Second Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, October 7, 2021

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 105

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

Tributes

Frank Mitchell

Hon. M. Dean

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 12 — Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2021

Hon. M. Farnworth

M. Morris

M. Lee

Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right)

Hon. D. Eby

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 12 — Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act,

M. Lee

Hon. M. Farnworth

M. Morris

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2021

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 17 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2021

Hon. G. Heyman

P. Milobar

E. Ross

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2021

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

Hon. N. Simons

K. Paddon

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2021

The House met at 1:03 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Dean: It’s an absolute honour for me today to rise in this House to make a

couple of important introductions. Behind me, we have the former MLA Moe

Sihota. He actually became president of the Young New Democrats in 1978, and

he was the campaign manager for MLA Frank Mitchell, his

predecessor.

In 1984, he was elected as an alderman for Esquimalt, and in ’86, he

ran as the NDP candidate in the riding of Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, replacing

the retiring Frank Mitchell. He held the seat and became the first

Indo-Canadian to be elected to any federal or provincial riding.

In 1991, he won re-election in the new riding of Esquimalt-Metchosin

and was appointed the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services, as well as

Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs — becoming the first

Indian-Canadian cabinet minister in a province of Canada. He continued to

serve in several cabinet posts under the Harcourt New Democrat government,

as well as under the subsequent governments of Glen Clark and Dan

Miller.

I am also very honoured to be joined by former MLA Maurine Karagianis.

She was elected as a municipal councillor in Esquimalt in 1996 and

re-elected again in 1999 and again in 2002. She was first elected to the

Legislature in the 2005 election to the constituency of Esquimalt-Metchosin

and was re-elected in 2009 to the new constituency of Esquimalt–Royal Roads

and again in 2013.

In her career, she has been opposition critic for MCFD, Transportation

and the Ministry of Small Businesses and Revenue. In 2014, Maurine was

elected as official opposition caucus Whip and served in that position until

her retirement.

[1:05 p.m.]

Would the House please make our very esteemed guests very

welcome.

Tributes

FRANK MITCHELL

Hon. M. Dean: Our special guests are here today to show their respect and honour

for the legacy, as I’m saddened to inform the House, of the passing of

former MLA Frank Mitchell.

In 1951, at only 25 years old, Mr. Mitchell was elected as a CCF

member of the Legislature for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. He was re-elected

in 1952 and defeated in the 1953 provincial election. Never to give up,

he was re-elected to this House in 1979 and again in 1983.

Until his death, Mr. Mitchell was the last surviving member of a

CCF caucus. A soft-spoken gentle giant of a man and a former police

officer, Frank, together with his late wife Kay Mitchell, built a

political machine in Esquimalt that was the envy of the NDP. In fact,

Frank and Kay first met at a CCF youth meeting, and after six years of

courting, Frank finally mustered the courage to propose to Kay on

Christmas Eve while on a rowboat ride off Saxe Point in

Esquimalt.

For the full duration of their 68-year marriage, politics was a

joint effort. Kay was the principal and architect of a political army

large enough to knock three times on each door from Esquimalt to Port

Renfrew in election campaigns from the 1960s to the turn of the century.

That political foundation helped elect not only Frank but former Premier

Dave Barrett, former Esquimalt MLAs Moe Sihota and Maurine Karagianis,

as well as myself and our current Premier.

Frank and Kay built their political dynasty on the notion that if

you looked after people, they would look after you. Frank was known for

his commitment to strong constituency service. Folks in the constituency

knew that they could count on Frank to go to bat for them.

Frank was a great believer in the adage that all politics is

local. He focused on getting results for his riding. He helped local

shipbuilders by saving the graving dock at CFB Esquimalt. Whether it be

the Veterans Memorial Parkway, the highway to Sooke, seniors housing in

Langford or Lampson Street School, his fingerprints can be seen

throughout the Esquimalt–Port Renfrew corridor.

After the 1983 provincial election, Mr. Mitchell approached Mr.

Sihota to consider seeking the NDP nomination. It was because of his

encouragement that Mr. Sihota became elected.

Frank and Kay are survived by their two daughters.

