yes, it is in their territory — and concluded in June 2019. The only response that was received from Blueberry River First Nation was a request to provide some further informa- tion, which was done. There was no further communic- ation from Blueberry River. The consultation efforts that were undertaken have been considered in light of the Y ahey decision of June 2021. We believe that the Crown’s duty to consult in respect of these amendments, in light of that decision, have been met. P .

Milobar:I’m just seeking further clarification. I know that part of that court decision was that the government had to come to accelerated discussions and negotiations with the Blueberry River First Nations around things like permits. A lot were put on hold. The ability to issue per- mits was put on hold, for the most part. Was there was any governmental permitting that needed to be done — and that was not signed off on by the Blueberry River First Nations — with this amendment, or 3434 British Columbia Debates Thursday, October 7, 2021

is it not subject to any type of permitting whatsoever from government, even if it’s an internal permitting structure? [4:05 p.m.] Hon. G. Heyman:That’s a good question. There are two parts to this decision. We purchased land and added it to a protected area, so that, in and of itself, doesn’t create an impact. One of the things that was the subject of the Blueberry River First Nation court case and the ultimate decision known asYahey…. There is, however, an existing water intake that did not require permitting when it was on private land.

If it requires permitting in the future because it’s part of the park, then, of course, that would be subject to consultation with the Blueberry River First Nation before any action was taken on that. P . Milobar:So with this park then, with the addition of lands coming in…. Does that change any of the ability, any of the land mass in that area that would be available for hunting in regards to either Indigenous or non-Indigenous peoples in that area with this park boundary change? Hon. G. Heyman: Well, currently, because we haven’t passed this bill yet, it’s private land.

Hunting is only allowed with the permission of the landowner, including hunting by Indigenous people. With the inclusion of this area in the park, it will be available for the exercise of traditional hunting rights by Indigenous people. It’s also available for hunting to anyone else with a licence, but the issue of quotas for particular animals or species would be pursuant to the Wildlife Act. That would undoubtedly trigger a consultation by the ministry administering the Wildlife Act — which is not my ministry — with the Blueberry River First Nation. P .

Milobar:In terms of further down in 3, if I’m reading this correctly…. In the description of the Purcell Wilderness Con- servancy Park, I get — and many of these parks, I guess, would be similar and following a similar vein of this ques- tion — that it’s only a few hectares here and there that we’re moving around with mapping. But sometimes that could have significant consequence, depending where that line moves, especially when it comes to foreshore areas and abutments around lakes of that nature as the riparian area would come into effect.

Was any assessment done on the parks that start to impact a remapping, a realignment of their boundaries as it pertains to those water bodies and what the neighbour- ing properties’ impacts are on riparian areas and buildable areas of potential use next to the parks, or is that not part of the assessment overall? [4:10 p.m.] Hon. G. Heyman:The change to the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy Park is nowhere near a water body or ripari- an area. It is a small piece of road, which services four existing private lots, that was erroneously included in the park in the first place. The road pre-existed.

This just simply ensures these lot owners can continue to have access to their lots, but there is no impact on water. P . Milobar:Thanks for that. It was a little confusing. Of course, when we’re dealing with large tracts of land…. When the description is the easterly shore of the natural boundary of Kootenay Lake, one would assume we’re talking about lakeshore. Like I say, many others are talking about foreshore. I guess, in general, just a follow-up to the overall ques- tion around foreshore and this bill in general. This comes forward every year.

With the riparian act now being in place for ten, 15 years, does the overall assessment take that into account, as these boundary changes come for- ward on foreshore and other areas of these park adjust- ments that we see described throughout this bill? Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. The answer to the question is that we always consider impacts to riparian areas when we add foreshore.

But to take a step back from that, what happened is that we pur- chased private land, and we’re bringing it under the Parks Act, which enables us to directly address any riparian impacts as part of a park management plan. So the ability to apply protections that are consistent with the Riparian Areas Act is enhanced. E. Ross:In terms of the consultation, I heard the answer given previously. But my question is pretty specific to the consultation regarding Blueberry River, for example.

We know there is some type of agreement, in principle at least. [4:15 p.m.] When we’re talking about boundaries in terms of lands here, whether it be foreshore or not, will this be part of the Blueberry agreement that’s currently being negotiated right now as we speak? Hon. G. Heyman: To the member, I’ll repeat that we consulted with Blueberry River First Nation on the amendments that were within territories where they have rights and title and, of course, interest, and provided the further information they requested and received no other requests for information or commentary from them.

