2016 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 40th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Wednesday, March 9, 2016

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 34, Number

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)

ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Speaker’s Statement

Retirement of Patrick Antiphon

J. Horgan

Tributes

Rolly Fox

Hon. C. Clark

M. Farnworth

Introductions by Members

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

Bill 13 — Safety Standards Amendment Act, 2016

Hon. R. Coleman

Bill M206 — Hydro Affordability Act, 2016

J. Horgan

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

Support in northeast B.C. for LNG industry

P. Pimm

Children with kidney disease and organ donation

K. Conroy

Colorectal cancer

S. Gibson

Canadian Ski Cross Championships in Smithers

D. Donaldson

Personal appearance and assumptions

G. Hogg

Burnaby Hospital

K. Corrigan

Oral Questions

Ombudsperson review of Health Ministry investigation

J. Horgan

Hon. S. Anton

A. Dix

Vacant properties and housing availability in Metro Vancouver

D. Eby

Hon. M. de Jong

Disability benefits and bus pass program changes

M. Mungall

Hon. Michelle Stilwell

Drinking water quality and testing in public buildings

J. Rice

Hon. T. Lake

Water quality in Spallumcheen area

G. Heyman

Hon. M. Polak

Petitions

J. Tegart

M. Mungall

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — Supply Act (N o . 1), 2016

Hon. M. de Jong

C. James

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 20 — Supply Act (N o . 1), 2016

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 20 — Supply Act (N o . 1), 2016

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 10 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2016

C. James

Hon. M. de Jong

A. Dix

L. Popham

A. Weaver

B. Ralston

Reporting of Bills

Bill 10 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2016

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of International Trade (continued)

B. Ralston

Hon. T. Wat

Estimates: Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation

Hon. J. Rustad

S. Fraser

[ Page 11241 ]

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 2016

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Speaker’s Statement

RETIREMENT OF PATRICK ANTIPHON

Madame Speaker: Hon. Members, I would like to recognize that one of our long-standing employees, Patrick Antiphon, will be retiring at the end of this month after nearly 34 years of service. He has been our senior tour guide, warmly welcoming visitors and dignitaries from around the world.

[1335]

He has met with hundreds of thousands of school children from all of your ridings. He has served 11 Speakers, nine Premiers and many members. He has truly been a cherished ambassador for our precinct, and he will be missed.

Please join me in welcoming Patrick and wishing him a healthy and happy retirement.

J. Horgan: I do appreciate that that was a blanket introduction. As a capital regional district MLA, I spend an inordinate amount of time here. I know that other members come from all across the province. I’m here to watch Patrick. I have been watching him for a long, long time.

His sense of the solemnity of this building is profound. His passion for the people who come here is absolutely extraordinary. He’s a wonderful human being. He’s done a spectacular job of elevating the debate outside of this place when kids groups come, when young adults come, when seniors come. He’s a wonderful human being.

We will desperately miss you, Patrick, and thank you so, so much for your service to this Legislature and the people of B.C.

Tributes

ROLLY FOX

Hon. C. Clark: Last night British Columbia lost a great hero, someone that we cherish all across the province and has been cherished in the Tri-Cities, in particular, for many years. That’s Rolly Fox.

We all know in our lives…. Every one of us in this House knows someone who has had cancer. All of us have had the chance to witness the courage and the sheer force of will that it takes to confront that diagnosis, that treatment, that disease. I think what Rolly Fox gave us was a glimpse of something even better. He lost Terry, and he didn’t give in to despair.

Terry Fox took on a task without knowing it was going to make him a hero, without knowing it was going to make a huge difference. He decided to run across the country on one leg because he cared about fighting cancer, and he wanted to make a difference. I believe that when Terry did that, he believed it would be a small difference and had no idea how big the difference it would be that he made. His parents and his family supported him in that, and then they lost him.

They could have given in to despair, but they didn’t. Instead, Rolly and Betty started their own marathon in Terry’s memory. Rolly dedicated the next 35 years of his life to fighting cancer. They raised millions of dollars around the world. They saved thousands of lives through the advancements that were made possible by their work.

Then, this year, we learned that Rolly’s battle against cancer was a very personal one, as he was diagnosed himself. Even though Rolly has now left us, I think what he would want us to remember is that cancer did not beat Rolly Fox. Rolly Fox beat cancer.

So today he’s there with Betty, and he’s laughing, listening to Hank Williams. He leaves behind a grieving family. He leaves behind a grieving province. But most of all, he leaves behind thousands and thousands of people who are grateful for what he did, thousands of lives that have been saved.

We will remember him while we grieve him, and we will commit to carrying on the legacy that he and Betty established, and Terry before them. We will work to make sure that his gift to us is one that we continue.

M. Farnworth: I thank the Premier for her gracious words.

Today in Port Coquitlam, the flags fly at half-mast to honour the passing of Rolly Fox, a man from our community, who, together with Betty Fox, raised a family and a son, Terry, who would inspire our community, our province and our entire country with his courage, strength and commitment to find a cure for cancer by running across Canada.

Rolly Fox raised his family in a modest home in Port Coquitlam. He was part of our community. His kids went to the same schools that we all did. They played on the same sports teams as we did. Rolly and Betty instilled in the family the values that we all share. It was these values that helped Terry to pursue his dream of raising money to find a cure for cancer.

[1340]

When Terry was forced to end his run in Thunder Bay, his dream did not die. It carried on because of the commitment of Rolly and his family through the Terry Fox Foundation.

The Terry Fox Runs, held in communities across our nation and around the world, are a continuation of that dream, and Rolly was a key part of it.

[ Page 11242 ]

Each year in Port Coquitlam, at our hometown run, he would be there running with the rest of the community. And in later years, he’d be walking the route. But he was always there, cheerful, with a great sense of humour. It was a privilege and a pleasure to run with him.

I will always remember that, at the start of the run, he would joke and tease me not to trip him up as a reminder of one of the early runs, when I accidentally tripped him at the beginning and we both went down in front of the cameras.

While Betty was often seen as the public face of the Terry Fox Foundation, Rolly was very much a driving force behind the scenes. He was a rock who gave the family and the foundation strength. The legacy of Terry Fox exists and continues in large measure because of Rolly Fox.

We are grateful for having known him, and we will never forget the legacy that he and his family have created in this province and our nation.

Introductions by Members

Hon. N. Letnick: There are many people around this province who do good work for foundations. On behalf of the Premier and the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, I’d like to introduce Joe Amyott, Teresa Atkinson, Annick Lim and Dr. Robin Lowry, who are excellent volunteers for the Kidney Foundation and are here in the House.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

M. Karagianis: I have two introductions to make, if you will bear with me.

As we know, March is Kidney Health Month, and this year the Kidney Foundation of Canada is raising awareness about kids and kidney disease.

Kidney disease can affect anyone at any age. This morning I met with a group of people to discuss the importance — I know that other members of the House did too — of kidney health to their families.

I would like the House to join me in welcoming Joe Amyott; Logyn, Bronwyn and Kirstin Hedberg; and Paul and Diane Duperron, and give them a warm welcome here to the precinct.

Secondly, I’d like to also recognize today Kristina Grant and her daughter Hailey-Ann. Hailey-Ann was diagnosed with polycystic kidney disease when Kristina was 21 weeks pregnant. Both of them were due to join me in the House today to talk about the importance of World Kidney Day and of organ donations.

Unfortunately, Hailey-Ann was admitted to Victoria General Hospital this weekend with a respiratory virus, and her family was unable to make the trip.

I know that all members will join me in sending warm wishes to Hailey-Ann for a speedy and full recovery.

Hon. S. Bond: I, too, have some very special guests, two of whom have already been referenced.

We’ve talked about courage in the House today. Paul and Diane Duperron are from Prince George. They are tireless advocates on behalf of the Kidney Foundation, and they are driven for a very personal reason. Paul was diagnosed with kidney disease in 1985, and 22 years later his kidneys failed. He was given a transplant in September of 2011, but unfortunately, there were issues, and that kidney transplant failed in June of 2014. So today Paul is waiting on the transplant list.

But I can tell you that the work they do in Prince George and across the province is nothing short of heroic. They work hard every weekend to encourage people to register, to understand the significant implications of the challenges that they’re facing. I am very proud that they are here today and extremely proud of the work they do in our community.

Joining them is Ron Walker, the past-president of the board of directors of the Kidney Foundation. His daughter died from kidney failure.

And Dr. Robin Lowry — he is a recently retired nephrologist from Prince George, and he is the medical adviser to the board of directors of the Kidney Foundation. He has done some incredible work in terms of research as well.

[1345]

I know the House will want to make all of them very welcome and also thank Paul and Diane for being incredibly active and passionate spokespeople. Thank you for being here today.

L. Krog: I want to welcome three individuals to the chamber today, in no particular order. Firstly, Katrina McAndrew, who is both a recipient and a regional director of the Kidney Foundation here in British Columbia. Annick Lim, who has joined us from Kaleden. She is both a recipient and a poster person for the Kidney Foundation. Finally, I just want to reintroduce Ron Walker, a volunteer extraordinaire and past president of the Kidney Foundation of Canada, B.C. and Yukon branch.

Would the House please make them all very welcome.

G. Kyllo: I’m very proud to introduce to the House today…. We have: Annick Lim, Nancy Verner, Teresa Atkinson and Dennis McCann, who I met with earlier today to talk about the importance of kidney donation and, more importantly, the importance of registering your wishes with B.C. Transplant.

We’re also joined today by Karen Philp, the president of the Kidney Foundation of Canada, as well as Amanda Poch, who will be embarking on the 2016 Live Then Give tour from the Legislature later this afternoon.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I would ask everybody, “Are you registered? Have you registered your decision?”

[ Page 11243 ]

as I was asked earlier today by a great team from the Kidney Foundation — volunteers and advocates in our community in downtown Vancouver.

I’d like to welcome Danny Fan, Todd Hauptman, Mimi Luk and Katrina McAndrew to this House. I am registered, and I would encourage everybody at home: if you haven’t registered yet, go on line and do it today. Thank you so much.

J. Tegart: It’s my pleasure to welcome to the House this afternoon four visitors from the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association of B.C. Joining us are ICBA president Phil Hochstein; Rick Boates, ICBA board chair and president of Unitech Construction Management; Darcy Kray, past board chair of the ICBA and president of Durwest Construction; and Catherine Loiacono, ICBA director of communications.

I ask that the members make them feel very welcome today.

C. Trevena: I, too, would like to introduce some people in the House who have been involved with the Kidney Foundation. Following the member for Shuswap, I’d like to introduce Karen Philp, the executive director of the B.C. and Yukon branch of the Kidney Foundation. She has made today happen and makes a lot of events around the Kidney Foundation happen. I am very proud to look at her, and I hope that she looks at me, as a friend. She is also a sometime constituent of the North Island.

Also here are Brenda and Rob Harris and their son Andrew. As well as being involved with the Kidney Foundation, Brenda and Rob owned and ran a very successful small business in Campbell River, White Hat Drycleaners, for many years. They’ve recently sold it and are taking a year off. But Campbell River is hoping that they return very soon to open another business and get back involved with the community, as well as the work they do for the Kidney Foundation.

I hope the House will make all of them very welcome.

J. Darcy: I’d like to join my many colleagues who have welcomed people who are here today on behalf of the Kidney Foundation. In particular, I’d like to welcome a very articulate and passionate young woman by the name of Hailey Cheema, who is here today with her parents.