Excuse me for just a moment. I ask for a recess. Thank

you.

Mr. Speaker: The House will be in recess for a few minutes.

The House recessed from 1:07 p.m. to 1:09 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. M. Dean: Frank and Kay are survived by their two daughters, Erin and

Maureen. He is survived by his grandchildren and beloved sons-in-law,

Cris and Glen, and many friends. The family has asked that I make

special mention of their friendship with Bob and Heather Phillips, from

Otter Point.

This province has been built through the courage, vision and

leadership of every member that has had the privilege to take a seat in

this chamber. I would like to take a moment to thank Frank, Kay and the

Mitchell family for their enduring commitment to the cause of social

justice, fairness and equality. Thank you.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage, Bill 12, Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment

Act.

[1:10 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 12 — INSURANCE (VEHICLE)

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 12; N. Letnick in

the chair.

The committee met at 1:12 p.m.

On clause 1.

The Chair: Would you like to introduce your staff, to start?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you, hon. Chair.

I’m joined by Nina Bindra and Anne Foy, both very capable, to

assist. I look forward to the discussion.

M. Morris: This question pertains to this clause and all the subsequent

clauses in this particular bill. Can the minister confirm that this bill

conforms with

section 3 of the Declaration Act, and what steps were

taken to consult with First Nations across the province?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This particular bill is composed of amendments. The original bill,

which these amendments amend, was consulted on with First

Nations.

In this particular case, it’s been determined that these

amendments are not expected to affect Indigenous people any differently

than other members of society. So

article 19 is not unrelated, nor are

there any other related articles. The bill that you see here before you

today is the bill you see here before you. It’s not impacted by

article

3, which you were just referring to.

M. Morris: How many First Nations communities operate in rural parts of the

province, without the same access to medical facilities, to the

resources that a lot of people need to help them navigate through the

various systems here?

[1:15 p.m.]

I’m just wondering if there has been any consultation with First

Nations to identify any deficiencies in this particular bill, even

though it amends the existing act, to see whether there were any

questions that they might have had with the contents of this

bill.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The original Bill 11 — there were consultations around that, and

there were no concerns raised about that bill. These amendments just

clarify certain sections of that legislation.

M. Morris: We’ll be getting into the meat and potatoes of some of the

contents of this bill, which are unique. They do address some other

concerns here. I’ll leave that for now but will probably touch on this

later on in the discussion.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

M. Morris: I will be deferring to my colleague from Vancouver shortly

here.

One of the questions I ask with respect to clause 2, under

14.1(2): have there been any agreements entered into by ICBC with the

government on any issues that relate to this no-fault insurance

bill?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There is one pre-existing agreement that has been modified over

time, first in 1988 and then in 1994. But there are no other agreements

under this section.

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

George–Mackenzie’s line of questioning. When I look at, in clause 2, the

definition of agreement…. Of course, this whole provision takes us back

to 1973, and 1973, of course, is the genesis of ICBC, the whole

formation, under that previous NDP government, of ICBC

itself.

So the fact that this whole provision takes this whole Legislative

Assembly back, what, 48 years, almost half a century, to the beginning

of ICBC…. I would just like to ask: what was the arrangement back in

1973 that this provision is changing now?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s not changing anything.

M. Lee: Okay. In terms of what the arrangement was…. As I determined, you

have an agreement in 1988, which is referred to in the definition. What

was the purpose of the 1988 agreement?

[1:20 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: The agreement set out the terms on which ICBC reimburses the

province for costs of certain health-related services incurred by the

province as a result of vehicle accidents.

M. Lee: Did that understanding and agreement exist between 1973 and

1988?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There may have been informal agreements. I don’t know. In 1973, I

was 14. What I’m telling you is that it was formalized, though…. A

formalized agreement was started in 1988 and then subsequently updated

again in 1994. That’s the earliest information that we have.

M. Lee: I understand, Mr. Chair, the response of the minister. To clarify,

then, what’s the purpose of referring the retroactive nature of this

provision back to 1973?

