First Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, March 24, 2021

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 40

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Fleetwood Business Improvement Association

J. Brar

Mike Benny

S. Bond

Medical contributions of Clive Duncan

R. Leonard

Girls hockey program in Williams Lake

L. Doerkson

Youth mental health and collaborative action on issues

R. Russell

Access to health care services in Alberta for East Kootenay residents

T. Shypitka

Oral Questions

Government action on opioid crisis and mental health and addiction issues

S. Bond

Hon. J. Horgan

T. Halford

Hon. S. Malcolmson

Protection of old-growth forests on Vancouver Island and economic options for Indigenous communities

A. Olsen

Hon. K. Conroy

Access to health care services in Alberta for East Kootenay residents

T. Shypitka

Hon. A. Dix

Rent increases for tenants on Crown land

J. Sturdy

Hon. D. Eby

Hon. K. Conroy

J. Rustad

Tabling Documents

Office of the registrar of lobbyists for British Columbia, Investigation

Report 20-02 , lobbyist: Dave Cyr, January 19, 2021

Office of the registrar of lobbyists for British Columbia, Investigation

Report 20-03 , lobbyist: Adrienne S. Smith, February 2,

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 5 — Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2021 (continued)

M. Morris

Hon. M. Farnworth

M. Lee

S. Furstenau

Bill 10 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2021 (continued)

A. Olsen

Hon. S. Robinson

M. Bernier

P. Milobar

Bill 5 — Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2021 (continued)

Hon. M. Farnworth

Reporting of Bills

Bill 5 — Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2021

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 10 — Supply Act (No. 1), 2021

(continued)

Hon. S. Robinson

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 2021

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: L. Doerkson.

Introductions by Members

Hon. K. Conroy: Today I’d like to ask everyone to join me in wishing a very happy

birthday to our oldest daughter, Jennifer.

I also want to acknowledge that last year was a very difficult year

for so many families, including ours, but Jennifer had even more to deal

with. She was diagnosed with breast cancer in late December 2019 and spent

2020 in treatment and dealing with all the issues that COVID brought. Then

in December, her husband and son tested positive for COVID, and they had to

spend two weeks at Christmas quarantined — her and her daughter upstairs,

and her son and husband downstairs.

[1:35 p.m.]

Through it all, she stayed positive, and I’m really happy to say that

she returned to work a few weeks ago and welcomed back as a much-loved EA in

her local high school.

Please join me in wishing her a really happy birthday.

R. Russell: I have the privilege today to welcome in the House my son and

daughter, Gabriel and Juno Russell, as well as one of their friends, Thomas

Mitchell. They come all the way from Grand Forks, B.C. Of course, I expect

that question period will be a shining example of civility and humility, as

always.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

FLEETWOOD BUSINESS

IMPROVEMENT

ASSOCIATION

J. Brar: In March 2020, our lives were turned upside down by the COVID-19

pandemic. Many organizations came forward to support and guide the

community and local businesses during this extremely difficult journey

through unknown parts, with unknown ends.

One such guiding light in Surrey-Fleetwood is the Fleetwood

Business Improvement Association, or BIA. Representing roughly 350

businesses, the Fleetwood BIA has worked diligently throughout this time

to support small businesses and connect them with the local community.

The BIA designed programs to educate businesses and shoppers on the

public health guidelines and worked tirelessly to issue newsletters and

communications to their membership to provide valuable information on

access to government resources.

During the early part of the pandemic, the BIA launched the

open4business marketing campaign, a shop-local initiative, to inform the

public of the local businesses ready, able and eager to serve the

public. In recognition of its contribution, the open4business marketing

campaign won a Business Improvement Areas of B.C. Excellence

Award.

The Fleetwood BIA reports that at the beginning of the pandemic,

roughly half of the 353 businesses had closed. But upon entry into phase

2 of the plan, almost all Fleetwood businesses reopened in accordance

with the public health guidelines. In fact, Fleetwood has actually seen

a net increase of 12 new businesses that opened during the pandemic. Job

well done.

A huge thanks to the Fleetwood BIA board members led by president

Sandeep Gill, and to the executive director, Dean Barbour, for their

creativity, hard work and commitment to make the Fleetwood community a

success story.

MIKE BENNY

S. Bond: Well, he was the voice in our heads in the morning. He had an

amazing sense of humour, and our community loved waking up with Mike

Benny. Mike moved to Prince George in 1986 and started work with CKPG

radio on the afternoon drive and eventually settled into his role as the

morning man on 101.3 the River.

It’s not an exaggeration to say that Mike was a legend. He was a

mentor for young broadcasters, his colleagues loved working with him,

and he genuinely cared about people. Mike was well known for his love of

craft beer, bacon and computers. He did a joke of the day for years and

ended up having them published in a book called The World’s Punniest

Joke Book .

Mike cared about what was happening in our community. He was

amazing at getting people to donate to countless organizations and

events. I was always on the list, and who could say no when Mike Benny

was calling you out by name on the radio? One of my favourite visits

every year was visiting Mike on the roof of the Coast Inn as he helped

to raise money for the Christmas tree of lights.

Mike was diagnosed with lung cancer in the summer of 2019. We were

so deeply saddened to learn that on February 11, 2021, Mike lost his

courageous battle and left us all far too soon. Mike loved his family so

much. We are grateful to his wife, Laurel, and his four children —

Katherine, Claire, Alex and Colin — for sharing him with all of

us.

[1:40 p.m.]

March 13, which would have marked his 35th year in our city, was

declared Mike Benny Day in the city of Prince George. While I will miss

starting my mornings with Mike Benny’s voice in my head, I will always

be glad that I got to know this very special person.

Mike, we miss you, but you will never be forgotten.

MEDICAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF

CLIVE

DUNCAN

R. Leonard: It’s my honour to pay tribute to Dr. Clive Duncan, the orthopedic

surgeon who, to our benefit, moved to B.C. to practice in the

subspecialty of hip reconstruction.

He’s grown an international

reputation over 52 years as a researcher and innovator, and over 40

years as a globally sought-after teacher and mentor. He’s a professor

emeritus of medicine at UBC. He served over ten years as chair of the

department of orthopedic surgery and as head of orthopedics at VGH and

UBC hospitals. Seeing 500 patients a year, he’s given so many people’s

lives back, including my own. With surgical precision, he’s carved out

time to publish 350 full-length works and deliver 675 keynotes and

honorary presentations in 22 countries.

He has received dozens of recognitions for his contributions in

primary and revision hip replacements in B.C., Canada and

internationally, not least B.C.’s David Bachop and America’s Harris gold

medals, Britain’s Sir John Charnley award, twice; the Frank Stinchfield

Award, twice; and the North American Hip Society’s Lifetime Achievement

Award.

Some of his accomplishments. Dr. Duncan developed the world’s

first Centre for Hip Health and Mobility in Vancouver, revolutionized

treating infected joint replacements, known as the Vancouver approach.

He’s designed new hip replacements and helped develop minimally invasive

hip surgeries as well as limb-sparing treatment for bone cancer, the

Terry Fox disease. His brilliance has shone with his compassion,

curiosity, collaboration and commitment.

Please join me in thanking him for his phenomenal contributions

and wish him well. Hip, hip, hooray.

GIRLS HOCKEY PROGRAM IN

WILLIAMS

LAKE

L. Doerkson: On behalf of my constituents of the Cariboo-Chilcotin, it’s both a

pleasure and an honour to rise today to talk about how central amateur

hockey is to people of my riding, this province and to just about every

Canadian from coast to coast. So it gives me great pleasure to name just

a few of our hockey legends from our girls hockey program in Williams

Lake. The dedication of these young female players at all ages increases

as they improve their skills and begin to move past one accomplishment

after another. This is truly remarkable because of all of the

restrictions these players face during the pandemic.

Allow me to name a few of those who now shine as examples of new

and younger players starting out. Paige Outhouse graduated in 2020 and

was signed to the University of Prince Edward Island and is now a star

with the Panthers. Brette Kerley, three seasons with the Northern

Capitals, will graduate in June and is signed to the University of

Calgary, playing with the Dinos. Pyper Alexander has spent three seasons

with the Northern Capitals, graduates in June and is signed on,

belonging to the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology, the SAIT

Trojans.

Cadence Petitclerc Crosby is currently in grade 11. She has

played two seasons with the Northern Capitals and is now with the

Okanagan Hockey Academy. Keira Vermeulen is currently in grade 11, and

she’s playing her first year with the Northern Capitals, and Rachel

Loewen, who is currently in grade 10, is playing her first year with the

Northern Capitals.

As you can see, Williams Lake has certainly done its part to

contribute to great hockey across this country. We’re very grateful to

the volunteers, the parents, the coaches that keep this great girls

hockey program running in Williams Lake.

[1:45 p.m.]

YOUTH MENTAL HEALTH

AND COLLABORATIVE ACTION ON

ISSUES

R. Russell: On a Friday morning last October, I experienced one of the most

emotionally powerful moments of my campaign. My two friends Clint and

Edie and I had woken at 4:30 in the morning in order to get across my

riding in time for an outdoor morning meeting in Princeton. Somewhere

near Bromley Rock, we were slowed down behind a police cruiser with

someone walking up ahead. The walker turned out to be Anishnaabe

sergeant Kevin Redsky, at that moment supported by his wife, Harmony.

I’m sure many here have heard about their Hope in the Darkness Walk for

Youth Mental Health across Canada.

I rather abruptly jumped out of the car to walk with Kevin,

thrilled that some serendipity had brought our paths together. Our

conversation covered a lot of ground while we walked, but today I want

to highlight one theme.

We talked about the work of creating space for different people to

come together, including faith-based organizations, police, educators,

Indigenous leaders, social workers and beyond, all with an eye to

listening, connecting and then doing — doing the things that we need to

do so that youth don’t get lost in the reductionist and siloed

colonialist system that we have inherited. Especially in rural

communities, those spaces to bring people together for good, whether for

youth mental health, for watershed stewardship or for anything beyond,

are critical to our success and often not easy to create, nor to

maintain.

As a concrete example, I reflect on the new situation table

funding in my riding, spearheaded by the town of Oliver and supported by

our government. These tables, to borrow the words of Sheila Malcolmson

from last September, help our communities “problem-solve one case at a

time so at-risk individuals don’t fall between the cracks.” I applaud

this good work and look forward to more.

I’m proud to be a part of this House, and I hope to be proud of

what we, as a group of 87, can accomplish together by doing some hard

work ahead and breaking down the artificial barriers that limit the

potential of our commun­ities.

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE SERVICES IN

ALBERTA FOR EAST

KOOTENAY RESIDENTS

T. Shypitka: No two-minute statement I have ever given is as immediately

important as the one I’m giving today. By now most members in this House

know the dilemma the constituents of my riding have with access to

health care in our neighbouring province to the east. With 1,000

kilometres and six mountain passes to the Lower Mainland, travel is

unaffordable, unsafe and, in most cases, without family support. Many

people are making life-and-death decisions based on the feasibility of

such travel.

The plight for medical access continues to worsen in Kootenay

East. In my riding, we have one ophthalmologist to service over 60,000

residents. Our one ophthalmologist has spent the past two decades giving

outstanding care to his patients. He has built a strong referral network

to include specialists in Calgary. Those relationships are now being

dissolved. The Albertan surgeons he refers patients to are willing to

take his patients. However, the Alberta Health Services administrators

are turning our B.C. patients away.