She’s a resident of New Westminster. She lost her grandfather, who was on a waiting list for a kidney, and it was a turning point in her life in making her a volunteer and advocate for the Kidney Foundation. I look forward to working with her and with everyone in the Kidney Foundation to raise awareness about this very, very important issue.

L. Reimer: It’s a great pleasure for me today to welcome my constituent Amanda Poch to the House. In March, 2006, Amanda Poch discovered that her liver was no longer functioning, due to an autoimmune disorder. She was put on a list immediately because of her young age and received a new liver.

[1350]

Today, she has worked selflessly for the Live Then Give campaign and also is here with the Kidney Foundation. She’ll be travelling the province in her mobile home to create awareness around organ donation.

Would the House please welcome Amanda.

S. Robinson: I have a number of guests here in the House joining us today. I’d like to introduce Kara Mintzberg and Josefa Michaelson. They are the B.C. regional directors of the Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee. CJPAC is a national, independent, multi-partisan organization whose mandate is to engage Jewish and pro-Israel Canadians in the democratic process and to foster active participation.

Joining them is Nico Slobinsky. He’s the director of the Pacific region of CIJA, the Centre for Israel Jewish Affairs, and in this role, Nico supports the pro-Israel and organized Jewish community’s advocacy goals, working with the Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver, community agencies, leaders in government, media, academia, civic society and other faith and ethnic communities across the Pacific region.

We were hosted by these organizations last night as they paired Israeli wines with Canadian cheese, and I have to say that I am most grateful that the wines have come a long way.

I’d also like to welcome to the House today a constituent of mine, Adel Gamar. He’s a well-travelled and educated constituent. He has been a senior adviser, deputy general counsel for the Qatar Foundation, an education specialist for UNESCO and a policy fellow at Harvard Law School. He’s also a hockey dad for five daughters, and he knows that they can play just like girls. Would everyone please welcome them all to the House.

J. Thornthwaite: The BCSPCA has done tremendous work to protect and enhance the quality of life for domestic, farm and wild animals in B.C. Today I have the pleasure to introduce Marylee Davis, board chair; Craig Daniell, CEO; Geoff Urton, senior manager, stakeholder relations; Melinda Mennie, stakeholder relations officer; and Marcie Moriarty, chief prevention and enforcement officer. Would the House please make them welcome.

S. Simpson: I want to join with my colleagues on both sides in welcoming some of our guests from the Kidney Foundation of Canada. I had the opportunity today to meet with Mimi Luck, Todd Hauptman, Danny Fan, Emily Wills and Bronwyn Hedberg — all either recipients of transplants, people who are awaiting a transplant or family members who are advocating.

Their message to me was very clear, as I’m sure it was to many in this chamber: we need to do a better job around public awareness for potential donors. While a

[ Page 11244 ]

vast majority of people believe that they’re on the list to be donors, the reality is that only about 20 percent of people are on that list today.

We know ICBC and others are doing work around that, to promote that. We should be using our good offices and opportunities here to encourage our constituents, if it’s appropriate, to become donors. I hope you’ll make our guests from the Kidney Foundation very welcome.

M. Dalton: I’d also like to welcome to the House Hailey Cheema and her parents, Harj and Patty Cheema. They’re from Mission, and she’s here volunteering with the Kidney Foundation, as are many others. She was a nephrology assistant — which was a new word to me; maybe not for everyone, but for me. That deals with diseases of the kidney.

I was quite astounded at how many people die without having dialysis or these transplants. They asked me if I am an organ donor, and I said that no, I wasn’t. But I volunteered. I’m going to put my name on that. So you can follow me up on that, Madame Speaker, in the next few weeks. If we get to a level of 50 percent, all the needs for organ transplants with kidneys will be met in this province.

G. Heyman: It gives me great pleasure to introduce two guests who are in the gallery and the precinct today.

Shelley Rivkin is a constituent of mine in Vancouver-Fairview. She’s a professor in the social work department at Langara College but is also here in her capacity as vice-president, planning allocation and community affairs, of the Jewish Federation of Greater Vancouver. I’ve known Shelley for a number of years. She is a great contributor to the community. She is always thinking about how we can together meet the needs of people who need a little help to live a fuller life, and I welcome her contributions. I ask everyone in the House today to join me in welcoming her to the gallery.

[1355]

I also know that in the precinct today is someone who until two weeks ago was working as my first constituency assistant, Jarrett Hagglund. Jarrett has left my office but hasn’t gone far. He’s left to take an important new role with our caucus. I know that Jarrett will do a great job in that role, as he has in my office, and I also know that he has many, many years ahead of him contributing to public life in B.C. in public policy, in what I expect to be very significant ways.

I ask members to join me in welcoming both of these guests today.

D. Plecas: Today in the House, we have Bronwyn, Kirstin and Logyn of the Hedberg family and five-year-old Logyn’s dancing donkey, given to him this morning by the member for Surrey–White Rock. They are all here for meetings and a reception this afternoon for all that we’re trying to do for the Kidney Foundation of Canada. In welcoming them, let’s make a very special welcome for five-year-old Logyn, who is awaiting a kidney transplant. He’s up here in the gallery today.

M. Elmore: I’d like to welcome two grade 11 classes from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School in Vancouver-Kensington. They are accompanied by the vice-principal, Nick Akrap; by Bonnie Burnell, a social studies teacher; as well as Cecil Baird, who is a social studies teacher and teacher-librarian; also teachers Heather Paris, Katherine Olson and a couple of student teachers.

Sir Charles Tupper stands out as a great school. They’re running a program, Passport 2 Play, which is a sports day led by students at Tupper for all life skills students across Vancouver. These are students with special needs, and that’s going to be happening in late May. They’re also running the program Create your Canada. They wanted everybody to know that they’re known by their slogan, which is: “Tupper Tigers Roars.” That’s “roars” — standing for respect, ownership, attitude, responsibility and safety. Please extend a very warm welcome to the great students of Tupper.

Moira Stilwell: I, too, would like to extend greetings and welcome to all of the people who are here from CIJA, CJPAC and the Jewish federation. Like my colleague — and I suspect I’m older than her — I had a little performance anxiety about the wine. I can remember when the best thing you could say about it was that it was kosher for Passover. It was a great event, and thank you all for attending.

D. Ashton: I’d like to introduce a few folks from the beautiful town of Summerland, good friends of mine: Linda and Ted Pepperdine. Linda just retired from a distinguished teaching career. Ted is a semi-retired motorcyclist, which means he only does short rides now. Also, Brad Hope from Princeton. Brad was our coast’s first original salmon farmer, retired to Princeton and re-retired to Gabriola Island, back to his salt roots. Please, the House make them welcome.

M. Mungall: We have two guests in the House who are starting to become quite familiar with the public gallery. We have, from Inclusion B.C., Faith Bodnar and Sheenagh Morrison. Sheenagh has really grown into a role of an amazing self-advocate for people with diverse abilities. If she’s half as good as she is at that as she is at Special Olympics swimming, we are very fortunate in B.C. to have such a wonderful self-advocate.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I want to join the member opposite in welcoming Faith Bodnar, from Inclusion B.C., to the Legislature today. Faith is an advocate for persons with disabilities in B.C., and I look forward to her accepting my invitation to meet with me and the other stakehold-

[ Page 11245 ]

ers to continue our collaborative work that we have been doing to improve the supports for people with disabilities.

I’d also like to acknowledge, and it brings me great pleasure to introduce, a young man today who plays a key role in my office here at the Legislature: my administrative assistant, Jeff Keene. He’s a good-natured, well-dressed, charming, efficient young man who demonstrates infinite patience, and his smile is contagious. He’s a pleasure to work with every single day, and our office is better for having him. Please join me in welcoming Jeff Keene.

[1400]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 13 — SAFETY STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2016

Hon. R. Coleman presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Safety Standards Amendment Act, 2016.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the bill be introduced and read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Coleman: I am pleased to introduce Bill 13, amendments to the Safety Standards Act. These amendments will strengthen and streamline safety oversight of oil and gas facilities, including liquefied natural gas facilities.

The B.C. Oil and Gas Commission will continue to look after the overall safety of operation of oil and gas facilities. The B.C. Safety Authority will be responsible for key systems and components in those facilities. Particularly, the amendments change the B.C. Safety Authority’s responsibility for pressure piping and refrigeration equipment under the Safety Standards Act, which becomes the responsibility of the Oil and Gas Commission.

This will eliminate overlap where both agencies have jurisdictions. The two agencies have consulted and agreed that this is the best division of responsibility for the oil and gas sector.

I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 13, Safety Standards Amendment Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M206 — HYDRO

AFFORDABILITY ACT, 2016

J. Horgan presented a bill intituled Hydro Affordability Act, 2016.

J. Horgan: I move a bill, intituled the Hydro Affordability Act, 2016, of which notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

J. Horgan: Everybody in British Columbia has been hit hard by the increasing cost of electricity, both residents and businesses. Some of those most affected are hard-working British Columbians. Low wage growth means many of our struggling citizens are making the choice between keeping the lights on or buying groceries, and as increasing fees and licences happen in other areas of life, it seems appropriate that if we can, with our public utility, we should find ways to provide relief for the most vulnerable in our community.

The government has recently announced a special deferral of electricity payments for mining corporations. The government needs to also, in my opinion and in the opinion of many, protect the interests of ordinary British Columbians, who are desperately in need of financial help. Hydro rates, since 2001, have gone up 74 percent. The B.C. Utilities Commission recently ordered B.C. Hydro to lower their unreasonably high reconnection fees in the best interest of British Columbians.

We believe that the commission should also have the power to create a lifeline rate in order to ensure everyday British Columbians aren’t left out in the cold. The bill would mean that families who have a demonstrated need, based on their household income and the number of dependents living in a household, would have access to a deferred rate just like mining companies do under the B.C. Liberal act.

This act represents an opportunity to support regular people who would otherwise be having to make that choice between paying their bills or going wanting in other areas.

I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M206, Hydro Affordability Act, 2016, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

SUPPORT IN NORTHEAST B.C.

FOR LNG INDUSTRY

P. Pimm: Today I have the honour of recognizing a group of residents from northeastern B.C. that are doing their very best to save their communities.

[ Page 11246 ]

As you’ve likely heard, the price of oil is in a huge slump, and our marketplace for natural gas is shrinking by the day. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers have projected that, without a new market, we will see current Canadian production of 14 billion cubic feet per day be reduced to 12 billion cubic feet by 2020. However, if we get an LNG announcement, that projection could change to 18 bcf by the same 2020, and most of the new production would come from B.C.

At present, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is holding a 30-day public comment period for the Pacific NorthWest LNG project, which ends on March 11. I made a submission to the process on behalf of the good folks in the Peace River North and then posted my comments on Facebook. My post was shared more than 500 times and sparked many more comments.

[1405]

My daughter Kristi Pimm–De Maid then started a Facebook group that was quickly joined by Fort St. John for LNG and Fort Nelson for LNG. Fort Nelson, a community 100 percent reliant on a natural gas industry, has seen 150 businesses shut down and the business vacancy rate go to 55 percent over the past year and a half. Fort St. John is currently going through a slowdown as well, but not nearly as severely as Fort Nelson.