Hon. M. Farnworth: What this provision does is validate everything…. As I said, the

earliest agreements are from 1988. As I also said, there may have been

informal arrangements before 1988, from 1973 to ’88. This

section

validates 1988 and subsequent, but it also validates pre-1988 as well,

going back to 1973.

M. Lee: There was a briefing arranged after the member for Prince

George–Mackenzie spoke to this amendment bill on second reading. It

would have been helpful to have it before we went to second

reading.

In any event, on the briefing that we had — when asked the

question, “What is the value of the payments under this arrangement?” —

this government is telling us: “Well, we’re not clear. We’re not clear

what happened between 1973 and 1988. We’re not sure whether there was an

agreement or an understanding. It was informal; it wasn’t

written.”

Certainly, that’s the point of this, though. You’re asking this

Legislative Assembly to take this all the way back 48 years to 1973, and

this government can’t stand here in this chamber to tell us what the

arrangement was. There’s a real lack of clarity here in terms of what

this government is presenting. The dollar figure that was raised on that

briefing — which I’d like the minister to confirm — is that the

estimated value of the transfers is $34 million a year. Is that

correct?

[1:25 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, we’re probably looking at about $34 million. That number is

probably correct.

I also want to make this point. This legislation was tabled on

June 16. If the member wishes to make a comment about briefings, the

legislation was tabled in the House on June 16. So he has had plenty of

time to request or ask for a briefing. I just want to put that on the

record.

M. Lee: I appreciate that we had the briefing before we got to this

committee stage, but obviously, there are more questions to be answered

and addressed.

So $34 million times 48 is $1.632 billion. Do we know what the

amount was that was paid out under this transfer arrangement between

1973 and 1988? Does this government have an understanding as to how much

occurred in that period? Is it safe to assume, in the absence of

clarity, that it was $34 million between 1973 and 1988? Is that

correct?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Well, the $34 million is current. That’s what we estimate that is

paid. But if you want to go back to 1988, 1973, then the member, instead

of just saying 48 years times 34, should understand that there has

been…. It’s called inflation since that time, and the amounts paid back

then would have been significantly lower, also varying from year to year

based on the accident rate.

You asked about the $34 million. That is the approximate, at this

point. But back then, obviously, the value of a dollar was…. Inflation

was significantly…. The value of a dollar over time has inflated, so the

costs would be — have been — significantly lower than they are right

now, in straight dollar terms.

M. Lee: I appreciate the clarification. What is the estimated value of the

total amount paid under this arrangement since 1973 to 2021?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I would be happy to get the best available numbers for the

member.

M. Lee: Has there been any previous consideration of this arrangement

between 1973 and 1988, in terms of documenting the arrangement by way of

an agreement?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We’re not aware of any formal agreements. As I said earlier, what

our understanding is, is that the 1988 agreement formalized whatever

arrangements were in place at that time.

M. Lee: For 15 years, ICBC operated under having been formulated by the

NDP back in 1973, and there was no operative document that documented

the arrangement. There was a complete lack of transparency, then, not

only to this Legislative Assembly….

What we’re hearing from the government today — apart from “this is

a generation ago;” I appreciate that — is there was no formal agreement

between the Ministry of Health…. The parties to the 1980 agreement are

stated to be the government of British Columbia, the Medical Services

Commission and the B.C. Medical Association. That, at least, was in the

amendment agreement in 1993.

[1:30 p.m.]

If we look at the agreement on its face, back in 1988, it was

between the Minister of Health and the Insurance Corp. of B.C. So at the

time, for 15 years, there was this arrangement that was put in place.

What was the basis, back in 1973, for this arrangement, then?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think what’s important to remember is that the amendments before

us are to make it very clear that the payments that were made were, in

fact, legal and done in the right way. ICBC has the authority to enter

into agreements.

The member is asking questions about 1973, ’88. He’s going all

NDP. I’d remind the member that the codifying of the agreements took

place in ’88, took place under the Social Credit, subsequently updated

in 1994, during the term of the B.C. NDP. It has been in place since

that time under Social Credit from 1988 through to 1991, under the NDP

through 1996, under the B.C. Liberals through 2001 to 2013. The

agreements, the amendments, are designed to ensure that the payments

that took place under governments of every single stripe are validated

from 1973 to the present day.