I have a constituent in dire need of access to tertiary

ophthalmology eye care in Alberta. Going to Kelowna is not a viable

option because an interocular gas will be placed in his eye that does

not allow for travel at high elevations. Driving back from Kelowna over

mountain passes or flying are not options. To keep himself in Kelowna

post-surgery for about six weeks, as the gas dissipates, is a financial

burden, to say the least. To make the situation even worse, my

constituent also receives dialysis three times a week. If he could go to

Calgary for the procedure, he could come home shortly after with no

disruption to his dialysis treatments and carry on with his daily

life.

Let me be clear. From all of the work that I have done on this

file, it is very certain that this is not a capacity issue. It is my

contention that this is a billing issue between the two

provinces.

We as a province must all work together in finding safe, reliable

health care for everyone in our province.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

OPIOID CRISIS AND MENTAL HEALTH

AND ADDICTION ISSUES

S. Bond: In 2020, 1,724 deaths. In January of this year, 165 deaths. And

now, in February of this year, we get the news of another 155 deaths.

Each month it’s the same story — a new record, another heartbreaking

milestone reached in a deadly health crisis. The government’s response

in the chamber and beyond remains the same every month.

[1:50 p.m.]

Earlier this month the Premier said: “To focus on the societal

disaster is the responsibility of all of us — not just the minister, not

just families who are grieving, but everyone in our

community.”

Perhaps the Premier can get up today and tell us what specific

steps he is taking to ensure that next month and the month after that

and the month after that, we are not having the same

conversation.

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her question and the

spirit with which it was offered. I agree, and I know all members of

this House agree, that the persistent opioid crisis has affected

families in every corner of British Columbia. Unacceptably high numbers

have been exacerbated by the global pandemic. We’ve not been able to

have people gathering and congregating, so more and more users are

finding themselves alone and isolated and not having someone at their

side when they most desperately need it.

As we see public health orders relieved over the next number of

months, I think we’re going to see a positive outcome when it comes to

the unacceptably high opioid deaths. But there’s a whole host of other

initiatives we can and have been working on, and I’ll inventory some of

them for the member.

Firstly, of course, we want to make sure that simple possession is

not a crime. We all understand, and I think we all agree. We can debate

the edges on these questions, but ultimately, if someone has an

addiction challenge, they are a patient, not a criminal. We need to make

sure we disaggregate those who are preying on vulnerable populations for

criminal intent and those that are just trying to get by, riddled with

an addiction.

We’re putting resources into treatment. The member and I will be

talking more about that after question period. We’re putting money into

resources. We’re putting money into housing. We’re trying to build up

the capacity within communities, large and small, to address these

challenges in a compassionate way, not in a crime-fighting way, which

had been the approach, as all of us know, for many decades prior to the

turn of the century.

It’s only now that I think many communities are coming to terms

with the fact that a four-pillars approach does involve enforcement, but

it involves also making sure that harm reduction is in place, making

sure that the services that people need are there and, most importantly,

treatment.

I’m hopeful that as the questions continue through this question

period, we all burrow down and get to that focus that we’re going to

need to make new investments in communities while we grapple with COVID,

to come through this stronger than we went into it and make sure that

all of us redouble our efforts as individual legislators and as people,

as part of communities, that we’re doing what we can to reduce stigma

and focus directly on the challenges these people face.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a

supplemental.

S. Bond: I appreciate the answer from the Premier. The loss of 155 lives in

February represents a 107 percent increase over the same month in 2020.

This is a situation that continues to get worse. It’s taking people from

all age groups and economic situations, and nearly 60 percent of the

deaths are occurring in private residences.

Earlier this month the Premier said: “If we keep our shoulder to

the wheel, keep focused on that and have respectful dialogue, as we’ve

done today, on this important issue, we will make progress, the progress

that all of us demand not just now but in the future.” Well, the numbers

paint a tragic picture. We’re not making progress.

Can the Premier tell us specifically whether his delayed budget

will include a significant increase in badly needed resources for mental

health and addiction services?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’ll have to take a step back to fully answer the member’s

question. We did see a significant decline in opioid deaths in

2018-2019, as a result of a concerted effort by front-line workers,

first responders, the availability of naloxone, the ability for us to

work in congregate settings to make sure that people were getting the

care that they needed. With the advent of COVID-19, those congregate

settings no longer were available to people, and we saw more and more

people isolating, as I said in my first response.

We’ve also seen an increase in the toxicity of the drug supply,

because the borders have been slammed shut. That means that those that

are preying on the vulnerable are using more toxins to spread their

supply out and do damage to human beings. That is beyond reprehensible,

but it is a challenge that we’ve tried to address, working through

Public Safety to make sure law enforcement has the tools they need to

continue to stamp out the flow of toxins into the supply and also

working with the federal government to make sure that we can have

initiatives.

[1:55 p.m.]

The Minister of Mental Health and Addictions has been at the

vanguard on this, to make sure that we do have safe supply and safe

alternatives for people using street drugs that can help them through

their challenging time so we can get them into treatment, as all of us

want to do.

But it is a multi-pronged approach. I fully agree with the member.

We all get this. The numbers are going up because we cannot congregate

together as we did in the past, because we cannot regulate the drug

supply. There are initiatives underway. We need leadership from both

orders of government and from communities.

As the member full knows — and I look at the regional distribution

of my colleagues across the way — this is not a downtown Vancouver

issue. It’s a B.C. issue. That’s the first order of business: that we

all go back to our communities — me in suburban, rural Victoria, and the

Leader of the Opposition to her community of Prince George — and talk

about this as not someone else’s problem. It’s our problem. It’s our

brothers, our sisters, our moms, our dads. It’s people who find, through

no fault of their own, addicted to an insidious substance that requires

intervention — medical intervention, not criminal

intervention.

T. Halford: Yesterday the minister said it was a disservice to question the

closing of much-needed services. Today we sadly see why we are asking

those questions, when we see the closure of services in Penticton,

Keremeos and Vancouver.

Young people are struggling with mental health and addictions. Two

Victoria teens who needed services desperately — and, I think we can all

agree, were let down by the system — met with the Premier and the

Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. This is what they had to say:

“They say ‘reach out,’ but where? And to who and how? Because you can’t.

You really can’t. It’s a great phrase to say, but unless there’s stuff

actually in place to support people reaching out, it’s empty

promises.”

My question is to the Premier. We need less words and more action.

Will this Premier put forward a budget that actually supports people

with mental health and addictions?

Hon. J. Horgan: We do need action, but we also need words. We need to talk about

this openly and candidly not just in this Legislature but in our

schools, in our health care settings, so that Emma and Ella, the two

young women who I had the good fortune of engaging with a week or so

ago, had received what they characterized as positive, affirming

services when they were youth, but when they aged out and became adults,

the situation changed.

That was news to me. Of course, the minister was aware of this,

and she is taking steps. And I’m sure in subsequent questions, she can

answer directly the member’s question.

What I took away from a discussion with two young women, living in

suburban Victoria — not the Downtown Eastside, not in a far and remote

part of British Columbia, but in, basically, the capital city of British

Columbia — were satisfied with their services as youth and appalled by

the services that they were presented when they became adults. That’s a

challenge for us to fix. That’s a challenge for the health authority and

practitioners.

This isn’t about throwing people under the bus. What those young

women did was what we’ve asked them to do. They wanted help. They asked

for help, and when they went to receive it, it wasn’t up to their

expectation. So that means we all do better. That means practitioners

have to do better.

We need to make sure we’re preparing young people through our

K-to-12 system to meet the realities of an increased challenge of mental

health, as a result of COVID and a whole host of other challenges that

modernity presents for all of us. You know, this is not Leave It to

Beaver any more. This is a complex world that we’re asking

young people to come into with little or no expectation of how they’re

supposed to act. We need to be there as adults to help steward them from

their childhood into their adulthood.

When it comes to addressing mental health issues, I believe we put

some $3 billion into mental health services through our health

authorities across the province, and if we need to do more, we will do

more. This is the challenge of our times. It’s not just the addiction

challenges that the Leader of the Opposition raised, but it is mental

health for young people, regular people walking down the street that

need help, and they need compassion, not stigma.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey–White Rock on a supplemental.

T. Halford: Thank you to the Premier for the response. The Premier rightly

issued a challenge to all of us today, when we go back into our

communities and advocate for the support we need. I just don’t know how

we do that when we’re seeing what we’re seeing in something like

Penticton. We need to be focused on the present.

[2:00 p.m.]

Here’s a quote: “The province should provide more comprehensive

and wraparound services to youth using drugs and their families,

particularly in their communities.” Those were the words of the

Representative for Children and Youth.

We’ve seen this government close services that are

community-based. It’s the wrong approach, and this government knows it.

We need more services, not fewer, to the point the Premier just

previously made.

For the Premier, as we see these numbers grow tragically, will he

commit today to putting the resources that British Columbians need and

deserve for mental health and addictions?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Thank you to the member for the question. Good ideas can come from

all sides of the House. I look forward to the member’s support for our

budget.

We have been on a path of committing unprecedented increased

supports in every form since we first formed government in 2017. There

was no system of care in place at that time. We’ve been working day and

night in every way to build that system up. The challenge of fighting

now two public health emergencies has put tremendous strain on the

health care system in British Columbia.

I’m encouraged to hear the support across the aisle for

increasingly deeper spending. That’s certainly something that we

committed to British Columbians again in our second election, both in

2017 and 2020. That’s something that we are working hard towards. Over

the last five years, we did commit almost $750 million.

PROTECTION OF OLD-GROWTH FORESTS ON

VANCOUVER ISLAND

AND ECONOMIC

OPTIONS FOR INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES

A. Olsen: The satellite images don’t deceive. No matter how the Minister of

Forests chooses to organize the devastation in her mind, it’s hard to

unsee the fact that there are no valleys remaining on southern Vancouver

Island that are like Fairy Creek in the Premier’s riding. You don’t even

need to bother counting trees; just look at the pictures. You can’t miss

the reality that the government of British Columbia has already laid

waste to most of the monumental, high-productivity old growth in our

region.

This government, like previous provincial governments, signed

revenue-sharing agreements with Indigenous nations and industry — in

this case, logging. They’re often very narrow conversations to

facilitate logging above all else, without putting forward other

economic opportunities. Let be me be clear: an approach of take it or

leave it without alternatives to logging does not provide real options

for economic development.

My question is to the Premier. Will he direct the Ministers of

Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, Finance, and Forests to develop

a package for our relatives in Pacheedaht that includes conservation

financing and a buyback of the cutblocks in order to provide real

options to save Fairy Creek?

Hon. K. Conroy: I thank the member for the question. The member needs to know that

we are dedicated to bringing in a fundamental shift in forestry to make

sure that we are working with Indigenous nations and to make sure that

we are protecting and preserving forests for people today and for years

to come. We’re going to do this important work while supporting forest

workers and communities.

I know that the member has expressed concerns in the past. I will

agree with him in that for too long, communities did not have a say in

how their forests were managed. For too long, the people in the region

did not have a say, and definitely Indigenous nations did not have a

say.

We are taking a different approach. We were the first province in

Canada to bring in the declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples,

that all people in the House sat and supported. This legislation creates

a path forward that respects the rights of Indigenous Peoples. We are

committed to working forward on this path and committed to working with

nations and ensuring that we can all move forward to ensure that we have

a sustainable, well-managed forest industry for years to come in this

province.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands on a

supplemental.