Linda Mould and Karen Sipes started the Fort Nelson for LNG group, and they’ve rallied Fort Nelson residents to submit over 1,000 letters in favour of LNG to the environmental assessment comment period, including over 100 from their local First Nations band members. Allen Moreno Yu, Chuck Fowler and Kristi Pimm-De Maid have also rallied Fort St. John residents to submit nearly 1,000 submissions as well.

I want to thank these fabulous people for taking this issue so seriously and becoming involved so that the people of northeastern B.C. and many others around the province will continue to have great jobs in this wonderful industry.

CHILDREN WITH KIDNEY DISEASE

AND ORGAN DONATION

K. Conroy: March is Kidney Month, and today the B.C. branch of the Kidney Foundation of Canada and advocates have come to Victoria to meet with MLAs and educate us about kidney disease and the need for organ donors in this province.

Also here are the Kidney Kids Crew, young kids who danced and sang and spoke about their experiences when it comes to kidney disease. Nine-year-old Nicole was diagnosed with kidney disease at six. Elena, who is ten, has been attending Kidney Kids’ camp for four years. Eight-year-old Aiden received a transplant last year after being on the wait-list for three years.

It’s important to be reminded that kidney disease doesn’t just affect adults but is reality for many kids in B.C. The message is: we need to take the kids out of kidney disease.

As well today Amanda Poch started her “Live, then give” tour. At 20, her liver failed, and with hours to spare, her life was saved by an organ donation. Amanda is now celebrating her tenth anniversary as a transplant recipient and is paying it forward. She will be travelling across the province in her RV to share her story and engage the public in a discussion about organ donation, so look out for Amanda in her RV coming soon to your community.

Also, please ensure that you are an organ donor. Talk to your family about your wishes — even make it a family activity and all become organ donors. And 95 percent of people in B.C. agree with organ donation, but only 20 percent are actually signed up at all.

Some still think that because they signed up with their driver’s licence years ago, they still would be now. It’s not necessarily so. You need to go on line to transplant.bc.ca. It will tell you if you’re registered — you just need your personal health number — and if not, it just takes a minute.

The reality is that 50 percent of the people waiting for a kidney transplant will die before they get one. You can all help to turn that around by registering. Or consider becoming a living donor. You can live a normal, healthy life with just one kidney.

Help the Kidney Foundation and increase the number of registered organ donors in this province. Become a kidney hero today: get registered. Your gift of life could save someone else’s life.

COLORECTAL CANCER

S. Gibson: March is National Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month. It’s an opportunity for survivors, patients, caregivers and everyone who has been affected to talk about the disease that is preventable, treatable and beatable. These conversations can save lives. Among cancers that affect both men and women, this kind of cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths for men and third among women.

B.C. has the overall best cancer mortality rates in Canada, according to 2015 estimates in the Canadian Cancer Society report. We also have the lowest incidence of colorectal cancer. The risk of developing colorectal cancer increases with age, and more than 90 percent of cases occur in people aged 50 or older. This is some in this room, hon. Speaker. Colorectal cancer may be prevented through early detection and screening.

In 2013, the provincial colon cancer program was rolled out, with general practitioners referring patients between the ages of 50 and 74 for a screening test. The program includes patient coordinators who provide support and education to patients referred for colonoscopy.

Since the program was launched in 2013, more than 400,000 residents have been screened and provided with potentially life-saving information and support. We can

[ Page 11247 ]

be proud of our province’s leadership in cancer prevention and treatment, and this program is yet another tool we have to fight cancer and save more lives.

[1410]

This month share information and raise awareness about the importance of regular screening. My doctor just gave me a form last month. It’s been sitting on my desk. I’m going to take it off my desk and actually fill it out and submit it.

CANADIAN SKI CROSS

CHAMPIONSHIPS IN SMITHERS

D. Donaldson: They’ll be speeding around banked corners next week in Smithers on a course high up on a mountain. That’s because Smithers Ski and Snowboard Club is hosting the 2016 Canadian Ski Cross Championships at Hudson Bay Mountain Resort.

It’s a wild event if you haven’t seen it. Four to six racers simultaneously fly down a course, going head to head over jumps, rollers, natural terrain and banked corners, competing in several heats to make it to the final. And make it to the final is a regular occurrence for Canadian ski cross racers. Ski cross debuted as a medal sport at the 2010 Olympics, and Canada has excelled in the sport.

Our athletes will be coming to Smithers from a competition in Switzerland. As race chair and volunteer organizer Gary Huxtable says, it couldn’t have come at a better season to host the national championships. That’s because the Canadian team just won the Nations Cup, the award given to the country with the most World Cup ski cross points at the end of the season.

Canadian World Cup stars like B.C.’s own Marielle Thompson, with six podium finishes this season, and Chris Del Bosco, with five, will be racing down the course on Hudson Bay Mountain. And local talent Jason Oliemans, who is soon heading to France for the Junior World Championship, will be on his home course next week competing against World Cup veterans.

It takes an incredible amount of volunteer effort and local sponsorship for a small town to host a Canadian championship in an international sport. I skied by the course last weekend, and it’s looking really good. In fact, if it held off snowing for a little bit, organizers would be happy.

Huxtable and his team are doing some final checks this weekend before the first training runs and races leading to the Canadian championships March 19. The Smithers Chamber of Commerce is getting the welcome materials in place, and the town is ready to host the awards ceremony at Bovill Square on Main Street.

It’s going to be a great week of competition. Good job to all involved — a real accomplishment.

Madame Speaker: Well, Members, it’s either Don Cherry or the member for Surrey–White Rock. [Laughter.]

PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND ASSUMPTIONS

G. Hogg: Well, thank you, kind Speaker.

Is what you see all there is? My wife, LaVerne, gave me this suit for Christmas.

Interjections.

G. Hogg: It’s a full suit.

I wondered what she was thinking. Then, as I wandered around and looked at things, I found that it’s not just a fad but that this is a happening style that may well populate this Legislature at some time. I am colour-blind and pattern-deficit disordered.

Fads and styles ebb and flow and often disappear. Fads like pet rocks, etch-a-sketch, streaking, toga parties and Ouija boards — and great suits. It seems that they, and especially styles of clothing, have an inordinate influence upon how we see and are judged by others, perhaps even how we see and judge others. Especially when it’s a first impression, that may bias us forever.

So does our appearance affect our effectiveness? Do social norms provide accepted standards for conformance? The Washington Post Sunday magazine ran an experiment that may help answer these questions it. The experiment tested the impact of context, perception and priorities when recognizing people and practices outside their usual environment.

Joshua Bell, one of the world’s most celebrated violinists, dressed as a busker and played his $3 million Stradivarius violin for 45 minutes in a Washington, D.C., subway. Over 1,000 people hurried past him without even appearing to take notice. The night before, he was paid $3,000 a minute for his concert performance. This celebrated violinist, based on his appearance and place, went largely unnoticed.

It seems that our acceptance of beliefs and acceptance of people can easily be masked, biased and misunderstood by attire and by context. Our ability to see and to understand ideas and people as they really are may require us to recognize and abandon some of our preconceived assumptions.

The way we are, the way we dress may not be saying what people assume. What we initially see and believe is seldom all there really is within those people.

As for LaVerne, I still don’t know what she was thinking.

[1415]

BURNABY HOSPITAL

K. Corrigan: Well, on behalf of all of the members of the Legislature, I’d like to offer the member for Surrey-Whalley $3,000 a minute not to wear that suit anymore. [Laughter.]

Interjection.

[ Page 11248 ]

K. Corrigan: Surrey–White Rock, sorry.

Can we start again, Madame Speaker? [Laughter.]

Madame Speaker: Yes, please proceed.

K. Corrigan: I want to sing the praises of the women and men who work and volunteer at Burnaby Hospital. It is a very busy hospital, I believe the second-busiest emergency room in Fraser Health. The hospital cares for about 10 percent of B.C.’s population, which is not surprising, given that Burnaby is the third-largest city in British Columbia and the hospital also serves much of East Vancouver. Staff and doctors and volunteers do a fantastic job, despite the real pressures of numbers.

It has been our community hospital since 1952. It’s where I had all four of Derek’s and my children. It is where broken arms and other childhood accidents and diseases of those children were looked after. It’s where my ruptured Achilles tendon, suffered in a squash match, was repaired, and it’s where my cancer was cured. Burnaby Hospital is where both of my parents passed away, and I have to say the great care in the palliative care ward was wonderful, as was the support from the Burnaby Hospice Society.

I want to commend the work of the Burnaby Hospital Foundation, which has raised millions of dollars for things like MRIs, bed lifts and other needed equipment and support services. I also want to take just a moment to thank my sister Dr. Jeanne Keegan-Henry, who spent many years, many long hours working at the hospital as a hospitalist and has recently retired.

The staff at the hospital are truly dedicated to the well-being of our community. To the nurses, doctors, technologists and technicians and support staff that look after us as we walk through your doors, thank you.

Oral Questions

OMBUDSPERSON REVIEW OF

HEALTH MINISTRY INVESTIGATION

J. Horgan: This September it will be four years since eight individuals who worked for the province of British Columbia were fired by the B.C. Liberal government. It will be four years since they were allegedly put under an investigation by the RCMP. It will be four years, two investigations that declared nothing untoward had happened, yet these eight individuals’ lives were turned upside down. Rod MacIsaac, sadly, took his life.

Over that time, rather than trying to get to the bottom of the issue, rather than trying to find out who was responsible for the issue, it seems to me and many who have been observing this fiasco that the Premier and her government have been making efforts to ensure that no one is found accountable for these activities.

Now we learn that the seven researchers and Ms. Kayfish, the sister of Rod MacIsaac, will not be granted basic access to legal services so that they can make their case before the Ombudsperson in the investigation that we finally rested on to, hopefully, get to the bottom of this. Now, to be clear, all of those who perpetuated this wrong on the eight individuals will have complete and unfettered access to legal services. Those that were accused will not.

My question is to the Premier. Will the Premier do the right thing today and get this investigation back on track by ensuring those whose lives were turned upside down have adequate legal representation?

Hon. S. Anton: This is indeed a matter that the public has an interest in, this House has an interest in and the persons who were directly involved, of course, have a very close interest in. That is why it has been put in the hands of the person who is very capable, whose whole office, the whole purpose of his office is to investigate such matters, and that, of course, is the Ombudsperson.

His job is to uphold administrative fairness within government and to conduct investigations of complaints made by members of the public and, in this case, by the persons who were fired at the time. That’s what his office is there to do. That is why he has been requested to take on this investigation and to determine what happened.

There is an indemnity policy in place that has been approved by the Ombudsperson. There is support for the people who are asked to be witnesses and to be part of the investigation. As I said, it’s been approved by the Ombudsperson. Let us let him do his job. It’s his job to get to the bottom of this, and he should be allowed to do that.

[1420]

Madame Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: It’s nice to see the Attorney up on her feet rather than the Minister of Health. But certainly the Premier, always anxious to be pithy and on point, would have taken the opportunity to defend a process that she initiated.

I can understand the Minister of Justice’s confusion. It’s tough to keep track of the lawyers. There are the lawyers that are involved in the indemnity process for the special prosecutor that’s been outstanding for 2½ years. There are the lawyers that are using the indemnity to protect other public servants over the last special prosecutor that was appointed. And then, of course, there’s this issue.