M. Lee: Hence the reason why I’m going back to 1973. That’s what we’re

being asked to review here in this House. The starting date of this

wholly unusual retroactive nature, to go back 48 years…. It started

under the NDP government. ICBC is their creation. This arrangement is

their creation. I’m trying to understand: what was the basis of that

arrangement?

I hear the minister say to me that that arrangement may or may not

have existed. It may or may not have happened. We’re not really sure.

Where did it start, then? Why are we going back to 1973?

Clearly, in 1988, there was a decision that there needed to be a

way to document the arrangement. I’m just trying to trace back to the

origin to understand the nature of this arrangement in the first place.

We’re being asked in this House to confirm an arrangement that was first

entered into, as far as I can determine…. On the face of the

presentation of the legislation we’re being asked to vote on in this

House, it’s 1973. It’s not 1988. This minister can talk about subsequent

governments, but this started in 1973. Again, what is the basis of the

arrangement that we’re being asked to approve that started in

1973?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This is about health payments made to people, motor vehicle

accidents, and ensuring, without any doubt, against anyone who may

decide that they wanted to litigate, that those payments were made

lawfully, which they were. These amendments explicitly ensure that that

has taken place. That’s what it’s about.

[1:35 p.m.]

Now, I understand the member wants to go back to 1973. In 1973,

ICBC was created, and it’s served this province well for 48 years to

date, despite efforts sometimes by others who wanted to get rid of

it.

That being said, it’s here, and we are ensuring that there’s no

doubt that those payments, with these amendments, were lawfully made.

The procedures — whether from ’88, when they were formally codified, and

updated in 1994 — have been in place for all that time and are perfectly

legitimate and legal. That’s what this is about.

M. Lee: At any time, has this Legislative Assembly been informed of this

arrangement?

Hon. M. Farnworth: In fact, yes, they were, hon. Member. In fact, the contents of the

1988 agreement, including its 1994 modification, were disclosed publicly

— for example, in 1995, in Hansard .

M. Lee: In the arrangement in 1988, were there any changes in that

agreement that were different from what the arrangement was that ICBC

was operating under between 1973 and 1988?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We’re not aware of any differences.

M. Lee: Can the minister summarize for this House the differences between,

and the purpose for, the 1994 agreement versus 1988?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Prior to 1994, ICBC only reimbursed for costs of injuries caused

by ICBC insureds. In 1994, ICBC also started reimbursing for costs of

injuries sustained by ICBC insureds, regardless of who or what caused

them.

M. Lee: In response to a question I had a few questions ago, the minister

talked about the transition of successive governments in this House. Of

course, as I’ve said from the outset, this arrangement is an NDP

creation in the first place. It was documented, as it turns out, for the

first time in 1988. I didn’t hear, though….

Let me just rewind the tape here. Was the agreement of 1988 also

tabled in this House, and was the Legislative Assembly aware of that

agreement?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’m not aware of the ’88 agreement being tabled in the

House.

M. Lee: So for 21 years, this Legislative Assembly wasn’t aware of this

arrangement that was transferring dollars back from ICBC to the Ministry

of Health. We have a verbal agreement, some understanding between 1973

that the NDP created, for 15 years. Then they entered into an agreement

that documented the arrangement, and that wasn’t even brought to this

House.

[1:40 p.m.]

Then you fast-forward to 1994. That’s when the NDP government came

back. They expanded the scope of the arrangement. They made it so that

regardless of whether you’re at fault, your benefits effectively would

be lowered because your physician costs would be paid back to the

Ministry of Health.

Again, to the minister, what was the basis and the purpose of

expanding the scope of this arrangement under that 1994

agreement?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The 1994 agreement, again, expanded on the concept, which is good

public policy, that those who cause the accidents and those who are

responsible for the injuries should in fact bear more of the costs. At

the same time, it also expanded the range of costs that would be

reimbursed and that were eligible for reimbursement. That’s why the

changes were made or the update was made at that point in

time.