[2:05 p.m.]

A. Olsen: Let’s be clear. The declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

Peoples isn’t an end point. It’s a path that we’re walking on today.

That Fairy Creek watershed is the very definition of the high-risk

ecosystem. The old growth strategic review panel recommendation 6 called

for immediate deferral while an old-growth strategy is

developed.

The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs is calling on this government to

provide critical funding needed to fulfil its obligations to Indigenous

people to implement the recommendations of that old-growth panel. They

say:

“The current landscape of old-growth logging has been exacerbated

over years by successive B.C. governments working to commercialize all

old-growth timber and foster an economic dependence on old-growth

logging in First Nations communities. They have achieved this by

arranging agreements for revenue-sharing, employment, joint ventures and

tenures for old-growth timber in contentious areas for First Nations,

who face limited economic opportunities as a result of years of

colonialism and racism.”

Tomorrow the courts will hear an injunction request by Teal-Jones

to remove blockades from Fairy Creek and gain access to logging in this

valley.

My question, again, is to the Premier. Will he direct his

ministers to develop a package for our relatives in Pacheedaht that

includes conservation financing and a buyback of the cutblocks in order

to provide real options to save Fairy Creek?

Hon. K. Conroy: We are moving forward with the report that the member has

referenced. We already took that first step where we discussed and

engaged with Indigenous Nations to ensure that we could defer nine areas

across the province to defer old-growth forests right across the

province. We recognize that the number one recommendation in the report

was to engage on a government-to-government basis with Indigenous

Nations, and we are moving forward to do that — to ensure that we have

those discussions with the nations.

We are starting to do those discussions, but reminding the member

that it is critically important that we have those discussions, that we

have the time to do it, but that we also make sure that we are having

those discussions with industry, with working people, with the

communities that are affected, as the member has mentioned.

I want to make it clear that the Gorley and Merkel report, the

recommendations that they brought forward…. It said to make sure that we

have that discussion with Indigenous Nations. It’s critically important

we do that, and we are committed to doing that.

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE SERVICES IN

ALBERTA FOR EAST

KOOTENAY RESIDENTS

T. Shypitka: As per my two-minute statement today, communities along the

eastern B.C. border have been forced to travel long distances to

Vancouver for health care needs instead of what has been historically

received treatment in nearby Alberta. Six mountain passes and 1,000

kilometres make a 12-hour trip into 14 or more hours in the winter,

sometimes impossible due to mountain pass closures and dangerous winter

driving conditions that can happen in a moment’s notice.

For example, in my riding, an eight-year-old child with

reoccurring epileptic seizures, as well as a family needing neonatal

care for 14 weeks, were forced to travel 12 hours to travel to Vancouver

in the middle of winter instead of three hours to Calgary. These trips

are costly, unsafe and stressful for families.

To the Premier, what has the Premier done to ensure families can

get urgent care in Alberta when it is the closest and safest place to

go?

Hon. A. Dix: The member will know, because we’ve talked about this on a number

of occasions, that we work closely with the Alberta government to ensure

that care is provided. The reality is that wait times in many clinical

areas, the majority of clinical areas, are less in B.C. than they are in

Alberta. That’s a challenge, of course, for our friends in Alberta as

well, although the member will agree with me that we appreciate the

ongoing work of the government of Alberta accommodating, especially,

emergency B.C. patients and to work with us to try and solve these

problems. So we’re in regular contact with them.

This is not a technical issue. We have done, I think, an excellent

job, and the Interior Health Authority has done, in providing services.

But we clearly have to continue to do this work with the government of

Alberta, and we will. Their decisions, the decisions that they make

about their health system, obviously have some impact on people in

British Columbia and people in the Kootenays who get care.

We’re going to continue to work with the government of Alberta to

help resolve some of the concerns that the member has with respect to

local issues while we continue to improve wait times for services in

British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kootenay East on a supplemental.

[2:10 p.m.]

T. Shypitka: It’s very disappointing to hear this minister sing from the same

song sheet that he has for the past two years on capacity issues, when

it clearly is not. I have sworn testimonials from physicians in B.C. and

in Alberta that have a great referral system. The space is there. But

once it gets to Alberta Health Services it gets shut down.

This is more of a billing issue than anything else. I think the

minister should be really concerned about it, because it’s really

costing a lot of families some very tough times and hardships. The lack

of action — or misaction — from this Premier is concerning.

Right now I have a constituent in dire need of tertiary eye care

in Alberta. In surgery, an interocular gas is placed in the eye that

does not allow for travel at elevated heights. Driving over mountain

passes or flying are no option. If he could go to Calgary for the

procedure, he could come home shortly after with no disruption to his

dialysis treatments, which he gets three times a day, and carry on with

daily life with his support systems in place.

My office has made many pleas to the staff in the Health

Minister’s office since February 12 with no response whatsoever. There

are other jurisdictions in Canada — Lloydminster, for example…. They

have memorandums of understanding between Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Ottawa and Hull, Quebec, have memorandums of understanding between those

two provinces to allow health care to pass seamlessly between the

provinces — yet no action on this, Minister.

Maybe the Premier can take a shot at it, since the Minister of

Health is not helping out much. Will the Premier commit today to

ensuring my constituents can get needed care in Alberta when it is the

closest option?

Hon. A. Dix: Well, with great respect to the member — and I think members of

the House will know that they always get great respect when issues of

constituents are brought to my office — we are going to continue to work

with the government of Alberta to resolve issues.

Some of these issues, remember, are made in another jurisdiction.

Some of the decisions are made in another jurisdiction. But we work

closely with the government of Alberta not just to provide and ensure

that British Columbians have access to service but, often, as well, that

citizens of Alberta receive access to care both while in British

Columbia, which they frequently are, and when they need to travel here.

These are issues we worked out, as the member knows. I regularly do this

with his office and his team. I’m happy to work on any individual case

with his office or anyone else.

I would say that the fact is that British Columbia in many areas

of care has lower wait times. This has been a subject of concern, as the

member will know, in Alberta, where we also seek access to care,

especially for emergency care of the type the member talks

about.

We’re going to work on it. We work on it all the time. We work on

it every day. I don’t think it’s an issue of disrespect or commitment by

people in the Ministry of Health, as the member suggests, but rather

some real challenges that are faced in Alberta and in British Columbia

that we need to always make improvements on. I think people in the

Kootenays deserve that….

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. A. Dix: And that’s the care that we try and provide every day.

RENT INCREASES FOR TENANTS

ON CROWN LAND

J. Sturdy: Despite a residential rent freeze, some renters in British

Columbia are still seeing rent increases of as much as, believe it or

not, 300 percent. This is for one reason and one reason only, and that

is because their landlord is the province of British Columbia and they

live on Crown land.

For some reason, the government excluded itself from its own rent

freeze rules. The Premier is holding himself and his government to a

different standard than is applied to every other landlord in British

Columbia.

Can the Premier please explain why he’s charging ren­ters on

Crown land rent increases of as much as 300 percent at any time, let

alone in the middle of a pandemic?

Hon. D. Eby: Obviously, our government is incredibly proud of our [audio

interrupted] to protect and support renters and also to recognize the

important role that landlords play in providing housing.

The issue that the member raises is an interesting one. I’m not

familiar with it. I look forward to speaking to him about it. I’ll point

out to him that our commitment is really clear. We want to make sure

that all British Columbians can find affordable, safe housing in our

province. We’ve dedicated billions to it. We passed legislation around

it, sometimes over the objection of the members across the way,

including around renovictions.

[2:15 p.m.]

This doesn’t have to be partisan. I’m thrilled to hear the member

bring forward a question about how we ensure affordability for people,

and I look forward to working with him about it. I look forward to

hearing more.

Mr. Speaker: The member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky on a

supplemental.

J. Sturdy: That is good to hear — although we have been corresponding with

the FLNR for two years now on this particular issue.

Clearly….

We understand that there is yet another review underway that has

been going on for some four or five years now in the FLNR without any

progress. While that review is nice, it’s of cold comfort to Joan

Amotsen, whose rent has gone from $5,650 last year to potentially

$19,650 this year, and who knows where next year. This rent increase is

unconscionable and, frankly, would be illegal if government didn’t have

its own set of rules for being a landlord.

Will the Premier cancel this over 300 percent rent hike and change

the rules so the government must play by the same rules as every other

landlord in British Columbia?

Hon. K. Conroy: I thank the member for the question. I ask and advise him to

please reach out to me, and we can discuss this further. It’s an issue

of people who live on Crown lands. The assessment is being done to

ensure that they are charged a rent based on the assessment.

As we know, assessments are going up across the province in some

areas. I believe in the member’s own area — they’re going up there.

There’s a formula that’s used. I know the ministry is looking into this

and seeing what we can do. I appreciate the member raising

it.

J. Rustad: Well, 300 percent or 86 percent. Can you imagine that? It’s pretty

good if you’re the landowner, certainly not very good if you’re the

renter.

I, quite frankly, think the Premier and everybody on that side of

the House would agree. That is completely unacceptable, to see that kind

of an increase at this time. Melanie, who is in the Cheakamus Valley,

says: “I am a single mom on disability with a special needs son. My mom

is sick and in care. I’m struggling to keep up with the

lease.”

This increase is unacceptable, and I know the Premier has

implemented a rent freeze. Why will he not extend that rent freeze to

his own government, and tell Melanie that he is cancelling this 86

percent increase?

Hon. K. Conroy: Well, I thank the member again for the question and for bringing

this one to my attention. I’d be only too happy to discuss with the MLA

responsible for the Cheakamus area. I encourage them to reach

out.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nechako Lakes on a supplemental.

J. Rustad: Well, it might be fine and dandy for the members to engage and the

ministers to want to engage. I accept that. That’s good that they want

to engage, because this is a serious issue. But it is a serious issue,

and it’s a real simple answer. The compassionate thing to do is to just

cancel these increases. This is a very difficult time.

Melanie goes on: “An 86 percent increase in rent is unacceptable

anywhere, especially during COVID. I think especially by government that

has the power to be considerate and reasonable.” Melanie and her family

have lived on this property for generations. She is trying to figure out

how she can stay on this property. It’s unacceptable that this should go

forward, and she is legitimately worried about her future.

To the Premier, cancel this increase. Tell Melanie today that she

doesn’t have to worry and that she has a place to live and she doesn’t

have to be worried about being turfed out by an unreasonable rent

increase.

Hon. K. Conroy: Again, I’ll say the ministry is looking at this. This is a policy

that was brought in place under the previous government — the previous

Liberal government, just to clarify. It’s done with B.C. Assessment,

which looks at the price of property around the area and makes those

adjustments based on that. We are looking into, as I said. I would be

only too happy to discuss it with the MLA responsible for the

constituents who are raising the issues.

[2:20 p.m.]

[End of question period.]

A. Olsen: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

A. Olsen: I’d like to introduce Pacheedaht Elder Bill Jones and Hereditary Chief

Victor Peter, as well as Friends of Carmanah-Walbran’s Erika Heyrman into

the House this afternoon. They were here to hear the questions about the

territory in their community that I was asking during question

period.

HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM. Thank you.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present Investigation Report

20-02 and Investigation Report 20-03 from the office of

the registrar of lobbyists for British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage, Bill 5.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 5 — INSURANCE CORPORATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 5;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 2:21 p.m.