Again, more public servants on the Liberal watch — free access, unfettered access to legal services — while the people whose integrity was impugned, whose reputation was smeared — they don’t get any access. For the minister to stand and say that Mr. Chalke fully endorses this….

Let me read for the House and the record and the minister what he actually said. “The policy question is that

[ Page 11249 ]

public subsidy amounts provided by government for witnesses is not for me to determine.” That suggests to me that it’s for the government to determine.

Now, as we’ve had two botched investigations, special prosecutors piling up all around us, I appreciate the legal cost to protect Liberals is getting up there. But shouldn’t we put the integrity of seven individuals and the grieving sister of a dead public servant ahead of obstructing an investigation?

To the Premier: will you give adequate resources to the people you’ve besmirched?

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair.

Hon. S. Anton: There is an indemnity policy in place in this case. The goal of the Ombudsperson, the request made to him and his goal, is to find out what happened when these firings took place. As I’ve said before, the persons who were fired, of course, are interested. This House is interested. The public is interested. That’s why it is in the hands of a person, the Ombudsperson, and an office which is capable of handling this investigation.

There’s an indemnity policy in place. It has been worked out between Justice officials and the Ombudsperson, but it is independent. As indemnities always are, it’s independent of the political process, and it’s in the hands of senior public officials.

Let us, as I said earlier, leave the Ombudsperson to do his job, to find out what happened and to bring back answers to us and to the public from what happened four years ago.

Madame Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

J. Horgan: Again, this is a tape recording. I’m hearing it over and over again. We’ve been raising these issues, trying to find justice for eight individuals — seven individuals still remaining among us — for four years, and the pathetic response from the Minister of Justice is: “It’s all been worked out. Everything’s fine.” It’s not fine. We’re not going to get to the bottom of this, I say to the Minister of Health, I say to the Premier, and I say to the Minister of Justice. We’re not going to get to the bottom of this if the individuals involved have to use freedom of information to get access to documents. That’s what it’s come to.

The deputy to the Premier and all of those that perpetrated this indignity on these individuals — complete access to documentation and unfettered access to an indemnity to defend themselves. But those who want to bring the case forward to clear their names, to find out who did this to them, who is responsible for this…. That’s what government is supposed to be about. Responsible government should start right here.

My question to the Premier: will the Premier get this investigation back on the rails and ensure that Linda Kayfish and the seven individuals that were let go have equal access to an indemnity, just like her deputy minister, just like the Deputy Minister of Finance and just like all the other people that you’ve promoted while these people’s lives have been in tatters?

Madame Speaker: Through the Chair. All members know it’s through the Chair.

Hon. S. Anton: The Leader of the Opposition was referring to the interest in allowing the Ombudsperson to get to the bottom of what happened. That is what the Ombudsperson has been asked to do. He has terms of reference, special directions regarding the referral to him passed unanimously by the committee.

Interjections.

[1425]

Madame Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. S. Anton: He has asked…. In his letter, he says, “I respectfully request that the committee recognize the importance of my office conducting this investigation independently. In the event that I encounter a material impediment to the investigation, I am mindful that I can come back to the committee,” to paraphrase. His goal, the request to him….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members will come to order.

Please continue.

Hon. S. Anton: The request to him is to find out what happened. That is his goal. That was the goal of the committee when they asked him to do the job. That was the goal of the terms of reference which were passed unanimously by that committee. Let us leave the Ombudsperson to do his job, to find out what happened and, indeed, to bring back some answers. Answers are sought. We want the Ombudsperson to find them, and that’s his job.

A. Dix: After all the smears and all the misconduct in this matter, the government is also breaking its commitment again today, the solemn commitment made by the Premier of British Columbia.

Interjection.

A. Dix: You know, the Minister of Health should be the last person in this House heckling on this subject.

The Premier, in this House and outside, in the solemn voice, said that she has accepted all of the recommendations and findings of the McNeil review. She added: “We

[ Page 11250 ]

are addressing” these findings to ensure “that this kind of thing, which was wrong and done badly and harmed people, should never happen again.” Well, the government is breaking its commitment. It’s as if there’s a secret footnote when they accept negative reports about the government — a secret footnote that says: “Psych.”

The McNeil report found that the researchers did not have adequate opportunity to review documents and respond to questions arising from them. It found that they did not have adequate opportunity to provide a response. And here the government that decided the indemnity policy, the Ministry of Justice that decided the indemnity policy is denying the right to review documents, denying the right to prepare a response, denying legal responsibility to the researchers while protecting, supporting and, yes, promoting the very individuals responsible for the fiasco.

It’s not the Ombudsperson doing this, it’s the government, and it’s time the Minister of Justice took responsibility. Her ministry has the power to do this. Why doesn’t she ensure that Linda Kayfish and Ramsay Hamdi and the others have the same access to fair representation as the Premier’s subordinates and friends?

Hon. S. Anton: I think the members of the opposition and government wish the same thing here, which is to have answers to what happened four years ago. That is why the Ombudsperson, who is eminently equipped, whose office is built to get to the bottom of issues of fairness…. That’s why we have an Ombudsperson in British Columbia. His job is to get to the bottom of this matter.

There’s an indemnity policy in place, as I have said a couple of times now. It applies to the participants in the enquiry. Let us let the Ombudsperson do his job, get to the bottom of this and come back with the answers that are sought on both sides of the House, certainly by the persons who were affected and indeed by the public.

Madame Speaker: Vancouver-Kingsway on a supplemental.

A. Dix: Well, we want the researchers to have adequate access to legal representation. The government, which decided it, clearly does not. We want the researchers to have access to all the materials they need to prepare their presentations to the Ombudsperson. The government decidedly does not.

These decisions…. They didn’t come from the ether. It wasn’t decided passive voice. It’s the Minister of Justice and the Ministry of Justice that are responsible in this House for these decisions to again deny the researchers access to justice.

The Premier’s supporter and friend, who authorized the government’s press release about the RCMP on September 6, 2012, about an RCMP investigation that did not exist, in fact was promoted and has access to all the resources of government to prepare her evidence, as she should. Linda Kayfish is denied that basic right. They should have it. Linda Kayfish should have it. That’s the difference between us and them.

[1430]

After all that has been suffered here, will the Minister of Justice do the right thing? Is, after all, there no sense of decency on that side of the House about this issue? Will the Minister of Justice ensure that the researchers have the same right to representation and documents as friends of the Premier?

Hon. S. Anton: Participants in the Ombudsperson’s inquiry are covered by an indemnity policy. As I mentioned, it has been approved by the Ombudsperson, worked out with the Ministry of Justice. These are not political issues. We don’t know — none of us know — who receives an indemnity, as is always the case and as I have frequently mentioned in this House.

The goal of the Ombudsperson and the goal of this House…

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Anton: …is to allow the Ombudsperson to do his job. The goal of the Ombudsperson is to find out what happened four years ago and bring us answers.

VACANT PROPERTIES AND HOUSING

AVAILABILITY IN METRO VANCOUVER

D. Eby: Yesterday the city of Vancouver released a study showing that the city had more than 10,000 unoccupied homes. Now, that’s equivalent to two to three years of new-build construction. These are homes that are empty for the entire calendar year — locked up, held as investments. At the very same time, housing prices are skyrocketing and vacancy rates are zero. It’s impacting every person who is hunting for a home or looking for a place to rent.

With thousands of young people and families searching for homes in Vancouver, paying ever-escalating rents, paying ever more to get into the market, how can the Premier defend her government’s unwillingness to tackle this issue?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. It’ll follow up from yesterday. I’m not sure we’re reading the same report, because the one I have offers the following. I’ve had a chance to read through it. The non-occupancy rate across all of city of Vancouver housing units has been flat — 4.9 percent in 2002, 4.8 percent in 2014. The city’s non-occupancy rate is consistent with and tracks the non-occupancy rate for the rest of the greater Vancouver regional district. Single-family and

[ Page 11251 ]

duplex housing occupancy rates are 1 percent. They are consistent with other cities in Vancouver.

That is not to say that there are not issues that relate to affordability and facilitating the dream of home ownership. There most certainly are. But we learned two things yesterday. One is that the problem is not necessarily as characterized by the member over the past number of months. We also learned, a few column inches to the left, that at the same time that he and his colleagues have been decrying the entry of foreign investors into our market, the party coffers of the NDP seem to be benefiting quite nicely from some of those investments.

Madame Speaker: Recognizing Vancouver–Point Grey on a supplemental.

D. Eby: Well, hon. Speaker….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members, this House will come to order.

D. Eby: It is no wonder we’re making no progress on the housing file. It is all politics, all the time, with this government. Now, I will set the minister….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members. The Chair will hear the question.

[1435]

D. Eby: I’ll set the minister straight on the record. The NDP sold the party headquarters to the hotel owner next door, a local business owner of Taiwanese descent. If the minister has a problem with that, he should bring it up with the local business owner in Burnaby.

Now, I can understand why this government would be upset. This is the government that can’t get full market value for Burke Mountain lands. If they need help to get full market value, maybe they can come to the B.C. NDP for assistance.

The same selective reading of the facts is present in the minister’s reading of the vacant home report — 12.5 percent of condos in Vancouver vacant, 10,000 units. If just 10 percent were rented next year, that would double the number of new rental units available in the city of Vancouver. It’s across Metro. It’s not just Vancouver.

Enough grandstanding. Will this minister step up and do the right thing already?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m always happy to be corrected by the hon. member. The report, at least, suggests it wasn’t the NDP that sold the property. It was that old nugget the commonwealth society.

I have the member’s point about him and his colleagues wanting to deal with other issues. So if I have any other questions about that transaction, I’ll contact the lawyer involved — one Chairman, sorry, C. Mao, who appears to be involved.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: This House will come to order.

Hon. M. de Jong: The report is interesting for a variety of reasons. I would suggest, first of all, that there may be any number of reasons that a condominium might be vacant. In fact, in many cases, which isn’t to dismiss the significance or relevance of the number…. Many strata councils have specific bylaws that preclude rentals from taking place. That is a fact.

There’s an interesting dimension to the report that I thought worth mentioning in response to the member’s question. The data…. The mayor of Vancouver was very specific about this, I thought, in thanking B.C. Hydro for their participation. I think he pointedly said that the report itself was made possible by — what? — the installation of smart meters, something else we have heard for months and years on end the opposition was opposed to. So if the NDP had their way, if the member had his way, the report would not have been possible at all.

DISABILITY BENEFITS AND

BUS PASS PROGRAM CHANGES

M. Mungall: Last week the Minister of Social Development tried to defend the indefensible once again when the people she impacted by raising bus pass fees showed up at her doorstep. Rather than listen to what people had to say or the concerns that they were bringing, she dismissed them, calling it all a photo op. I guess the minister didn’t appreciate what was going on, because neither she nor her colleagues had the decency to go out and speak with the hundreds of British Columbians with disabilities that were gathered here, in Vancouver, in Burnaby and in New Westminster.

To the minister: after another week of rallies, petitions and public outcry, is she still brushing off people with disabilities advocating for their well-being as nothing more than a photo op?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: On this side of the House, we understand the importance of affordable, accessible transportation, especially for seniors and people with disabilities. That is why we are the only province in Canada to provide a subsidized bus pass program as part of our provincial assistance program.