Presumably, they were satisfied, but I am not part of the negotiations to resolve issues of permitting and impacts that flow from theYahey decision, so I can’t say if that’s been brought up. Although I assume that if it had been, I would be informed. I guess, potentially, the Blueberry River First Nation could raise issues related to parks in their territory but have not, to date, to my knowledge, but again, I’m not at that table. Thursday, October 7, 2021 British Columbia Debates 3435

E. Ross:There’s a difference between treaty bands, non- treaty bands and the band that actually achieved title through the courts. We’re talking about Tŝilhqot’in, for example. In terms of the mandate that we’re talking about now, in terms of the Crown adjusting the boundaries as per this bill, were non-treaty bands that are in the process of nego- tiating a treaty…? Were they made aware of this through the negotiation structure of each community? Hon. G. Heyman: I’ d like to, before giving an answer, ask a question of clarification of the member for Skeena. Is your question general, with respect to all of the amend- ments, or specifically to

section 3? E. Ross:It’s specific to

section 3. Hon. G. Heyman: The answer would probably be the same no matter what the member’s answer to my clarifying question was, but I thought it was important to ask. We consult with both treaty nations and non-treaty nations. We consult with nations who assert an interest in lands where we’re proposing activities or, in this case, additions, amendments, etc. We consult quite broadly, and we consult with any nation that asserts that they have an interest. E.

Ross: To be clear, then, the First Nations that are negotiating treaties right now are actually clear on the idea of the boundaries changing or being amended? That is part of their treaty negotiations? [4:20 p.m.] Hon. G. Heyman:The changes to boundaries or addi- tions are not part of the treaty negotiations. I guess, potentially, they could be, if a nation put them on the table. But they are just simply subject to the consulta- tions that we do with Indigenous nations in our regular activity — in this case, with respect to amendments to the protected areas act. E. Ross: That was true prior to 2017.

That was true. That’s not true anymore. Bill 41 has actually highered the standard above and beyond anything else that we have ever seen. We actually don’t know what the standard is anymore. So now we’re talking about a government decision. Previous to that, it was a government decision that affected asserted rights and title, whether they be treaty or not. So the question is: do the bands that you consult with understand what this means in the context of treaty nego- tiations and how that affects the parks and protected areas chapters in treaty negotiations, for example? Hon. G.

Heyman:As part of our consultation, we serve notice to nations that have asserted an interest in the ter- ritory, and we include in that a description of what we’re proposing as well as maps. When we get responses, we answer questions. We engage in discussion with them, and part of our legal analysis of whether we meet the tests that are required is an analysis of whether we meet the tests required under our new piece of legislation, the Declara- tion on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. E. Ross:My last question. In the notification….

I’m pre- suming that it was a notification that was sent out, in terms of the amendments that we’re talking about here in Bill 17. In the Crown’s communication, was there any mention of accommodation when we’re talking about the decisions that we’re making in terms of land designations? Hon. G. Heyman:Thank you for the question, because it allows me to offer further clarification. In our notific- ation to Indigenous nations, we provide information. We provide maps.

Then, we ask them if they believe that there are impacts on their rights, their title, their interests, any- thing else that is significant to them — traditional use, cul- ture, archaeology. When they give us an answer that, yes, there is, and this is how, we then engage with them around what can be done to accommodate that, if anything can be done to accommodate that. Usually the case is that we find an accommodation, and that is the nature of our consultation and our work with Indigenous nations pursuant to DRIPA as well as existing court decisions and legislation. E.

Ross: Maybe I should actually bring it back a bit to clarify what I’m getting at. As I said to one of the other ministers here, regarding a bill, consultation is not just notification. That’s not what it is. [4:25 p.m.] If the government goes back to read the case law that’s been actually established in the courts of B.C. and Canada over the last 40 years, it talks about meaningful consulta- tion. It means follow-up. It means discussion. It means a lot more than just sending out a letter and then expecting a band council that’s got probably 40 or 50 different things to do on that day to find the time to respond.

They’ve got different things to do. They’ve got treaty negotiations to decide. It might be an arm of the council, or it might or their own separate society. It’s quite complicated. The real question — and what I’m getting at in terms of the first notification that was sent to these First Nations — was the word “accommodation” used? I’m not talking about the follow-up actions. I’m talking about the first notification, because as I understand it, this government is actually substituting notification and letters for meaning- ful consultation.

So in the first notification of this amend- ment, was the word “accommodation” used for the First Nation in question? Hon. G. Heyman:The member is quite right: notifica- 3436 British Columbia Debates Thursday, October 7, 2021

tion isn’t consultation. I didn’t mean to imply that. I apolo- gize if I did. It is the first step in consultation. The member is also right that nations have many things with which they have to deal. The letter is the first step in the consultation. If we don’t get a response, we will follow up as part of our review of the proposed amendments. [4:30 p.m.] We also do our own assessment of what we think impacts may be and ensure that if we see them, we engage with nations about those.

Specifically, if agreements are already in place with nations, whether they are treaty or other forms of agreements, reconciliation or otherwise, that specify particular forms of consultation or methodo- logies to address issues, we ensure that we follow those — that we’re aware of them and that we follow those and hon- our those.

Finally, in a number of cases, we have been ready to proceed with something but have not heard back from a nation so we have delayed it to perhaps another session, another version of a protected areas amended act until we can be sure that we have spoken with the nation and we have reached agreement or accommodation or consent. One example of that would be that we don’t unilaterally, or in any way, choose Indigenous place names for parks. That’s very much something on which we depend on the nations to give

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20211007pm-Hansard-n105
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20211007pm Hansard n105
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	6ce5ea3ccfd8a7b53cc49f85af36766aad89ba58

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