The Chair: Members, we will be taking a five-minute recess before we

resume. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 2:21 p.m. to 2:28 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

On clause 2 as amended (continued) .

M. Morris: It’s been quite a disjointed affair as we work our way through

this particular bill here.

The first question I have. Maybe the minister can list the

improvements that he sees to the accountability and the transparency, in

comparison to the current system that we have, within ICBC, with the

fairness commissioner.

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. There are a number of areas where there

is improvement.

First off, there’s increased independence with the fact that the

position is now a Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council appointment. It is

appointed by cabinet. The budgeting process is better in that it allows

for, if there are issues between the fairness commissioner and the

board, those to be resolved — with my involvement, for

example.

There’s increased transparency through better reporting.

Currently, the fairness commissioner only reports to the board. Now, not

only do they report to the board but also to myself and to this House,

and also the reports have to be made public.

M. Morris: I was under the understanding that the reports that the fairness

commissioner had rendered before were available to the public. Was that

an incorrect assumption?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I would note that while, yes, reports were made public, they were

not required to be made public. Now they are required to be made public.

Also, the board is now required to report to me, as Minister, as

well.

M. Morris: Does the Minister know how many reports over the last dozen years

or so from the fairness commissioner have not been made

public?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I can’t give you the exact number, but I’m happy to find that

number out for the member. I would expect most of them have been made

public, but the fact that they are required to, I think, is an extra

level of rigour.

A reporting requirement ensures that a report, for whatever

reason, isn’t delayed — or just somehow fails to be made public. This

ensures that, in fact, all reports will be.

M. Morris: I guess it raises a bit of a concern here. Are you suggesting that

perhaps sometime in the past, the fairness commissioner has not made the

report public for some unknown reason? They wanted to keep something

from the public or keep something from public view?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, I’m not suggesting that, hon. Member. You asked me a question:

if I could tell you right now how many…. But I can’t. I said I’d get the

number for you. I also said that it’s my expectation that they all

would.

[2:35 p.m.]

I think what’s really important is that what was previously policy

is now becoming a legal requirement. I think that is important, and I

think that’s a significant improvement.

M. Morris: Thank you for that. The question I initially asked is if the

minister could list the improvements to accountability and transparency

under this new system being proposed by this bill. Again, what he’s

listed really isn’t any different than what has been done before under

the fairness commissioner’s office, which has been in place now for a

number of years. Now we want to enhance the process itself by

establishing an OIC process in order to allow cabinet to pick the

position itself.

I’m just curious. Perhaps the minister can explain why they’re

suggesting cabinet needs to choose the fairness officer. Has there been

some problem in the past with the fairness commissioner’s office that

has led this government to believe that cabinet needs to appoint that

position?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No. On May 1, there is a significant change taking place with ICBC

as they shift to enhanced care. The fairness commissioner is a critical

part of ensuring that that shift takes place and that the fairness

commissioner has the resources, the skills and the staff to do the job

that they will need to do. I have every confidence that they will do

that.

By making it a Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council ap­pointment,

it just elevates that profile. It lets the public know that this is an

important position, that government believes it’s an important position.

That’s why it’s being done that way. It also does reinforce that issue

of independence.

It does not reflect in any way, shape or form on the practices and

the procedures on how the fairness commissioner, as it’s currently

structured, has operated in the past. I think it has done an extremely

capable and a very good job. Rather, it’s a reflection of the importance

that we attach to the changes that are taking place on the first of

May.

M. Morris: To establish the importance of the position, is the position

predicted to become more important than it is in the current form? Will

the new fairness officer have additional duties that complicate the

process to the point where they need this added rigour through an OIC

appointment?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think what I’m…. My answer is based on…. On May 1, there is a

significant change taking place. We go to the enhanced care model. We

want to make sure…. I think there will be a heightened awareness around

the importance of ensuring, both within ICBC and outside ICBC, from the

customer, that (1) people are treated fairly and that (2) procedures and

policies are followed and implemented in the way that they’re meant to

be.

I fully expect that the fairness commissioner will be very much

aware of this. I think the fact that we’re making it a

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council appointment also sends a message that the

province understands and recognizes this. We want the public to know

that this is a key part of that change, that this legislation is there

to ensure that key part takes place and that they will be able to do the

job they’re required to do.

M. Morris: So do I understand correctly, then, that because of the enhanced

care model that is starting within the coming weeks…? Does the minister

expect the numbers of complaints to the fairness officer’s office to

increase and the complexities of these complaints to increase to the

point where they require that OIC appointment?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There’s a new change taking place. I think there is an expectation

by everybody. You want to make sure it goes smoothly. You want to make

sure it goes properly. So whether it’s within the corporation, going

with policies and procedures that we want to make sure are being

implemented and followed properly…. Likewise, the fairness commissioner

is going to be acutely aware that they will be making sure that that, in

fact, takes place. And that’s not unusual, whether it’s here at ICBC or,

I could say, if there was a change coming in the House.

I know there’s a heightened awareness. You want to make sure

everything is right. The position of fairness officer, as we’ve said, is

a key part of ensuring that British Columbians have confidence that they

will be treated fairly. Part of that is sending that message.

This is now going to be a Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

appointment, which means that cabinet has appointed this individual and

that reports, while they were made public before, are now legally

required to be made public. That’s what this is about. I think it’s

basically that simple.

M. Morris: Listening earlier to questions that were asked by my colleague

from Vancouver-Langara with respect to the numbers of complaints handled

by the fairness commissioner…. I believe it was 44 — the number that was

handled by the fairness commissioner previously, last year. With this

new model of insurance being brought to bear against British Columbians,

is the minister predicting that the numbers are going to significantly

increase beyond 44 or be significantly greater than that?

With the complexities associated to them…. You just stated that

British Columbians need to have the confidence that this position is

going to look after their concerns around fairness with this new model

coming up. Does the minister predict there might be problems with that?

Does the minister predict that there are going to be substantially more

files for the fairness commissioner to handle as the result of these new

changes to the legislation or to the insurance model?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. No, I’m not saying that I’m expecting

an increase in the number of complaints or the number of times the

fairness officer has to deal with them compared to the way the current

system operates. What I’m saying is that there is a significant change

coming on the first of May, and we want to make sure that everything

runs and goes as smoothly as possible and that the fairness officer will

have a job to do. We want British Columbians to know that we take this

very seriously.

I can tell you that prior to May 1 and prior to that change, there

has been significant work taking place, in terms of ICBC, as they move

to the enhanced care model, to ensure that staff are aware of the

policies and procedures and that they are trained in those policies and

procedures, because there’s a significant interest for ICBC to ensure

that everything moves and goes smoothly.

What I know is the corporation is working as hard as it can. Its

employees and staff are working as hard as they can. We as government

are working as hard as we can to ensure that May 1, the implementation

goes the way that it is intended. A key component of that

implementation, obviously, is the fairness commissioner’s position. We

want British Columbians to know that that position is there.

M. Lee: I just wanted to follow on from the member for Prince

George–Mackenzie in that line of inquiry. Of course we recognize the

significant change that is going to be happening on May 1. This is the

reason why we’re spending a considerable amount of time, in fits and

starts, in committee stage on this bill.

Put another way, in the course of a year, 100,000 British

Columbians are, unfortunately, regrettably, involved or injured in car

crashes, every year. With this change, this will mean that…. Usually,

typically, in any given year, there are about 40,000 to 50,000 disputes.

Under the former system, before no-fault, if they had to go forward,

they would be handled potentially by a lawyer or in the courts with

ICBC.

To put this in perspective, of the 411 complaints that have been

raised in any given year, at least in 2019-2020, that’s in the context

of knowing that there has been another avenue to pursue disputes with

ICBC, through the courts. That is now being cut off.

I will get back to the CRT discussion that we had at the last

committee stage, but just to put this in perspective, with 40,000 or

50,000 potential disputes with ICBC previously being handled by the

courts, what is the assessment that ICBC has done as to the potential

number of disputes or complaints that the fairness officer will need to

handle?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I’ll make a couple of

points.

First, about 20,000 claims a year are filed in the Supreme Court

of B.C. involving auto accidents. But only about 100 go to trial. The

rest are settled out of court. While the trial process is no longer part

of enhanced care, the reality is that the CRT process is still very much

there. They are involved in terms of the determination of

benefits.

M. Lee: I know that in the course of many debates and opportunities to

discuss bills of reform to ICBC that the Attorney General has brought

forward to this House, I’ve had numerous opportunities to go through the

numbers — the number of disputes, the impact, the legal costs and all of

that.

I don’t think we need to retread that discussion here, but I do

think the points noted, at least acknowledged by the minister, that the

quantum, the volume of disputes that, potentially, a fairness

commissioner is facing, is certainly higher than 411. It could be in the

thousands. It could be somewhere between thousands and 20,000 or even

more, because, of course, how many actually get filed in the courts is

not indicative of how many disputes there are. As I mentioned, the

numbers that I refer to are 40,000 to 50,000 different

disputes.

Let’s turn to the CRT. That was a point I wanted to come back to,

because I know that the minister, in our last committee session,

referred to the CRT as a jurisdiction three times in response to points

that I made. The point that I’ve made is that most recently, Chief

Justice Hinkson has ruled that the power that’s been granted to the CRT

to decide accident claims was unconstitutional, because historically,

the power to decide personal injury claims and their value belonged

exclusively with the superior courts. So this is a jurisdictional

concern.

I think it’s important to note, at least for the record, in this

House, the nature of that decision so we have a clear understanding of

that decision. The effect of the decision is to recognize that personal

injury claims are exclusively within the domain of the superior courts.

That means that jurisdiction over personal injury claims cannot simply

be handed to the government’s online tribunal, whether in whole or in

part.

Now, the minister has said that the CRT decision will not affect

the ability to decide no-fault decisions or benefit decisions. That’s

not how I read this decision. I appreciate that the Attorney General has

indicated that the government intends to appeal the decision. But from

my perspective, given the fact that the chief justice has ruled that

there is uncertain ground constitutionally on which the CRT operates, in

terms of its jurisdiction, we are now looking at a bill for which there

could be even greater weight that British Columbians need to place on

the fairness officer.

[2:55 p.m.]

If it turns out that the government loses that appeal, and it

turns out that the CRT does not have the jurisdiction, which the chief

justice is saying…. If the Court of Appeal of British Columbia agrees

with the chief justice, that means the CRT continues to be operating in

an unconstitutional manner and they will not be a forum for benefit

disputes. British Columbians will be further cut off from their ability

to raise disputes with ICBC about their benefit determinations, which is

the very point I was making previously in committee.

I know that we have lots of concerns about this fairness officer

in the current context, recognizing that there’s a new system, of

course, that’s being implemented on May 1 and that we are still

debating, in this House, the powers of that fairness officer. To the

minister: if the appeal of that decision, brought by the government and

the Attorney General, is not successful, will the government be coming

back to this House to amend this act, to enable further powers to be

provided to the fairness officer?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I understand the point that

the member is attempting to make, but I’d make these

observations.

First, in terms of the case itself, in terms of appeal, I’m not

going to comment on that. Those appeal questions are more appropriately

directed to the Attorney General anyway.