[1440]

As I’ve mentioned before, prior to these changes, 45,000 people in this province did not get any assistance

[ Page 11252 ]

with transportation subsidies, and that was not fair. What I’m curious about is the member opposite advocating for basic inequality in the system — a two-tiered system. Is the member opposite for Nelson-Creston really advocating for people in her community to not get the increase?

Let’s just imagine for a moment if the members opposite had actually had the opportunity to have their 2013 election campaign platform come into play. People with disabilities would have gotten nothing. Nothing. They had promised a $20 increase — not $77, $20 over two years’ time.

We are removing barriers for people with disabilities. We are increasing their independence. We are helping them make meaningful contributions to their communities. It’s very important work, and we will continue to do it.

Madame Speaker: I recognize the member for Nelson-Creston on a supplemental.

M. Mungall: We’re on week 3 of this line from the minister, and what it shows, day in and day out, is that she has no idea what’s going on in her own ministry. She has no idea how her own programs work. She would have, if she had bothered to take a moment to actually consult with people with disabilities before she instituted this ridiculous change.

I guess when you work for a Premier who spent $130,000 flying a personal camera crew around the world, you think everything is a photo op. But freezing disability pensions for nine years is not a photo op; it is mean. Clawing back bus passes isn’t a photo op; it’s just mean. Will the minister just stop with the rhetoric, start doing the right thing and end this bus pass clawback today?

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: I’m pretty sure the member opposite was around during our disability consultation, where we heard from many, many people around this province who wanted to see the inequity changed in that system.

What I can say right now is that the needs of British Columbians, especially those with disabilities, are not being served by the inaccurate information, the misinformation and, most importantly, the hypocrisy that we see from the opposition.

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. Michelle Stilwell: The fear and the anxiety need to stop. It needs to stop, because the bus pass is still available. It has not been cancelled. People still have access to it the same way as they had it before. They are receiving an increase to their rates on top of that, and for those people — 45,000 people around this province — today they have the equality of the system.

DRINKING WATER QUALITY

AND TESTING IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS

J. Rice: In 2014, the Health Minister was advised by his own staff that testing North Coast schools for lead contamination in drinking water should be considered “a public health priority.” Yet it wasn’t until a public servant took it upon themselves to test the water in Prince Rupert schools this year that we learned that children are being exposed to elevated lead levels.

British Columbians want to know if they can trust the water in schools, in hospitals and other public buildings. Has the minister started an organized program testing lead levels in the water for B.C. schools and other public buildings?

Hon. T. Lake: We’ve canvassed this quite thoroughly. The Drinking Water Protection Act says that the health authorities are responsible for the water at point of entry. Now, once we learn that there’s a concern from the building owner — in this case, from the school districts — health authorities reach out and assist them in dealing with the mitigation measures that are necessary — in this case, flushing water in the mornings or using filters.

[1445]

The health authorities are willing to work with any owner of large, older buildings that were built before 1989 where this is a concern. It is our objective to ensure that people have the right education and know about the mitigation measures necessary to have adequate and safe drinking water.

Madame Speaker: North Coast on a supplemental.

J. Rice: The simple answer is no. The minister has not asked for water to be tested in B.C. schools and other public buildings, like social housing, where many families and children live. This is extremely worrying, especially since his own staff said that testing in homes in the northwest needs to be done.

Since the minister is ignoring his own staff’s recommendations for testing lead levels in water in children’s homes, I did. I ordered three tests for social housing units in Prince Rupert, and one of these homes has lead levels in the drinking water above the maximum allowable concentration. This home is in a building with many families with children. How can the Minister of Health justify doing nothing to protect people in my community from this very real health threat?

Hon. T. Lake: The member well knows that a letter was sent through the Ministry of Education to all school districts, informing them of the potential of older buildings having this particular problem and to take mitigation measures if necessary. And as I said, the Ministry of Health, through the Drinking Water Protection legisla-

[ Page 11253 ]

tion, is responsible for the point of entry.

If there are concerns, we are willing to work with any large-building owner and understand that the Ministry of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services, which has general responsibility for government buildings, is planning on following up with the owners of older public buildings that are in the public realm to make them aware of the mitigation measures that may be required if their water is at risk of being in the higher lead levels.

WATER QUALITY IN SPALLUMCHEEN AREA

G. Heyman: Last week, I asked the Environment Minister why she refused to disclose public health information about contaminated water to Spallumcheen residents and their local waterworks district. The minister replied: “No information has been withheld with respect to the health or potential health risks for the public.”

I gave the minister a chance to clarify whether she meant that the information had gone to the Interior Health Authority only, and she replied: “No, I meant to those who had requested it.”

The chair of the waterworks district, Brian Upper, disagrees. He says: “These reports have been kept confidential and, as of this date, have never been disclosed to any members of the Steele Springs board.” He goes on to say: “This information must be disclosed to help prevent continuing risk of nitrates entering the aquifer.” Why is the Environment Minister continuing to withhold this important public health information requested by the Steele Springs waterworks board?

Hon. M. Polak: The member requests information about two different aspects of the testing that is going on and the information provided. On the one hand, there is the very serious duty to protect the health of the people who would be accessing that drinking water. That is accomplished by Ministry of Environment testing, the results of which are immediately provided to the health authority, which is the appropriate protocol. They then make decisions as to how to inform water districts or users.

On the matter of the freedom-of-information request, as I understand it, the freedom-of-information request was processed by the ministry staff. They did not immediately disclose the information to those who had requested it because there was information beyond simple testing. But as of today, and it occurred previous to today, the information that was in the FOI request has been delivered and posted through the appropriate process.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

J. Tegart: I rise to present a petition from the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association with 6,104 signatures for support of the Trans Mountain Pipeline.

[1450]

M. Mungall: I rise to present a petition. This petition has over 15,000 people signing it. They are calling on the government to bring back the $45-per-year bus pass for people with disabilities, eliminate the new $52-per-month bus pass fee, let everyone receiving PWD benefits keep the $77-per-month increase and raise the PWD benefit rate to $1,200 per month by October 1, 2016, to reflect the cost of living.

Hon. A. Virk: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Virk: Joining us in the precinct right now are the students, parents and teachers from Pacific Academy, from my own riding in Surrey-Tynehead. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, it’s again Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the ongoing estimates of the Ministry of International Trade, to be followed by Aboriginal Relations — and in this chamber, second reading debate on Bill 20, the interim supply bill.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 20 — SUPPLY ACT (N o . 1), 2016

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 20, the Supply Act (No. 1), 2016, be read a second time now.

I’ll expand briefly on the remarks I made at the time of introduction. As I think members of the House know, the existing voted appropriations for the government and for the province of British Columbia will expire on March 31, 2016. Bill 20 will provide interim supply for the first two months of the 2016-17 fiscal year while members debate the appropriations presented in the 2016-17 estimates. Of course, that process is underway now.

Interim supply for ministry operations and other appropriations, of course, is required to ensure the continuation of government services until the end of this legislative session, when it is hoped that final supply will be determined. Bill 20 provides one-third of the combined voted amounts in schedules C and D of the ’16-17 estimates for disbursements related to capital expenditures, loans, investments and other financing requirements. These dis-

[ Page 11254 ]

bursements are not evenly distributed through the year. Therefore, the higher level of interim supply is required to accommodate the payments made under these schedules, and this follows practices of past years.

Mr. Speaker, 100 percent of the ’16-17 requirements for

schedule E financing transactions is being sought in this supply bill.

Schedule E of the estimates outlines the revenue collected for and transferred to other entities. These distributions are statutory, and there is no impact on the operating results, borrowing or debt resulting from collection and transfers of this revenue.

[1455]

These interim supply appropriations are based on the accountabilities and allocations outlined in the 2016-17 estimates. The final supply bill for 2016-17 will incorporate these amounts to ensure that it reflects the sum of all voted appropriations to be given to government in the fiscal year.

Those are my comments at second reading.

C. James: Thank you to the minister. For those couple of people who may be watching, as the minister has said, this is a routine bill. This comes forward each year. It provides the opportunity for the accountability for the public to be able to occur, which is the estimates process. For those who are interested, individual ministers then come forward and have to answer for their budgets. It’s an opportunity for opposition, on behalf of the public as well, to be able to raise questions.

This bill that is coming forward is, as the minister has said, a routine bill that allows the operation of government to continue while that process occurs. It is not an approval of the budget. It is not an acknowledgment of the programs that are there, but in fact a piece of legislation that ensures that government continues and that the structures of government continue. People continue to be able to work and be paid, and organizations continue to receive their dollars, while the accountability process occurs through the estimates process.

We will be supporting this bill, as we do each year, to ensure that we have time for the estimates. That’s really what this bill does, is give an opportunity for those questions and that accountability process to occur through the estimates process.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister to close the debate.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move second reading of Bill 20.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m given to understand that were I to request leave to move the bill through all stages today that that leave may well be granted. So I will seek leave.

Leave granted.

Hon. M. de Jong: I, then, with that leave, ask the bill be referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration now.

Bill 20, Supply Act (No. 1), 2016, read a second time and ordered to proceed to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 20 — SUPPLY ACT (N o . 1), 2016

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 20; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 2:58 p.m.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:59 p.m.

The House resumed; Madame Speaker in the chair.

[1500]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 20 — SUPPLY ACT (N o . 1), 2016

Bill 20, Supply Act (No. 1), 2016, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: It now brings us to committee stage on Bill 10.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 10 — BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2016

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 10; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 3:02 p.m.

section 1.

[ Page 11255 ]

C. James:

Section 1 makes a change that allows surpluses to be directed to the prosperity fund, and previously they had to go to the debt. I know we’ll get into a little more discussion around the prosperity fund in

section 7, so I’ll hold those questions until we get to that section.

But in this section, it’s more a curiosity than anything else, to ask the minister why the reference…. The previous reference in this section,

section 1, talked about the consolidated revenue fund, and that’s been replaced with the words “general fund.” I just wondered why that change was made. Was that simply related to the prosperity fund? Was that related to something more?

Hon. M. de Jong: It’s not. First of all, the member is correct in her characterization of the relationship between this

section and

section 7, which is the instrument by which the fund is actually created. The creation of the fund as a special fund is what necessitates the distinction between the special fund and the general fund, which was, without this alteration, not a distinction heretofore required. The creation of the special fund, as the instrument by which the prosperity fund is created, is what necessitates, and it does relate specifically to that.

C. James: Just so I’m clear, because it now includes the prosperity fund, the consolidated revenue fund didn’t apply? It had to be changed to a general revenue fund — the change in this section?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it’s a relevant question. Everything is contained and continues to be contained within the consolidated revenue fund. But the prosperity fund represents a special fund within that, heretofore unknown,

whereas everything beyond that, or everything besides that, is the general fund. But they are both contained within the rubric of the consolidated revenue fund.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

[1505]

C. James:

Section 2 is the Emergency Program Act. This makes a change, again, in the

section 2,

section 4(2)(

c) that actually adds a change to “other persons or organizations.”

Just for those people who are watching, the amendment says that grants and payments can be made for the purpose of emergency response. I think we understand that there are grants and payments that are made to other groups and organizations over a time period. Particularly for emergency response, I think that’s understandable.

But this paragraph is changed from “local authorities” — it previously read simply “local authorities” — to “local authorities” and “other persons or organizations.” I wonder if the minister could tell us why “other persons and organizations” was added to paragraph (c). Is there some specific reason that it has broadened from local authorities and some specific reason within emergency response that that’ll occur?

Hon. M. de Jong: There will be another dimension to this that we’ll come to momentarily, but the member is correct. It does broaden beyond local authorities. An example of that would be the desire to provide emergency preparedness perspective to search and rescue organizations, who wouldn’t be captured by the definition of local authorities.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

C. James:

Section 3. I think, as the minister has said, there’ll be another dimension to this. I believe that’s

section 3.

It changes

section 16 to say that money can be spent without an appropriation. I think everyone understands that. Everyone understands, when there’s a fire or an emergency, that there will be an opportunity to spend that money without appropriation. That makes sense. I think people understand that spending is necessary and bound by the budget — that it does go through the appropriation process.

This amendment seems to exempt the government from the appropriation process for a broader purpose than was simply there before. It simply talked about emergency. This actually talks about emergency plans or programs — so a little bit broader than simply looking at a fire, for example, or a flood, where people would understand the emergency.

Again, similar to the previous section, I wonder if the minister could talk a little bit about why that change has been made, why it seems to be a broader ability for the government to bring forward money without appropriation in this particular instance, as I said, particularly for emergency prevention, where previously it simply read emergency response.

[1510]

Hon. M. de Jong: Firstly, I should say that I think the member’s characterization of the

section and the operation of the

section is essentially correct.

The thinking here — and again, it will come up in the context of subsequent amendments that pertain to direct fire — is that with conditions changing, sometimes very quickly, in the case of flood prevention, the desire and the need to move quickly and to be able to respond on a preventative basis as opposed to a purely reactive basis is a rationale for taking these steps. In the same way, when we come to the fire suppression section, we’ll be talking about community preparedness or fuel management on an expedited basis.

[ Page 11256 ]

In this case, the example that I would point to relates to flood prevention. But the member’s characterization of how the

section operates is correct.

C. James: In the discussions that the minister had in bringing forward this amendment, I think we understand — and I think the public would certainly understand — that, as the minister has said, if there’s a flood going on or if there’s…. A plan may change, and things may need to occur there.

Including the prevention, I guess, is the piece that I’m curious about. Most prevention work takes place beforehand and therefore, I would expect, would go through appropriations and through the usual budget process. It wouldn’t be included in a

section that allows that process to be overridden for emergencies.

I guess I’m just curious: what kind of discussion took place around checks and balances in making sure that this wasn’t a broader section? Emergency prevention or preparedness could include a pretty broad

section outside of a ministry budget. That would be money that normally would go through a process of estimates and questions. I’m just guessing….

I want to hear from the minister around what discussion took place and what kinds of checks and balances are in place in this process.

Hon. M. de Jong: There are two components to the member’s question, and I think they are related. One relates to conversations that would have taken place. I’m not sure if the member meant internally or with agencies outside of the provincial government or maybe both.

The concern that we’ve had expressed and that revealed itself — and I don’t think this is necessarily brand-new; I think this is something that has developed over time — tends to be from communities where a situation develops suddenly.

[1515]

I mean, weather events can happen overnight. But the cumulative impact of a heavy-rain season that hasn’t been factored into the planning process….

The response that a community would otherwise get from government — “It’s not in our budget, so we’ll talk to you next year….” It doesn’t go over very well when the community is saying: “Well, that’s great, but we’re not sure how many of us are going to be here next year to have that conversation.” That’s part of the rationale for admittedly wanting a little bit more ability to manoeuvre fiscally in response to natural situations that might develop.

Having said that, there will still need to be, and will be, a process in place for Treasury Board approvals. They will, by definition, need to happen quickly, since that is the essence of what is trying to be achieved here. But that’s, maybe, the genesis of where this derives from.

C. James: Thank you to the minister. I think that makes sense. I can certainly understand it from a community’s point of view. To be dealing with an emergency or an unprepared incident in a community, certainly, the community would expect that there’d be a quick response from government. I think I understand that.

I just wonder whether it might have been looked at through the

definitions, perhaps — looked at the definition of “emergency plan” rather than broadening this

section and creating that worry. I guess that’s the only piece I’d leave.

I just wondered: from the ministry’s point of view, will there be a tracking? It would be an interesting question to come back to next year, to say: “How many times was this

section used — the change in the

section used — and would it have made a difference if we’d gone back and looked at the

definitions

section rather than looked at broadening this section?”

Hon. M. de Jong: That’s an excellent question. In fact, the operation of this

section will have to be reported out separately in the public accounts. There is a specific reporting-out mechanism for use of the instrument.

Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved.

section 6.

I just wonder if the minister could give some examples of what specifically that might mean in this section.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member.

A good example of the relevance in the case of the federal government would be an RCMP contract. The member will know that during the course of the year on their own schedule, the federal government may negotiate new terms with members of the RCMP. Those costs pursuant to the policing agreement that is in place get passed along to the provincial government and the relevant ministry, who wakes up one day and says: “Well, we don’t have that in our budget.” Yet, the obligation is a clear one, and needs….

Again, the member has astutely pointed out…. It’s not an insignificant shift, because the work of this Legislature is to bring a measure of oversight. In this case, it was our view and my view that members would see merit in the view that in a circumstance like that, it was both wise and fair to the employees to ensure that the authority existed

[ Page 11257 ]

to honour the contractual terms. Then, other subsections here deal with other contractual arrangements that exist between the provincial Crown and workers.

[1520]

C. James: Thanks to the minister. That makes good sense. It’s a good example. It has changed over time, so I think it makes sense.

I think in subsection (2)(c), it talks about: “the existence of that liability…was not known when the main estimates for that fiscal year were presented to the Legislative Assembly.” I just wondered. In that circumstance, are there any examples that the minister may have other than Canada, of the province itself?

Hon. M. de Jong: Maybe the best example, immediate and relevant: the growth dividend that’s part of the contract. There’s that formula whereby we take the Economic Forecast Council…. The calculation takes place at a certain time of year. The entitlement is triggered or not at a certain time of year, but it wasn’t known at the time we were debating the estimates. Yet the obligation is a clear one to the employee.

C. James: Thanks to the minister. I think that helps. Really, this is about accountability, and these questions are really about accountability. For that example — where it’s a clear policy decision that’s been made and it’s a clear piece that’s in place, yet the money piece isn’t known until later — I think that makes good sense. I appreciate the opportunity to ask those questions.

Section 6 approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: Hon. Chair, I think it is the will of the committee to stand down

section 7 to the tail end of the discussion here.

Section 7 stood down.

section 8.

A. Dix:

Section 8 effectively changes the fiscal year of ICBC. In fact, as the minister will know, there are, at ICBC, a number of years. There’s the policy year, which used to be in February and which changed to November in 2013. The minister can reflect on that and explain what happened between February and November 2013 that led to that change, but it meant that certain increases became apparent at a later date.

We have the policy year, and we have the fiscal year, which are different. Effectively, what we have in this case is the policy year now further away from the end of the fiscal year.

I presume what the minister has done here is to align ICBC’s fiscal year with the government’s fiscal year. Does he not see some downsides to that, in particular, in comparing between results and performances by ICBC, which has operated on the other fiscal year for some time?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member is correct in pointing out some of the different calendars and year-ends that apply to the corporation.

I am reminded that ICBC is…. Let me back up for a moment. I’ll offer what I hope is some initial explanation to the member about the rationale for making the change. Then while I’m doing that, I’ve asked staff to consider what some of the downsides to that change may be. I think there might be some.

In essence, the rationalization…. It’s the only Crown corporation right now that, I’m told, has a different fiscal year-end than government. The B.C. Assessment Authority, apparently, maintains a calendar year-end, but as Crown corporations go, ICBC is distinguishable on that basis.

[1525]

Over the years — I can say this from a practical point of view — I have been confronted a number of times by circumstances in which, as the member may know, decisions are made or analyses are conducted. Problems arise in translating the one fiscal year to the other, and what the implications are for budgeting purposes or reporting purposes. In general terms, I think, the argument was: let us bring consistency — between not just any corporation, a fairly major Crown corporation.

Now, to what extent, beyond transitional issues — because the member may have an interest in transitional — is there a downside to that? Clearly, the government sees the upside is outweighing the downside, but I’ll take a moment and consider that question more specifically.

A. Dix: Specifically, the minister will know that the policy year, which is very significant…. We’re currently in a BCUC process with respect to the setting of ICBC rates, so in some respects, there is incoherence all around. For a very long time — the minister may remember this — February was the month for ICBC. That’s when it started, and that’s when policy years tended to be.

The government, in 2013, moved the policy year from February to November and, therefore, rate hearings in that period, right? They did it at that time, and they did it for, I think, fairly nakedly electoral reasons — to avoid a rate increase in an election year. I don’t think we need to debate that again, but I think that appeared to be what happened. There was no other clear reason why that would be the case.

I guess in this case…. Oddly enough, if the policy year had been maintained…. It’s an important feature for ICBC’s planning. They lay forward rate increases that start on November 1 for a fiscal year that now ends on March 31. It previously ended on December 31. So what you’re seeing, it seems to me, is that…. That policy year

[ Page 11258 ]

used to be just two months ahead of the upcoming fiscal year and ten months after the close of the prior year. Now you’ve changed it to five and seven. It seems, to me anyway, that makes what is pretty important estimating less precise.

I wonder if the minister would comment on that.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the general observation relates to the advisability of aligning differently a policy year with a fiscal year, and there may be some merit to what the member had to say.

[1530]

I will say this again, in perhaps a slightly expanded form. The impetus for the change around the fiscal year is to avoid the circumstance whereby quarterly reports are being made — and this I now recall specifically over, at least, the past three or four years that I’ve been doing this — where we are offering up quarterly fiscal updates as it relates to the general state of governmental affairs and, in the overlapping period, having to refer back to a previous fiscal year for the Crown corporation and how it is impacting the subsequent fiscal year for the government. That has, I can say with certainty, been a cause for some confusion, and we’re hoping to address that.

I am advised, and can advise the committee, that prior to 2013, the policy year, if we can use that term, has tended not to be particularly fixed. It is now. The member has offered, I think, an observation or an argument for perhaps fixing at a different time. I am advised, and I think the member knows this, that each time an adjustment takes place, there are potentially consequences, both positive or negative, that influence that decision.

I think the member knows — I hope the member knows — that I’m not dismissing his observation that there may be merit in aligning policy years and a policy schedule. I am, however, reminded that further changes may well impact some of the numbers and — therefore, ultimately, within the corporation — rates.

A. Dix: In my understanding, there’s the accident year, which will now be different from the fiscal year and is now different from the policy year. So while this has the effect, as I understand it, of aligning ICBC with other government agencies, it makes ICBC less aligned, shall we say, with itself. If you look at fiscal comparators dating back since the beginning of the ICBC…. Since the beginning of ICBC, the accident year and the fiscal year start January 1, as I understand it, and go through to December 31.

Is it ICBC’s intention, for comparative reasons…? It goes through routine BCUC processes on the basic side. The government covers up the optional side from such scrutiny, and we may be talking about that in a few minutes. But on the basic side, will ICBC be at least going back a number of years so that there can be a baseline for people to compare fiscal years and performance?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I was anticipating a particular question, and the member’s was slightly different. I think the question was this. In making this adjustment, is the member asking whether there will, in effect, be a form of restatement of the reporting out so that there can be an apples-to-apples comparison?

The member is indicating that that is….

Interjection.