The fact is that the court did make a determination, under

section

133(1) of the act, where the issue was under “the determination of

whether an injury is a minor injury…” and the ability to hear claims for

liability, personal injury and property damage of up to $50,000. That

will not have an impact on the CRT decision in terms of their ability to

determine benefits. And that particular point was in fact conceded by

the plaintiffs themselves. They did not disagree with that. So the

ability for the CRT, the civil resolution tribunal, to determine

benefits is not what is in dispute.

Having said that, I turn to the second part of the question that

the member raises. The fairness officer’s position is to deal with

process and procedures. It is not about the determination of benefits.

So, no, I’m not planning, and government will not be planning, on coming

back to amend the legislation to give powers in that area.

[3:00 p.m.]

M. Lee: I appreciate the response from the minister about this point. I

understand, of course, that we’re in the midst of the government

bringing forward an appeal of the decision.

The decision itself, though, I would still state, does cause and

raise question about whether there’s uncertain constitutional ground for

the CRT to be operating, in determining or deciding any legal issues

relating to a motor vehicle accident. So I just note this: there is that

possibility that the CRT’s jurisdiction may well be further called into

question.

I appreciate that given the limitations around the fairness

officer under

section 57 of this bill…. That’s the reason why my

colleague the member for Prince George–​Mackenzie and myself are

spending this time pressing on the limitation around that jurisdiction.

If it turns out that the government’s position is incorrect, and the

courts further find that the CRT’s jurisdiction is entirely in question,

then yes, this is the concern under this bill. The fairness officer has

no ability to address determination of the amount or fault

determination. There is no other venue.

To come back to the minister’s point about the CRT. I know that,

again, in terms of the significant amount of debate that we’ve had in

this House relating to the CRT jurisdiction, including in estimates —

it’s been raised by myself — there’s a significant win record for ICBC

in front of the CRT. If we look at a similar…. If we look over at

Manitoba, which I know this government looks at by way of example for

the new no-fault regime, they have the Automobile Injury Compensation

Appeal Commission. In 2019, there were 31 hearings. Of those 31, the

injured party won on only four occasions. That’s a win rate of 13

percent for accident victims.

ICBC wins 87 percent of the time, or the equivalent in Manitoba.

That’s a very similar win rate in front of the CRT currently in B.C.

More importantly, when we look at the CRT jurisdiction…. Given the

weight that this government is placing on the CRT and not giving the

ability to the fairness officer as a result, I think it’s important that

we continue to consider both the challenge constitutionally with this

jurisdiction, the potential bias that the CRT is operating under, under

ICBC jurisdiction, and thirdly, the competency.

The competency point would be this. There was a recent decision,

Devendra v. British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal ,

2021. That is a decision where the courts held that the tribunal, the

CRT, “acted with a seemingly honest, but mistaken understanding of civil

procedure and insurance legislation in concluding the plaintiff’s

liability.” Including other aspects, the tribunal failed to realize that

the plaintiff’s claim against ICBC was not based in tort. The CRT, even

recently, and by its track record, has been found to be lacking in

competency. That’s the result of this decision.

To the minister. Again, does the minister have any concerns with

the reliance on the CRT, given the questions around its

constitutionality, the bias, the competency, and not putting further

authority and jurisdiction within the fairness officer to deal with and

to give the peace of mind that the Attorney General has referred to for

British Columbians?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. Look, I’d make this point.

The civil resolution tribunals have been around since 2016. They had the

additions to their responsibilities in terms of accidents in 2019. I

have every confidence in their ability to do their job and to do their

role properly.

In terms of ICBC itself, the change on May 1 is to enhanced care.

It is about making sure that you get the care you need. It is moving

away from that adversarial tort system. That will be the culture and the

ethos of the new system that ICBC has to deal with and is

implementing.

I fully expect the civil resolution tribunals will do their job in

the way that it is intended for them to do their job — fairly and

properly. The fairness commissioner has their job to do. This new system

is going to work.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response from the minister.

There’s a lot of expectation that British Columbians have relying

on this government, in terms of the fundamental changes happening on May

1. Despite the warning signs, the challenges, the losses in the courts….

I think that there are some serious questions, of course, and concerns

as we look at how this government is implementing this no-fault regime.

We’ll see, in terms of how the fairness officer is able to provide any

peace of mind to British Columbians.

Just let me turn to that for one more run of questions here. In

terms of this new officer, we’ve talked at length in terms of the

ability of the fairness office to only look at policies and procedures,

and not on the outcome. That, in effect, is saying that when an

individual has a dispute with ICBC….

[3:10 p.m.]

I would say that when the minister gave this example of, “Well,

for the sake of argument, if someone was looking for a benefit of, say,

$500 in value, can the fairness commissioner say that should be $800?”

The answer would be no. The fairness commissioner cannot do that, or the

officer cannot do that. That is, by virtue of

section 57, the

case.

But isn’t that the nature of the dispute? Isn’t that the reason

why an individual would find that the way they’re being treated by ICBC

under this new no-fault regime is unfair? Isn’t it because of the way

that their benefit determination has come out; the way that it’s been

calculated, assessed; the process and the policies that have been

applied for that purpose? And the same thing for the fault

determination.

Aren’t these the very fundamental questions that any individual

would have with ICBC, the very fundamental disputes that they would

have? In the absence of the ability of the fairness officer to address

that, we’re left with a very challenged ability and very limited ability

for the fairness officer to actually deliver any element of fairness to

that individual. And again, the CRT was certainly a creation of the

former B.C. Liberal government for certain kinds of disputes — strata

disputes, societal-type disputes — and not for the complex nature of

minor injury claims. With the no-fault regime, it’s placing greater

burden on the CRT — a burden that’s questionable.

But we’ve just had that exchange. So to the minister, does the

minister not see that under Bill 5, British Columbians would have

greater confidence and trust in ICBC if that fairness officer actually

had the ability to not be so restrained — no decision-making power, only

policies and procedures, but nothing to do with the amount or the fault

determination? If that fairness officer was so not restrained in that

manner.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from my colleague across the way. I’ll

make the point again, because I’ve made it a number of times, and that

is: we believe that this system is the right system and the right

approach, with the fairness officer looking at policies and procedures

to ensure that individuals were treated fairly and also having the

ability, in terms of making recommendations to the board….

[3:15 p.m.]

Those recommendations are made public. That will give a

significant level of confidence to people that they are being treated

fairly and to the public that ICBC is doing what it’s supposed to be

doing. The civil resolution tribunal system works in Saskatchewan. It

works in Manitoba. It works in Quebec, and it will work here.

I’d also point out that when accident claims were added to the

civil resolution tribunal, it was done through…. I think it was Bill 22

in 2018. That passed with the unanimous support of this

House.

I understand the points that the member is making, but I would

also say this: the CRT process is a process that has been proven to

work. It will work. The fairness commissioner dealing with those

policies and dealing with those procedures, I think, is an important

step in ensuring that people have confidence that ICBC is doing the

things in the correct manner and in the correct way.

As I said, again, we are moving from that adversarial, tort-based

system. As of May 1, it becomes a care-based system. The corporation,

ICBC, has been putting in significant amount of work in ensuring that

its policies and procedures reflect that and that the training of staff

and the implementation of enhanced care is understood by everybody in

the organization.

M. Lee: I just want to make a quick comment in response. Then I believe my

colleague, the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, has an amendment that

he would like to table.

Just so we’re clear, though, in terms of the CRT jurisdiction….

This is a government, of course, that, despite assurances to brain

injury and concussion associations all over the province, after this

bill was passed extended the definition of a minor injury to include

brain injuries and concussions — extended the jurisdiction of that

definition despite the assurances by the Attorney General to those

stakeholders that that wouldn’t occur. He broke his word. He broke his

promise.

We’re talking about a CRT jurisdiction that is now being extended

under no-fault, which was not in place at the time that Bill 22 was

considered. So I would just want to note, for the record, that this has

been a moving target with this government. So for the very concerns that

we’ve been raising in this House on this bill, they’re in the context of

this bill.

With that, I’ll just turn that over to my colleague.

M. Morris: I’ve got a couple of amendments on the order paper under my name.

We’ll deal with one first, dealing under clause 2

section 55.

If the vanguard of this bill is truly transparency of the fairness

officer, and if the intent of this bill is to create an independent

overseer of ICBC fairness, what we’re suggesting under this amendment

under

section 55 is to delete subsection (3) of this particular

section.

The Chair: Just for the information of members, the amendment being

proposed is on the order paper, with the full text available there.

We’ll just take a moment for members to be able to read the proposed

amendment so that they understand what we’re discussing here,

Member. Thank you.

Just for clarity, Member for Prince George–Mackenzie, if you

could move the amendment. I’m not sure if I heard completely that it

was moved. I heard it discussed. Just for the record, if you want to

move it officially, that would help.

[3:20 p.m.]

M. Morris: Thanks for the reminder, Chair. I’d like to move the amendment

that’s under my name on the order paper for today on clause 2, dealing

with

section 55 of the bill.

SECTION 2, by deleting the text shown as struck out

and adding the underlined text as

shown:

(1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may

appoint a fairness officer.

(2) The fairness officer is to be appointed for a term of 3 years

and may be reappointed for additional 3-year terms.

(3) Subject to subsection (2), the board may, subject to the

fairness officer’s appointment, including remuneration.

(4) (3) The fairness officer may retain

staff necessary to assist the fairness officer in the carrying out of

the fairness officer’s powers and duties.

(5) (4) All necessary expenses required

for the fairness officer and the fairness officer’s staff must be paid

by the corporation in accordance with a budgeting process prescribed by

regulation.]

On the amendment.

The Chair: If the member would like to speak on the amendment further, of

course that’s appropriate. If he feels he’s said enough, that’s okay

too. Just for clarity, if the member had any more he’d like to say,

he’s welcome.

M. Morris: Thank you for that, Chair. Pretty much, we’ve discussed this at

length. We feel that if the intent of government, with respect to this

bill, is to make this a truly transparent process, then we feel that

this is a fairly significant amendment that should be considered by the

minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll make a couple of points. I mean, at initial glance, I suppose

I could make the argument that by removing the remuneration out of ICBC

and thereby moving it to the minister’s office, that would be an impost

to my office. That would not be in order.

More appropriately, at this point in our debate, I’ll just make

this comment. We believe that the method of determining the terms and

conditions, with the approval of the minister, is the right approach to

take — in particular, because of the ability for there to be a dispute

resolution, if that is the case, that involves the minister.

I think the current

section is appropriate as it stands. I would

thank my colleague for his amendment, but would respectfully, at this

point, say that I will not be in favour of the amendment and would say

that we would be voting against that amendment.

M. Lee: I just wanted to join to support the amendment proposed by the

member for Prince George–Mackenzie. I would support this amendment for

the very reasons that the minister has commented on in

response.

The concern is, of course, that there is an undue influence by the

ICBC board over the fairness officer. This amendment would at least

address part of that concern by removing the manner in which the terms

and conditions and the remuneration would be set by the board. The fact

that if there’s a dispute between the fairness officer and the board,

that the minister can intervene is secondary. That would suggest, the

way the minister has just framed it, that the minister and the

government want to have the board overseeing the remuneration and the

office.

That’s the concern, that ICBC, which is running this entire show

for no-fault, has no form of any independent review. Certainly, it’s not

by the fairness officer, despite what the minister has said relating to

transparency.

I appreciate that the minister did make some adjustments to the

bill already to ensure that the report of the fairness officer is tabled

in this House, as opposed to on a website. I appreciate that. But we’re

not just interested in transparency. We are very focused on ensuring

that there’s not undue influence by the board of ICBC on the fairness

officer. That’s the reason why I would urge other members of this House

to vote in favour of this amendment.

[3:25 p.m.]

The Chair: Seeing no further speakers on the amendment, does the mover of

the amendment have anything else he’d like to state at this point

before we go to the vote? Member for Prince George–Mackenzie? No.

All right.

Amendment negatived on division.

M. Morris: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. My audio went off here for about the last four

or five minutes here. I haven’t been able to hear anything. I sort of

missed where we are in the process.

The Chair: Okay. The proposed amendment did not pass, but it was noted on

division. Now we’re back to the amended clause 2 for further

discussion. I believe you may have another amendment you wanted to

move. Member, please proceed.

M. Morris: Yes, I do. Thank you.

Again, I move the second amendment that I have under clause 2,

regarding

section 57, with respect to the duties of the fairness

officer.

SECTION 2, by deleting the text shown as struck

out:

(1) The fairness officer may not comment on or make

recommendations respecting

(

a) an amount payable by the corporation, or

(

b) the extent, as determined by the corporation, that a person

is responsible for an accident.

(2) Section 56 does not authorize the fairness

officer to investigate a fairness complaint in respect of any of the

following:

(

a) a matter that is the subject of a proceeding or a decision

of a court or tribunal, as defined in

section 1 of the Judicial

Review and Procedure Act ;

(

b) a matter that is or was the subject of arbitration or an

arbitral award;

(

c) a prescribed matter.]

The Chair: Thank you, Members. Just again for your information, on the

order paper is the proposed amendment moved by the member for Prince

George–Mackenzie, the removal of subsection (1) under clause 2, 57.

Any discussion, Members?

We’ll just take a moment so members have a chance to assess

whether or not they want to engage in this discussion.

On the amendment.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the amendment put forward by my colleague from Prince

George–Mackenzie, but again, we would not be in favour of this

amendment. I think it would cause significant problems, not the least of

which…. It would create an overlap between the fairness officer and the

CRT, which I think has the potential to create significant

conflict.

That is not what the position of the fairness officer is there

for. We believe that the current structure of the fairness officer is

the appropriate way to go. For those reasons, we will not support the

amendment.

M. Lee: I again would support this amendment proposed by the member for

Prince George–Mackenzie for the reasons that we’ve been talking about

here at committee stage. Right now, despite the powers and duties set

out in

section 56 of the fairness officer and the public communication

by this government to British Columbians over the last year….

[3:30 p.m.]

They have advertised that the fairness officer would take care of

British Columbians, would give them peace of mind. As we’ve heard at

this committee stage, that is not the case because of this significant

restriction on the jurisdiction of the fairness officer. That’s the

reason why the member for Prince George–Mackenzie has put forward this

amendment to strike those limitations.

I would just note that what is not struck is the rest of

section

57, which does say that there is a further limitation that exists, that

remains — that the powers and duties of the fairness officer under

section 56 do not authorize the fairness officer to investigate a

fairness complaint in respect of a matter that is subject to a

proceeding of a tribunal or any other prescribed matter, sub

(c).

The government has the ability to ensure jurisdictionally if there

is a concern relating to the overlap, as the minister just stated,

between the fairness officer and the CRT, which I have challenged in

debate on this bill. The government can address that. In fact, this

section already does.

If there’s some further gap that’s not addressed in this section,

it can be done by regulation in the prescribed matter. I think that this

amendment is fully appropriate and doesn’t have the sort of challenge

that the minister is speaking to.

I would ask if the minister could address my comment on

that.

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll make the following couple of points. I think what’s important

is that difference in (1) and (2), and (2) is important because it means

the fairness commissioner does not investigate the matter that has been

brought to the civil resolution tribunal,

whereas (1) is about being

able to investigate or being able to assess and look into the complaints

around process and procedure.

It comes back to what we believe is the most appropriate function

of the fairness officer, and that is that they are not a determinator of

benefits but, rather, ensuring that proper procedure and process have

been followed. That is how we view the role, and that’s why those two

sections are the way they are. Again, by doing that, you significantly

and substantially change that role, and that’s something that we’re not

prepared to support.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response. I think we are getting now to the

so-called nub of the issue here.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

If I go back to

section 56, subsection 56(1) says: “The fairness

officer, on a fairness complaint or on the fairness officer’s own

initiative,” may investigate a decision,

an act done, a procedure — so a

decision by the corporation, with respect to a corporation process that

aggrieves a person. If you just stop there, and then you flip to

subsection 57(2) under Bill 5, the restriction is: “Well, okay. You can

do that, fairness officer. But you can’t do that where the matter is the

subject of a proceeding with a tribunal.” That’s the point that I would

expect both the minister and myself acknowledge and agree. That’s the

limitation that’s already built into this bill.

This amendment proposed by the member for Prince George–Mackenzie

does not change that at all. That still is the restriction on the way

that the powers and duties of the fairness officer can be utilized under

subsection 56(1). The concern is this. When you look at the lead-in

language to the restriction that the member for Prince George–Mackenzie

is proposing an amendment to remove, it only says this: “The fairness

officer may not comment….”

Can’t even make a comment. That is effectively silencing the

fairness officer, the very person that’s charged by this government to

ensure the fairness at ICBC. We are silencing that fairness officer.

That fairness officer cannot even make a comment. This is not necessary.

This is overkill. This restriction completely limits the fairness

officer for the reasons that the minister has given twice in response to

this proposed amendment. It’s already dealt with. It’s already dealt

with by subsection 57(2).

[3:40 p.m.]

This subsection, 57(1), needs to be removed from this bill because

it is overkill. It will silence the fairness officer in his or her

ability to address the fairness, even when we’re talking about just the

process for procedure. Of course, it goes further by saying the fairness

officer cannot make recommendations. This is not about overturning a

decision by ICBC, an assessment of amount or responsibility. This is

talking about making a comment, first, or making a recommendation to the

board.

Again, in response to the member for Prince

George–​Mackenzie, the minister had repeatedly said the fairness

officer does not have decision-making abilities. That’s the reason why

the fairness officer needs to turn to the board, who, with the defeat of

the amendment, is still under the thumb of the ICBC board.

Again, I would urge members of this House…. If they believe, as

they did in their second reading speeches, that the fairness officer

will bring fairness to ICBC, they’re wrong. Not with this bill. Not with

this current formulation. I would wholeheartedly support this amendment

and urge members of the House to do the same.

The Chair: Seeing no further…. I understand the Leader of the Third Party

wishes to speak.

Please go ahead.

S. Furstenau: I’m speaking in favour of this amendment. I’ve listened with

interest to the debate over the past several days on this. I concur with

the member just speaking about the expectation that people are going to

have with just the title that comes with this officer’s position and

role — the fairness officer. I heard the minister speak to how the

fairness officer won’t be able to speak to [audio interrupted] events

but will be able to speak to the measure of fairness of the

process.

Yet I would think that for most people, the experience of a

measure of fairness is really quantified by the outcome of that process,

by the benefits, for the support, by the remuneration that they receive

as a result of the experience that they’ve been in.

This is a time when ICBC is going to be in significant transition.

I would hope and expect that what government is wanting to achieve

through this transition time is actually a building of public trust in

this new system, a building of public expectation that this system is

going to be, as the government has made the case for and made many

promises about, more fair — that it’s going to support people

better.

However, when we are in this period of transition from one system

to another, I think we can all expect to see that there will be bumps

along the road of that transition. The expectation that people have, as

was just pointed out by the speeches from the members on the government

side, is: “Oh, it’s okay. There will be a fairness officer, so if I’m

upset with how things have turned out, I can go to the fairness

officer.” I think that people will be quite surprised to find out that

the fairness officer will look specifically and only at process and

procedure, but not even be able to comment, really, on what is the

measure of fairness for most people, which is the outcome.

This amendment provides that capacity for the fairness officer to

actually speak to what I would think the vast majority of people are

going to use to measure what they consider to be fair in this

process.

I also look to — and I spoke to this a little bit in my second

reading speech…. We have a lot of oversight bodies now in British

Columbia, looking at various government and Crown organizations, Crown

corporations. What we’ve seen…. I’ll look to the example of the

Representative for Children and Youth. I think there are over 100

reports now from that representative.

[3:45 p.m.]

Yes, there are some outcomes that come from that report. But

fundamentally, the ministry operates without the representative being

able to speak to outcomes but to the process.

We have the B.C. Utilities Commission, which was actually rebuffed

by B.C. Hydro when it presented specific questions about Site C. It took

months for B.C. Hydro to respond to their own oversight body and their

own regulator about very specific questions about the largest

infrastructure project in B.C. We had the gaming policy and enforcement

act, the oversight body for B.C. Lottery Corporation.

We are going to hear about, I’m sure, a lot of this in coming

months when we get the money-laundering inquiry, but we know that there

were some major problems happening in casinos in British Columbia. I

think that one of the challenges that I have here is that we are

layering — in a way, kind of barnacling — on top of these organizations

and Crown corporations that aren’t functioning particularly effectively,

from the evidence, in these oversight roles. But they’re not

particularly empowered.

This will be yet another agency…. The fairness officer and the

fairness officer’s office are what…. The private land forestry oversight

body — I famously heard from their president a few years ago: “We are a

dog on a short leash with a loud bark but no bite.”

We have in British Columbia, I would say, a growing problem of the

perception, based in a lot of evidence and a lot of reality, that rules

aren’t followed in this province, that there is a lack of compliance and

enforcement on a lot of fronts. I worry that if we have yet another

agent who can’t really speak to outcomes, who can’t weigh in on what

people’s experiences of fairness are as measured by the outcome, people

are going to throw their hands up and say: “Well, how does this help

me?” So I worry about the larger issue here of trust in our

institutions, of trust in the bodies that are supposed to be serving the

people in this province.

I think that this amendment provides, if we just look at it,

through this transition period…. Ideally, the outcome here is that ICBC

becomes what the government has been promising it will become, which is

committed to the safety and well-being and health and recovery of people

after they’ve experienced an accident. However, as we go through this

transition period, it does seem like it would be valuable to provide

this fairness officer with the kind of capacity to speak to the outcomes

of these processes and not just the process itself.

That is why I will be voting in favour of this

amendment.

The Chair: Are there any further speakers?

Prince George–Mackenzie, would you like to close debate, since

it’s your amendment?

M. Morris: I agree much with the comments from the Leader of the Third Party.

There’s no difference. Without these amendments, there’s no difference

between the fairness officer and the current fairness commissioner’s

position that we have here. It’s an elaborate process to go through, to

have cabinet pick the fairness officer through an order-in-council. It’s

an extremely elaborate process to put cabinet through to end up with the

same position and the same duties and responsibilities that the current

fairness commissioner has. So we will be voting in favour of this

amendment.

[3:50 p.m.]

The Chair: Members, you have received the amendment ahead of time. We’re

about to cast a vote.

Division has been called. Pursuant to the sessional order

adopted on March 1, 2021, this division will be deferred until 30

minutes prior to the end of the day.

Clause 3 approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:51 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The Committee of Supply, having reported progress, was granted leave

to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee on Bill 10, budget supply act.