Hon. M. de Jong: Going backwards. I’m going to check…. My guess is, but I’m going to confirm, for analysis purposes, that that may well be the case. I’m not sure there’s a plan to restate annual reports, but I’ll make that inquiry.

A. Dix: I guess what I wanted — I mean, these are fairly important issues for ICBC, obviously — is to make the suggestion to the minister that given the shift in the fiscal year, it would make sense for the policy year itself be moved. In other words, November 1 doesn’t align, even, to any quarter, right?

It seems to me it makes more sense to align the policy year more tightly with the fiscal year and that a date for the policy year, based on the decision to move the fiscal year, of July 1 would make a lot of sense. It would make some sense, as well, given things like electoral timetables, which tend to affect these things and have been known to affect these things over time, regardless of who’s in government.

I was wondering if the minister agreed with that suggestion. Is that something that he would consider taking back to ICBC?

[1535]

Hon. M. de Jong: My short answer is: it may well, though I can tell the member that his suggestion has already triggered vigorous discussion amongst people with informed views on the practical implications of when that date should be. It would appear that aligning them directly with one another might be problematic. What the gap should be….

What I can’t do for the member authoritatively today is offer a meaningful answer about what the fiscal consequences would be to a shift. I hope the member will accept…. I’m not ruling out the merits of what he’s saying, but I can’t undertake to do it, and I can’t authoritatively inform the committee of what the fiscal consequences would be of the shift. But I can assure him that his suggestion has already triggered some interesting discussion and debate.

A. Dix: I think it would have some advantages for ICBC. The other practical advantage for both ICBC and government is that it would, given the BCUC process and so on, essentially push work for the Finance people into a less busy period. It has some utility in that regard as well.

[ Page 11259 ]

I want to ask him about the accident year. The minister will know that, as I say, there are three years. We’ve got the policy year that started November 1, which allowed the government to get past the 2013 election. There is now the fiscal year, which, if this passes — the member for Surrey–White Rock has entered the House, so I’m momentarily distracted — is April 1, and then we have the accident year from January 1. So the accident year has coincided with the fiscal year.

This, I think, actually has significant…. Unlike the alignment of the policy year and the fiscal year, this aligning, the accident year and the fiscal year, would seem to me to have some negative consequences. I’m wondering whether it would be ICBC’s intention to realign the accident year with the fiscal year.

Hon. M. de Jong: On this one, I don’t think I’m able to quite as readily agree. The reason for that, I am reminded….

[1540]

If the corporation were able to operate in a circumstance where it could say with certainty for the course of the accident year what the number of accidents would be within that year…. Of course, we’re reminded that they can’t because of the fact that people have up to two years to file a claim. That adds a layer of complexity to forecasting. The corporation has been at it for a while, and one would think that some trends emerge, but we have learned that trends change. They don’t change overnight, but they do change.

The member’s observation and assertion, I am advised, are, in this case, compromised by the fact that there is that up-to-two-year period within which accidents can be reported and claims can be made, so that level of uncertainty continues for the corporation.

A. Dix: Of course, the minister and ICBC will know well that unpaid claims at ICBC have been growing at an alarming rate in recent years, by several hundred million dollars a year — this during a period when ICBC, of course, has been claiming to improve service.

Yes, it’s always been the case. That has always been the case — right? — that people have two years. It may have changed over time, but two years has been established for some time, so I’m not sure I agree with the minister about that.

I think it’s something that ICBC may wish to consider. Rate requests are based on the prior accident year and the prior fiscal year. That’s the way it goes, you know. If you think of it…. I may be wrong on this, but you have people beside you who can advise you on this.

You have, right now, the Q1 forecast to March 31. They all have to be submitted to the BCUC by August 31 for a November 1 rate process. I think, if I understand the process, that’s correct. If you move the fiscal year to March 31 as year-end, it’s the equivalent of the existing Q1 forecast for that process.

The question, I guess, is whether that makes it more or less difficult to provide information in those rate review processes.

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member, I think it’s worthwhile that he offers his thoughts and views to the committee on this, in discussing it with able staff here. The point that I will relay to the member doesn’t dismiss at all the relevance of his…. It maybe adds to remind us and the committee.

The corporation looks back beyond a year. I mean, they look back…. They’ve got claims that are seven years. There are trends that are of the past year and then years beyond that. From the point of view of forecasting, the significance of the date in time may not be as great.

[1545]

The part about the member’s suggestion that interests me and engages my attention, actually, is the sequencing of the work in a way that makes sense operationally but also takes account of the workload that accrues during the course of the fiscal year. I think, actually, for that reason alone, there may be some merit. Again, I’m a little bit hampered by not fully being able to convey to the committee what, if any, fiscal consequences there would be from any particular shift.

A. Dix: I think, as the minister has said when I asked him about the shifting of the policy here to July 1…. It was shifted from February to November without a lot of, shall we say, public policy rationale.

I guess what I’m just trying to explore with the minister is the impact of this shift after the 42-year history of the corporation, which operated on that basis. It does seem to me that the alignment of a fiscal year ending March 31 and a policy year starting November 1 is probably unlike the alignment has been at any time in ICBC’s history.

Even though change is not, inevitably, a bad thing, I think that alignment, fundamentally, will have to change in future years. It makes, actually, quite a bit of sense not to be running into the end of the fiscal year with a rate review process but, rather, to complete the rate review process in a more expeditious way.

I’d ask the minister to consider those suggestions. And unless he has more to say, we can pass this section.

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

A. Dix: On

section 9, I just wanted to ask…. This relates to

section 8, and it involves the preparation of annual reports and such. It requires ICBC to provide an audit of its accounts by a given date, etc.

I wanted to just ask the minister, for starters — and the staff is there — when ICBC has released its report over the past couple of years. The minister will note that up

[ Page 11260 ]

until now, the Insurance Corporation Act has suggested that will occur within 60 days of the end of the fiscal year. That appears to be a little like a belief in the Easter Bunny, in the sense that it never seems to happen.

I’d like to just ask the minister, so that we understand in context, when these annual reports have been submitted over the last couple of years and what connection that has had to the past. What we’re talking here is, it seems to me, a shift in the requirements with respect to the tabling of the annual report. I just want to understand what the status quo is and what the minister proposes through the change, so that we see the annual report more expeditiously.

[1550]

Hon. M. de Jong: I am reminded of, and can alert the committee to, the fact that there were two relevant statutory provisions that guided the reporting out. One is the Insurance Corporation Act itself, and the other was the BTAA — the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, for real people. One provided a shorter period, the other a longer period.

The corporation, I am advised, has been abiding by the act — that is, the BTAA — that apparently legally supersedes the Insurance Corporation Act. The purpose behind the amendment is to formally amend the Insurance Corporation Act to incorporate the provisions that exist within the BTAA. The specific amendment here is to ensure that the legal requirements around the procedure for presenting the report replicate what is in the BTAA.

The member may have thoughts on the timing, but the specific amendment is to ensure that the procedure for presenting the act is the same.

A. Dix: So the minister is saying that the Insurance Corporation Act, which said ICBC must release its annual report within 60 days of the end of the fiscal year…. I don’t know. I just checked the last two years. It’s something they didn’t do. They just took the view that that no longer applied to them — the Insurance Corporation Act — and that they could release the annual report, as they did in 2015, in May; in 2013, in June.

Effectively, ICBC had decided not to follow the Insurance Corporation Act because it had the Budget Transparency Act, and it had arbitrarily made that decision so that it could release its annual report later than before. Now the deadline for the annual report is now moving from two months, which was in the previous act, which means it would be required to be available by May 31. The minister is now giving ICBC until August 31, or the beginning of the rate review process, to prepare its annual report. Why would ICBC need three more months than the Insurance Corporation Act says to release its annual report?

Hon. M. de Jong: I’m not sure the member is going to be satisfied with my answer, but I will give it nonetheless.

Through the amendment, the Insurance Corporation will have an obligation that is similar to every other agency — B.C. Hydro, the health authorities. The date will not be unique to ICBC. It is, admittedly, longer than that which was provided in its historic legislation, but it will put the Insurance Corporation, I am advised, on a footing and required to abide by a requirement that is similar to every other agency.

A. Dix: Well, I suppose one of the differences between the Insurance Corporation and — I don’t know — the Interior Health Authority is that the Interior Health Authority isn’t putting together a rate review here. Those responding to the Interior Health Authority don’t require information from ICBC in the same way that the Insurance Corporation would.

Doesn’t the minister think…? Well, I have two questions for the minister. Oddly enough, I happen it be the ICBC critic and the B.C. Hydro critic. I don’t know — short straw, Minister, short straw, but not as short as being Minister of Finance.

Interjection.

A. Dix: That’s right. It’s kind of an interesting notion, but all the fun Crowns I don’t have.

[1555]

The first is: why doesn’t ICBC — which is, like B.C. Hydro, a major Crown with a lot of public interest involved in it — release quarterly reports like B.C. Hydro does in order to inform the public?

Interjection.

A. Dix: Yeah, but B.C. Hydro releases quarterly reports, updates on where they are in the fiscal year. It’s a formal process of public involvement. Why doesn’t ICBC do that? And doesn’t the minister think, given the nature of the policy year, that it would make more sense for ICBC to be under some greater pressure to produce its annual report by August 31?

In other words, regardless of what we say about the Fraser Health Authority, the Fraser Health Authority is not in the same situation as ICBC. Nor are people who are attempting to intervene in the rate review process in the same position as people who might have questions of the Fraser Health Authority. Why do they need five months when the previous legislation, over decades, said they had two?

Secondly, why doesn’t ICBC produce quarterly reports, which might be helpful for both ICBC and for people who are dealing with ICBC, to assess how they’re doing in the middle of each fiscal year?

I might note that while the minister rightly says that ICBC decisions are made over a long period of time prior to that fiscal year and that a lot of other accident years

[ Page 11261 ]

and everything are considered, they have been staggeringly wrong in the fiscal year we’re in. In the previous year we’re in, they’ve been staggeringly wrong in terms of basic estimates of costs of claims. This is a fact.

Wouldn’t, both for the public and ICBC, the existence of a quarterly report be useful in that process?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member’s question relates to an enhanced reporting-out mechanism for, admittedly, an important corporation.

Again, I’ll advise or, perhaps, remind the member and the committee as follows. Here are the three layers of reporting out that I am aware of at the moment.

The first relates to the quarterly reporting out that the Ministry of Finance and the Minister of Finance do statutorily. There is, of course, always a specific reference to the circumstances at ICBC. The member mentioned the changes in claims, return on investment. The investment portfolio is generally commented upon and discussed at that time. So there is that level of quarterly reporting out.

There is, I am advised, a statement of operations. That is a public document that is posted by the corporation on a quarterly basis. So there’s a second quarterly reporting out. I’m happy to obtain a copy for the member. I can’t tell the committee with authority what is included in the statement of operations, but I am happy to determine that.

Thirdly, I’m reminded that the corporation files quarterly with the Utilities Commission on the state of its affairs and circumstances. What I can’t advise the committee on is the degree to which that is posted, but the fact that it goes to the Utilities Commission would suggest to me that it is somewhat in the public domain.

[1600]

Those are the three areas of quarterly reporting that take place now. Admittedly, the first is more general, but presumably, the other two are more specific.

A. Dix: I think one of the challenges we face with ICBC…. I’ll be responding to that again a little bit in the next discussion that we have.