I also say I’d give a ten-minute recess while staff and the

minister get here.

Mr. Speaker: The House will be in recess for ten minutes.

The House recessed from 3:53 p.m. to 4:03 p.m.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 10 — SUPPLY ACT

(N o . 1), 2021

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 10; N. Letnick in

the chair.

The committee met at 4:03 p.m.

On clause 2 (continued) .

A. Olsen: Yesterday I was asking the minister and talking about the process

and the protocols of the Legislature. I had a few conversations over the

last couple of days. I’m just wanting to ask the minister a few

questions around the discipline that needs to be demonstrated by this

House at a time when we’re asking British Columbians to follow public

health orders in a way that, certainly not in my generation and probably

for a few generations, we haven’t asked.

I’m just wondering if the minister can comment on the appearance

of a lack of discipline in this. We’ve got these processes, and they

need to change, so we just change them. I think, in the context of the

last number of months, we’re asking the people of British Columbia to be

disciplined in their actions, yet what’s coming out from here and from

the government is a very obvious lack of following the due process or

the processes that have been established and not demonstrating the

discipline that we’re expecting of British Columbians.

I just would like to hear the minister’s responses to

that.

[4:05 p.m.]

The Chair: Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, I

understand you have a point of order.

Hon. N. Simons: Mr. Speaker, there is clearly something happening in the

chamber that we’re not aware of, by the question. I would ask if the

member for Saanich North and the Islands could explain.

The Chair: I’m afraid I don’t understand your point of order. Did you get

cut off?

Hon. N. Simons: It’s very possible.

Could the Chair advise the House what is occurring right

now?

The Chair: I’d be happy to. We are in committee stage of Bill 10, clause

2. We have a question from the opposition, and the minister is now

consulting with her staff before answering it. Thank you.

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the minister clarifying what was happening here in

the House.

I think I understand the question. I may not get it…. The response

may not match the question, because I was trying to decipher it, much

like my colleague coming over Zoom. If I understand the question, the

member was asking about what the process is that we went through and

understanding what the discipline was, and has been, in order to come to

this conclusion about the supply bill.

I want to assure the member that there was a very specific process

that was used in terms of understanding that we were going to need

supply to carry us through until we could bring in this budget, the next

budget, for debate. The best estimate that had already, as someone might

characterize it, been kicked in the tires — the blue book that got

debated in this House — was a good starting place to take a look at how

we would base this supply bill.

Looking at that, taking a look at the number of months we would

need supply, to carry us through till the end of June…. Again, would

this sum meet all of the needs of ongoing programs? That was also taken

under consideration. That was how we determined what would be in the

supply bill.

A. Olsen: Thank you, Minister. The point towards discipline is along the

lines of…. It would have been, probably, better if it had been packaged

with the series of questions that I asked yesterday. Perhaps that’s part

of why there is a bit of confusion on this. I asked questions around the

process of a throne speech, then a budget, then a supply act and then

the budget estimates. That’s normally the process that is

undertaken.

[4:10 p.m.]

A government that follows that process — that follows,

necessarily, one step after another — is demonstrating a discipline that

the public service then understands; that then business leaders

understand when they’re making decisions about investments in this

province; that individuals can understand, whether they be individuals

that are relying on government services, leaders of non-profit

organizations that are requiring budgets to be in line, whether it be

school board trustees who are making decisions about their

budgets.

When I was speaking to discipline, I was speaking to the

demonstration of discipline from this House. When you have a number of

changes to that process, it then, I think, sends a message. We hazard

the situation where we could be sending a message that the discipline

that we’re asking of British Columbians, to follow a process to follow

the recommendations — which I agree with, and I’ve been very supportive

of….

They need to see that from their institutions. They need to see

that from their governing institutions. That’s what instils a level of

confidence in the public, that all those other requirements we have of

them, they’re following and they’re prepared to follow, because they see

their government leading in that.

That was the context on discipline. I’m sorry, to the Minister of

Social Development and Poverty Reduction, for confusing him. I’ll just

leave it there.

To the minister, it would have been better if it was packaged with

it. But there have been a few conversations just around this, around the

message that it’s sending.

I’m just going to switch gears here a little bit to the timeline

for estimates. My colleague from Cowichan Valley raised the number of

weeks that we’ve had debating estimates. In 2018, we counted ten weeks,

with a budget coming in on February 20. In 2019, the budget coming in on

February 19, we had nine weeks of debate. In 2020 — of course, a very

odd year — the budget coming in on February 18, we didn’t finish

debating estimates until August — early August, I think it was, or late

July. However, there were only eight weeks.

It looks like that number is going to be less again this year. I’m

just wondering if the minister can outline for us, on the record, when

estimates is going to start, when it’s going to end and the amount of

time that the minister expects for us to be debating the estimates,

which is the next stage after a budget comes in.

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, I want to just provide comment on my friend across

the way, who was talking about discipline and orderly fashion and

traditionally what happens and how that creates a frame for others. I

completely agree with the member. However, the pandemic has created a

rather untidy experience for all of us. As a result, it’s certainly

created some challenges to put together in an orderly fashion, as the

member describes.

If I’d had my druthers, there wouldn’t have been a pandemic, and

things would have proceeded as normal. However, given that, given how

much the pandemic has turned things upside down, I want to say how

impressed I am at how well we have been collectively able to right

ourselves in a time when it’s been very difficult to keep things

right.

[4:15 p.m.]

While I know it’s frustrating and unusual, the fact that we’re

able to get as much done as we are able to do I think speaks to our

collective tenacity and our commitment to right this ship as it gets

pushed around.

The member then asked some queries about the budget coming April

20, wanting to get some clarity about estimates debates and what’s been

allocated for that. Typically, it is the House Leaders that have a

conversation that determines how much time is going to be allocated for

each of the ministry estimates. I don’t know if the member is the House

Leader, but I know that that’s a conversation that is going to be

happening, I imagine, over the break weeks — or not. I’d have to check

with House Leaders about when they have those conversations.

They know what’s coming. They know the dates. It’s really up to

them to make those determinations around how much time is going to be

allocated. I do remember, from my time in opposition, the negotiations

that happen around how much time. I can only imagine what it’s like for

a Third Party around how to negotiate that. I have confidence that the

House Leaders will do what they need to do to make sure that there is

robust opportunity for that discussion on estimates.

A. Olsen: It seems to me that with the budget coming in…. I recognize that

this was a debate that happened earlier in this session with another

bill. However, I think the point does need to be highlighted that with

the budget coming in on April 20, the budget estimates aren’t likely to

start until, let’s just say, right away in May. Even if it’s right away

in May, after that normal process of the first week or so, it looks like

we’re only going to have a matter of five or six weeks to be able to do

budget estimates in this.

We’ve got this situation right now where we’ve got…. The process

of bringing this budget in has been slightly disjointed, or it’s a

different process. Then we’ve got a scenario where we’ve got another

week off in May and then four weeks, so it’s about six weeks. If that’s

all we do…. I’m sure that there’s going to be other legislation. I’m

thinking that there’s other legislation coming in. We have a situation

where we’ve got ten weeks in 2018, nine weeks in 2019, eight weeks in

2020 and six or seven weeks of budget estimates debate in 2021. As well,

we are supposed to be putting these two processes together.

Does the Finance Minister see, in the future, an opportunity for

us to return back to a scenario where we’re not rushing through a

budget? The real challenge that this has on an opposition party is that

we’re not negotiating with the government for space in budget estimates.

We’re negotiating with our colleagues in the official opposition for

that space. If the official opposition doesn’t have a lot of space to do

it, then…. They’ve got questions that they’re asking as well.

This government has manufactured a situation where we are now

rushing through a budget estimates process that in previous years,

rightly took many more weeks than we’re going to have in 2021. That very

same pandemic that you raised has us spending an enormous amount of

money on behalf of British Columbians to support them through this. At

the same time, we have less weeks to debate this, the budget estimates

piece.

Are we seeing a situation where budget estimates are being pushed

into a smaller period of time every year and that we’re not going to

have the ability to actually get into that and have enough time, in

light of the fact that there’s going to be a bunch of other stuff going

on — committees as well as debate for other bills, potentially, all

within about six weeks, with a break week in the middle of

it?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I think it’s important, when you take a look…. I don’t doubt the

member’s tallying of number of weeks. But there is another formula, I

believe, that is probably more accurate in terms of reflecting amount of

time for debating estimates, given that we can have one, two or three

Houses running at the same time. So it’s not an accurate reflection. The

number of weeks is not the accurate reflection on the amount of time

that is given to budget estimates. You can run two or three

Houses.

I know that it would be very hard for the Third Party, given their

numbers. But in my experience in this place, I reflect back to…. I

believe it was 2013. I believe we were here in July, and we had four

weeks to do budget estimates in that election year. If I recall, there

were three Houses. One of them was really small and really hot, if I

recall, because it was July. I think there are ways that we try to do

our due diligence and do debate, but the number of weeks doesn’t

actually reflect the number of hours that are available for

debate.

Again, it’s really up to the House Leaders to negotiate the number

of Houses that are going to be running and the amount of time that is

going to be devoted to estimates. I take the member’s comments seriously

around the importance of doing that. I’m sure the House Leaders will

have the opportunity to sort out exactly how to do it, given the time

that has been designated for us to be sitting.

The member’s always welcome to encourage House Leaders to sit well

into July, if the member is so inclined. But I do suspect that there

might be more than one House, for example, running in order to do

justice to the budget.

A. Olsen: Well, I don’t mind sitting for as long as it takes for us to be

able to go through this process. That’s why we got elected. That’s the

job that we’ve been given. I mean, it’s not ideal. My kids are going to

be less than thrilled with that. However, I think it’s important for us

to take the time that’s necessary.

I’ll just leave it at this. I think what needs to be acknowledged

in this debate is that the further we pushed the budget — the bill that

happened back in December — the further we pushed it into this year, the

framing which is happening with this bill here…. We are now in a

situation where we are scrambling to do work that we should be doing in

a thoughtful way, with the amount of time necessary to be able do

it.

Not just on the Third Party. I care less about what the impacts

are on the Third Party. That’s our business. I care about the operation

of this Legislature, the ability of our legislative staff to be able to

administrate it and for us to be able to ask the questions. That was the

spirit of my response.

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s query, but I want to assure him that we

are committed to making sure that there is sufficient time to ask the

questions. It is the job of the opposition to ask questions of

government, to make sure that British Columbians are getting value for

money, that their needs are being met.

I have every confidence that the House leaders will do their job,

which is to negotiate with each other to make sure that there is

opportunity for everyone to get their questions asked and answered. When

I was in opposition, I do recall having lots of opportunity to ask and

running around this place to make sure that I got to the right room at

the right time to ask my questions. I expect that that tradition will

continue as the House Leaders do their negotiations.

M. Bernier: Thanks to my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands, as

well, for his thoughtful questions on this, as we’re trying to really

understand and really highlight, I guess — not only to the minister, but

to government — some of the fundamental flaws that we find with this

bill.

[4:25 p.m.]

Government, again…. I know the minister doesn’t like to hear the

phrase “blank cheque,” but without actually having an updated fiscal

plan, an updated quarterly report so we know where government’s finances

are, without having an actual ’21-22 budget in front of us, to be able

to do the exact things that my colleague said — where we can actually

start scrutinizing line by line, where we can ask the questions of the

ministers, where we can look for the detail of where the money is being

spent….

That is where we see the fundamental breakdown that’s in front of

us, the issues and the challenges that government has created

themselves. Now we have this bill in front of us, with

section 2 asking

for just over $12 billion with a “trust us.”

The minister, I know, has spoken — I would say, somewhat at length

— on the fact that they’re referencing last year’s budget, last year’s

2021 fiscal plan, the one that we talked about yesterday that is 13

months old. I listened yesterday with great interest to the questions

from my colleagues, to the answers from the minister around how they are

saying they’re transparent and wanting three months worth of funding

with, basically, a “trust us.”

I did ask the minister yesterday, as well, around other

opportunities, about other ways to really look at this and see if there

are other ways to look at bridge funding, which, at the time, she didn’t

want to address. Now let me just say that a big part, the main part, of

presenting a budget in this House, as we’ve talked about, is to really

know what the plan is for the next 12 month, to know what the fiscal

situation of the province is.

How much debt is going to be incurred? What are the revenues

compared to the expenses? How large is the deficit going to be? We

already know that under this government, we have a massive hole — a huge

hole, a huge deficit. A lot of it…. I will give credit to everyone in

this House, because we all voted in favour of some of that borrowing,

some of that spending, because of the unique situation we’re in during

this time of COVID.

I do think it’s also incumbent on us to really highlight the fact

that three months, $12.3 billion — with very little transparency, with

very little accountability around that — is problematic. I listened to

the minister’s answers yesterday and she was unable to convince me that

all will be fine. “Trust me. Just look at last year’s budget.” I didn’t

get clear answers around COVID, COVID spending or what programs might be

coming up in the next three months.

With that, I’m going to start the session off today with my

opportunity to put an amendment forward. I will read this. I have made

copies here, and I know the process. We’ll have to wait a few minutes

because of the situation to ensure everybody sees this.

I move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill 10, intituled Supply Act

(No. 1), 2021, to amend as follows:

SECTION 2, by deleting the text shown as struck out and

adding the underlined text as shown:

2 From and out of the consolidated revenue

fund there may be paid and applied in the manner and at the times the

government may determine the sum of $12 305 108 000

4,768,369,333 towards defraying the charges and expenses of the

public service of the Province for the fiscal year ending March 31,

2022 . , and being substantially 1/12 of the total

amount of the votes of the main Estimates for the fiscal year and

the supplementary Estimates for the previous fiscal

year. ]

I’ll explain the reasoning and rationale of putting this amendment

forward when I have the opportunity.

[4:30 p.m.]

The Chair: Thank you, Member.

We’ll circulate the amendment to everyone in the House and

also to all those participating remotely. We’ll take a moment for

that.

The Committee of the Whole will go into recess for five

minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:31 p.m. to 4:35 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: We have a proposed amendment on the floor.

The member for Peace River South, to speak to his

amendment.

On the amendment.

M. Bernier: Thank you, Chair, and welcome to the chair, for the next little

while at least.

I just want to not take a lot of time but kind of highlight the

amendment that I’ve put forward, the rationale to it. Yesterday we asked

some very specific questions around government needing three months’

worth of interim supply, when the minister herself said that, not to

worry, we’re going to see a budget on April 20, which is only three,

four weeks away. Now, I’m trying to do my due diligence on behalf of all

of my colleagues and the people in the province here to recognize the

situation that we’re in, in the province and meet the minister

halfway.

The minister and government want three months, referencing a

13-month-old budget, as we have acknowledged, and the minister has said

that. It’s all on the record, and we accept that that’s the case. But

the process has always been, as we’ve also said, that a supply act for

interim supply will come in after a budget, referencing that budget, so

we get to see the priorities of this government, where they’re spending

it. We can go through an estimates process, and we can actually debate.

We can actually discuss those priorities. Yes, sometimes we’ll have

similarities; sometimes we’ll differ on opinion. But we get that

opportunity, at least, in this House.

The amendment I’ve put forward meets, in our opinion, all the

issues that government needs. This will allow government to keep the

lights on, as the minister, I believe, has said and make sure everybody

continues to get paid, which I acknowledged yesterday would’ve happened

anyway. That being said, we want to ensure that the people of British

Columbia understand that while we’re waiting for this delayed budget, we

also don’t want to see people put in any further stress or hardship for

any reason.

The funds that I put forward here, the just over $4.7 billion, are

not only 1/12 of last year’s estimates — the minister herself said

that’s what we’re referencing — but I also allowed in here additional

money as a percentage of the additional $8 billion that this House

passed to ensure that for the next month, before we see the next budget

and have an opportunity to get into debates on it, any COVID

announcements that we have jointly approved in this House can continue

to be funded.

There’s been no argument that those need to be funded. There’s

been argument that it’s been taking too long. There’s been debate on

criteria. But there’s been no debate at all about the fact that people

in this province need help. They need assistance from government, and

the amendment I put forward will bridge this government to be able to

fulfil all of those announcements they’ve made.

It also allows the minister to present her new budget on April 20.

It also allows the public, any stakeholders that might be out there that

are interested, school districts, municipalities, people that are

wondering what will be in the budget that will be affecting them…. And

it will allow opposition an opportunity to see that budget, to bring us

back to a situation like we’ve always had in the past, where a budget is

tabled and this House is given the opportunity to scrutinize it, which

is, in essence, one of the fundamental parts of the Budget Transparency

and Accountability Act.

[4:40 p.m.]

I implore — I ask — the minister to seriously consider this,

because I really think this is about working together. This amendment is

about trying to understand the situation that government is in but also

allowing everybody else the opportunity to bring forward their questions

with a presented budget in this House.

Again, I hear from the minister and the government constantly that

they’re looking for opportunities to be able to work together — all

three sides of the House. I believe this amendment does just that and

hope the government will consider it.

Hon. S. Robinson: First off, the member, before he introduced this amendment to the

bill, started off incorrectly saying that the budget is…. I believe he

said the budget is late. It’s actually not late. The legislation says

you have till April 30. It’s coming in on April 20. It’s ten days early.

So it’s not coming in on April 30; it’s coming in on April

The other thing is that the member suggests the government hasn’t

been communicating how spending has been proceeding through COVID.

That’s completely inaccurate. We have continued to report out on

government finances throughout this pandemic, always within legislated

time frames and even when it’s not a legislated requirement.

Last March we released our COVID-19 action plan. That was less

than a week after B.C. declared a state of emergency because of the

pandemic. We wanted to make sure that people and businesses could get

help immediately. That’s about being transparent. That’s about

presenting to the public what we’re doing to help them. On July 14, we

released an economic and fiscal update so that we could provide a

summary of COVID-19 spending and other measures to that point, along

with three economic and fiscal scenarios for B.C., given the uncertainty

of the time.

Again, the opposition had access to that information. The public

had access to that information. We made sure that British Columbians

knew how their government was making decisions to support them. Now,

this report was not required by law. But we knew that it was important

that people got an update, that they got a status update about how

things were going fiscally here in the province in response to the

pandemic.

[4:45 p.m.]

Then we released and reported out on public accounts on August 31,

another accountability measure. That detailed government’s 2019-20

audited results, and that’s a critical part of transparency and

accountability. So yet again, here we were, three times since the

pandemic — government reporting out to the public about how we were

doing financially.

Then not much later than that, we released our first quarterly

report. That was on September 9. Again, the legislated time frame, the

deadline, was September 15. Again, we reported out early because it is

important to keep British Columbians updated. Again, in that first

quarterly report, we provided extensive details on the pandemic measures

announced to date.

Then again, after Q1, we released the economic recovery plan with

Stronger B.C. so that people would know that we were continuing to

support them. We’re supporting businesses, supporting communities

through the pandemic toward an economic recovery.

Then in December, we released the Fall 2020 Economic and

Fiscal Update . It detailed over $10 billion in COVID-19

response and recovery measures that are supporting people, businesses

and communities. Again, that’s part of being transparent.

For the member opposite to suggest that government hasn’t been

telling British Columbians about how money is being spent to support

them is not an accurate statement. We have done not just what’s

legislated but beyond what’s legislated, because we know how important

it is to people.

With that, I’ve had a chance to look at the proposed amendment.

The proposed amendment, the member says, sort of gives us a month and

then, you know, off we go to the races. But what the member needs to

appreciate is that the money that we’re asking for in the bill without

amendment is about money that is needed to carry us through till we pass

the next budget. It’s going to be some time before that gets passed. We

just heard how important it was to have the debate on those estimates,

so there’s no way that we can support this amendment.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the member for tabling the amendment, and thank you

to the Finance Minister for her response.

What’s important to acknowledge, in the context of the minister’s

response…. I think what this amendment does in seeing it be the 1/12 to

cover…. We heard so much in second reading from members of government

that all we needed was to bide the time in the delay. A mere three to

four weeks, just four to three or five weeks — it’s a very short period

of time. We heard that over and over and over again.

I think what this amendment does…. I’d be very interested to hear

the minister’s response, because the context of the comments that I’ve

been making throughout this debate are very much in line with that

process, which was: put a throne speech, put a budget, put a supply

bill, do the estimates, pass the budget.

The opportunity that’s in front of the minister now is to respond

to all of the comments that were made by members of the government, to

look for a patch to take us through these three or four weeks and then

start the process that I’ve been talking about through the committee

stage of this, as we normally do.

Put a throne speech on the table. Bring your budget and put it on

the table. Then bring a supply bill. I mean, I think what needs to be

recognized here is that there will be a prorogation, it appears, and a

throne speech coming, where we start fresh.

Let’s start fresh when we get back. Let’s kick-start the process

that we’ve always had, albeit a few months later. We can do that

process. We can get down to passing a supply bill that actually is part

of the budget that we’re talking about. I’d like to hear the minister’s

response to that, if it’s possible.

[4:50 p.m.]

The way I see it is that this is an opportunity to achieve what

the members of the government side were talking about in many of their

speeches, as well as reflect, I think, the desire of us, the concerns

that I’ve been raising, to get back to the process as we’ve normally

experienced it.

The Chair: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson wants to speak on this

proposed amendment.

P. Milobar: I will be brief. I just wanted to rise and speak to the amendment.

The minister expressed concerns that our amendment, which provides for

one month plus any COVID program support funding, would not be adequate,

as the budget that has been delayed from mid-February to April 20 would

not then have enough money apportioned out after April 30.

I want to assure the minister, as the official opposition House

Leader, that the intention would be that there would be a regular supply

bill that would come with the budget, as normal, and that this side of

the House would guarantee that that would be a typical ten-minute debate

for a supply bill, as the minister has referenced before.

There could be a supply bill in place to supplement the spending

as we go through the regular estimates process, moving forward. This

amendment is trying to recognize that the government has moved the

implementation of a budget by two months — highly unusual, but this

supply bill is highly unusual in the absence of a budget.

Trying to create the ability for government to still operate fully

and still provide the full COVID support programs that are out there for

the month of April would enable the minister, between April 20 and April

30, to table a supply bill attached to the budget presented. We would

make sure that that passed very quickly so that there would be no doubt

that in fact supply would continue on as we went into regular estimates,

albeit everything is two to 2½ months later than a normal

year.

The Chair: I don’t see any further speakers, but I understand that the

Finance Minister wanted to respond. Then of course the mover of the

amendment gets the right to wrap things up.

Hon. S. Robinson: I was listening to comme