[R. Lee in the chair.]

One of the challenges with ICBC and the Utilities Commission process, as the minister will know, is that the optional side of ICBC is largely excluded from the Utilities Commission process. This is of significant importance. When you talk about basic coverage of $200,000 for liability…. I think the minister would agree that anyone in British Columbia who just took that would be being irresponsible with their car. So it’s not optional, really. It’s part of the basic package that 90 percent of ICBC customers get, either from ICBC or from a private competitor.

Part of the problem with Utilities Commission filings is that they tend to be unbelievably opaque with respect to the optional side of a public Crown corporation — and, I might add, a public side of a Crown corporation which is, of course, very lucrative and significant and where the issues are particularly important.

That process…. While it’s one that I’m very interested in, I’m also aware of the fact that the vigilance, the vigour, the passion, the intensity with which ICBC staff exclude discussion of the optional side from basic rate review hearings…. It seems to be a preoccupation of the corporation.

In any event, I did ask the minister…. It seems to me that what the minister is saying about the preparation of materials would make a quarterly reporting process not very difficult for ICBC, and it’s something that the minister or the minister responsible for ICBC might consider.

One of the utilities of having it at B.C. Hydro, for example, this year is we learned that domestic demand for B.C. Hydro this year is down — in this case, by 1,750 gigawatt hours, which is about one-third of the energy produced by Site C in one year, well below what B.C. Hydro has said in the past. So it’s useful for people engaging in the public debate to have regular information from our Crown corporations.

I wanted to ask the minister whether he feels, though, that giving ICBC five months — which is the other question — is not too much, given that we would wish to see that annual report sooner in the fiscal year; whether the extension, giving ICBC three more months than they have in the Insurance Corporation Act, actually makes sense; and whether he thinks that the comparison to, say, health authorities is actually a fair comparison.

Hon. M. de Jong: It is not possible for me to convey, but someone showed me a copy of one of the quarterly reports, and I looked at it very quickly. It may be, if the member hasn’t seen it, that some or most of the information is available. On the question of the timing and the amount of time required to complete an annual report, we could debate — I guess we are — whether it’s three months or five months.

[1605]

I will say this, that although the nature of the complexity may be different, I wouldn’t be inclined to impose a requirement or separate out the requirement for ICBC from the one that B.C. Hydro is obliged to meet, or a multi-billion-dollar health authority. The member may disagree and say that it would be preferential to be able to look at the final year-end report earlier in the fiscal year. I have his point about the merits of a detailed quarterly report and intend to explore that in terms of the information that is already posted and to what extent that can be enhanced.

I guess to answer his question directly, I and the government clearly are comfortable with the notion of imposing the same time requirement on the Insurance Corporation that we impose on a corporation like B.C. Hydro or a health authority.

[ Page 11262 ]

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

section 11.

A. Dix: We had such momentum there for a moment, didn’t we? You want that to continue for some time, yet we are compelled to rise. It’s just one of those things, Minister.

No doubt the minister has prepared a response to this, so we’ll just set this out at the start. As I remember the 2003 core review…. I wasn’t here, of course, at that time. The minister was, but not in his current capacity. They talked about depoliticizing ICBC in that core review, even imposing business practices.

Pretty systematically since then, we’ve gone through a repoliticizing of ICBC — the repeated intervention by cabinet; the moving of money from optional to basic; the change in policy years to avoid scrutiny in election year rate increases; and the effort in 2010, which changed the policy of successive NDP, Social Credit and then Liberal governments to allow the treasury to take excess capital from ICBC directly, something that had never happened before.

Here the minister continues on that policy road, it seems to me. He’s talking about shifting the responsibility for the capital management target from ICBC and its actuaries to the provincial cabinet. Far be it…. As someone who’s in politics, I don’t always see the term “politicizing” as being negative, but this is clearly a politicization of that process.

I’m wondering if the minister would somehow explain why he thinks that this is justified under the circumstances and what that reflects about the current state of government thinking with respect to capital targets at ICBC.

[1610]

Hon. M. de Jong: It’s an important question because it relates, in part, to the philosophy that guides the manner in which the corporation operates.

The member mentioned earlier in the discussion some of the phenomena that I understand the corporation is dealing with in terms of rising claims rates and costs. This instrument that we are discussing, contained within the section, is one that ultimately the Legislature, the government, has at its disposal in terms of determining the basis upon which proceeds from the optional side can be transferred to basic — on what basis, pursuant to what formula. It does, obviously, play a role in determining, when the commission is examining the circumstance, what the decisions are going to be around rates for basic coverage.

The amendment provides an option, and it provides some measure of flexibility, to be sure. The government believes that that is warranted as the corporation, particularly, takes some steps to address increasing bodily injury claims and addresses things like fraud detection, prevention, strategic procurement and some of the other cost-saving measures.

Yes, to the extent that the member identifies the creation of an additional instrument or lever here, he is correct. But I would, in answering the question, say that the government believes the creation of that lever is warranted in the circumstances as a means of ensuring the public, who are obliged with respect to basic coverage to secure that coverage, can do so on an affordable basis.

A. Dix: With great respect, in 2010, when we changed the legislation in a previous budget…. I understand that that Minister of Finance is in private life, so we won’t reflect too much on what happened. But what Colin Hansen did — we can now say his name in the House — as Finance Minister was to allow the government to take money in excess of the target into the government.

This is not about protecting ratepayers or anything else. This is about the minimum capital threshold on the optional side — which was, by the way, extremely high. I think in 2013 it was in the neighbourhood of…. Well, it was certainly north of 300 percent. Just to put that in context, leading private insurance companies can be in the 170 to 180 range as a target, so it’s a massive target.

What that means is it improves the balance sheet of the province. I’m sure the Minister of Finance liked that. It also means that optional policyholders at ICBC, who are a significant part of ICBC’s customers — overwhelmingly, the majority, in fact, of ratepayers in British Columbia are basic and optional coverage — pay more to maintain that level.

What this proposes to do, it seems to me…. It doesn’t change anything, because ICBC shifted money from optional to basic several times in the last few years to mitigate rate increases. So they’ve done that. They can do that under the law.

What this does is centralize — it seems to me, unless I’m mistaken — power to do that in the cabinet. It’s not just ICBC’s choice to set its capital levels based on business principles that they might have. It’s the role of the cabinet to do so.

[1615]

The change doesn’t permit or not permit anything that ICBC has done in the past. What it allows is for the cabinet to dictate what that change is. I’m asking why the minister feels, at this time, that sort of politicization of the process is a useful thing. It may be a useful thing. It may be. But it is the politicization of the process, one that hadn’t been that way ever in ICBC’s history.

Hon. M. de Jong: I may be mistaken, but I think the member, at one point in his submission to the committee, spoke of dictating a certain outcome. I would, with the greatest respect, stop short of that. There’s no question it creates a broader element of flexibility. There’s no question it, if utilized, precludes the need to adhere strictly

[ Page 11263 ]

to one guideline. That’s set federally by OSFI. There’s no question about that.

I’d stop short of agreeing with the member that it represents a mechanism by which the executive branch or the cabinet dictates what will take place. It certainly provides the executive branch with the option of setting a different parameter within which the corporation can operate.

A. Dix: Well, the purpose of the legislation is to provide the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the power to do just that. In other words, what it does is allow the cabinet to decide. On the optional side, as I understand, the management target was 260 percent. Above that, the government, for the first time in B.C. history, after 2010 was able to access that. So the level of that is important.

The level previously had been set by the ICBC board. Now it’s the ICBC board or the cabinet, and if there’s disagreement between those two, then the cabinet wins. That’s what the change means, as I understand it. The cabinet sets the level. I’m asking: what precipitated such a change? Why does the minister think it’s important for the cabinet to have that power over ICBC?

The MCT level was, presumably, previously set by actuaries, and they could be wrong. You could strongly argue that the level was too high and that the optional price was too high. This leads to ICBC ratepayers paying a lot more. That has pretty clearly been the case. In private jurisdictions, there are lawsuits telling insurance companies who have been overcharging people to give money back, right? Here in B.C., because of the different circumstance, that’s not the case.

This is a decision by the government, reflected in this legislation — as a member of the House, I’m interested in this — for the cabinet to take over control of this process. Usually, it’s very difficult to get legislation forward — except, perhaps, if you’re the Government House Leader. It’s very difficult to get legislation through.

[1620]

Why is the politicization of establishing the capital threshold at ICBC a priority? Why does it exist in legislation? Why is the present process, which isn’t political — or, at least, as political, I guess — not acceptable? Why does the cabinet need to dictate the threshold at all?

Hon. M. de Jong: A couple of things. The member says: “Why? Why now?”

I am reminded of the speed and the degree to which circumstances — the cost structure that the corporation has been facing — have changed. The member mentioned earlier actuarial data and forecasting and the fact that it has not always been as accurate. I don’t want to suggest that the abilities at the corporation have diminished. It would seem to me that the circumstances that they are dealing with are changing, and are changing at a pace that warrants creating an instrument that allows for the rules to change as well.

I’m reminded — the member points out — there is an existing formula in place, a statutory instrument — not really the board at ICBC. That was an expression of statutory intent, albeit one that required the engagement of the entire Legislative Assembly, to be sure, as opposed to a mechanism that would facilitate changes more easily and more quickly to take account of changing circumstances.

But the ability to make changes that would offer the ability or create the ability to deal with costs being incurred and imposed on those with basic coverage — and by utilizing the optional side of the business to do that in a way that is not constrained by the present ratio and the present formula — is really what lies at the heart.

I hope that the member will accept that I’m not quarrelling with his description of the creation of a new instrument. I do stop short of embracing his characterization of it as merely an attempt to politicize the process. I and the government don’t view it that way. We certainly view it as creating a mechanism by which we can utilize the strength of the corporation to assist the ratepayers that rely upon it for service and coverage.

A. Dix: Well, how specifically does giving the cabinet power over the capital threshold do that?

[1625]

Hon. M. de Jong: How is it that that’s accomplished? I think, in short order, by potentially — if the instrument is utilized in a certain way —expanding the opportunity to utilize the proceeds of the optional side of the business to reduce the pressure that would otherwise accrue on ratepayers on the basic side of the business. There is, it strikes me, a fairly apparent benefit that could accrue from the use of this particular instrument.

A. Dix: Well, that’s what happened last year, right? The minister got a rate increase proposal from ICBC. He said, “I’m going to get at costs,” and then they transferred $450 million — I’m not sure how that was getting at costs, but you know, he’s a new minister — and they moved it. What this does…. The setting of the capital threshold is an important question at ICBC, and there’s a real debate.

The minister will know that in 2010, for example, the capital threshold on the optional side was rising, rising, rising. What the government chose to do, rather than returning money — which was well in excess of any other insurance company in Canada, in terms of capital threshold on the optional side — to the ratepayer is that they decided to take it into government. That was an interesting tactic, right? That’s what they did.

I guess the government was in trouble at that point, and the minister will recall that. On the fiscal side, it was running successive deficits, and it saw this nest egg, and it went and got it. The basis for doing that is the capital threshold on the optional side.

[ Page 11264 ]

I guess I’m asking, since that is possible…. Currently the capital threshold does not involve a target, does not involve the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I presume that this change means it does. Why is that necessary? What the minister is talking about he can do now and they’ve done now. I