M. Lee: To be clear, we’re talking about expanding the amount of payments

that would be made both for those who are not at fault — this is back in

1984, and the NDP were already talking about no-fault — but at the

prejudice of the claimants, because it would reduce the amount of

payment that they would receive for their

part 7 benefits. They have to

pay out, off the top, the physician fees, which in today’s dollars could

amount to about $33,000 to $35,000 out of maybe $150,000 before this

government increased it to $300,000.

The point is that when you look at the history of what we’re being

presented — an unwritten agreement between 1973 and 1988, unclear about

whether it was operating or not and unclear about what was being

transferred or not — this Legislative Assembly has had only two

opportunities, as far as I can see, to consider this matter. The second

one is today.

[1:45 p.m.]

The first one was in 1995, under an NDP government — an NDP

government that was looking at an agreement that was expanding the scope

of this arrangement — this arrangement that had, between 1973 and 1988,

been unwritten. It was written in 1988 but was not brought to this

Legislative Assembly.

The only time that this Legislative Assembly has looked at this

arrangement is twice — both times under the NDP. Coincidently, they were

the ones who started it. I think it’s very material to be talking about

what happened in 1973. The government doesn’t seem to have all the

answers here. We’re operating under a guise of some lack of clarity, to

say the least.

When the government brought forward that agreement to the

Legislative Assembly, what was the nature of the approval, if

any?

Hon. M. Farnworth: ICBC is authorized to enter into agreements. There was no

requirement for the Legislature to approve or to legislate an update to

the agreement. And I’d just like to point out that the member seems now

to have a problem with this. He’s going: “Oh, it’s the NDP in ’73 and

only ever been discussed twice — once in 1995 — by the NDP and the other

now by the NDP.” That’s fair enough.

He seems to have a real problem with that. I really have to ask

the question: what was he doing for 16 years when he sat on this side of

the House? Was it a problem then? Were the issues that we’re dealing

with, the policy that’s in place — was it a problem then, for the 16

years you sat on this side? Was it a problem for Social Credit when they

sat on this side? Clearly not.

The point is this. This legislation is about ensuring that

payments that are made under a policy that was in place through

successive governments…. It’s that absolute clarity that they were made

in a valid way. That’s what’s happening.

M. Lee: The minister, with a smattering of applause, can talk about what

it’s been like to be in this House. He’s been in this House a lot longer

than I have, of course. But let me just say this. We’re talking about an

arrangement again that was created by the NDP, that was changed in 1995,

finally documented and now is being legalized 48 years later in a

retroactive nature going all the way back to 1973.

As far as I can see, this Legislative Assembly…. It’s only been

brought to the attention of the Legislative Assembly maybe incidentally

in 1995. It wasn’t an approval, as the minister just said, but now we’re

being asked to approve this arrangement — this arrangement which started

under the NDP in 1973. Why now?

Hon. M. Farnworth: As I said, there is the potential of a class action lawsuit, and

we want to make sure that we’re protecting the interests of British

Columbians on the method of payments that were made under successive

governments, regardless of political stripe.

[1:50 p.m.]

Yes, I have been in the House a long time. As I pointed out a few

minutes ago, for 16 years the opposition sat on this side. There were

one, two, three, four, five B.C. Liberal ministers in charge of ICBC,

under which this policy and arrangement operated, the way in which

payments were made were operated. It was fine then, it’s fine now, and

it was fine before then. It was done on good, sound public policy, and

similar actions such as what we’ve been dealing with here today have

been instituted in other provinces that have public auto insurance, such

as Manitoba and Saskatchewan and, to a certain extent — because they

have a different system — in the province of Quebec.

Again, I just put it on the table. That’s what this legislation is

about. It’s nothing nefarious. It’s not taking anything away. It’s just

validating that what was done, was done correctly and in the basis of

good, sound public policy.

M. Lee: I will say…. You know, when I talk about this Legislative

Assembly, I’m talking about all members in this House, of course. So if,

as a member of this Legislative Assembly, I’m standing here talking

about a bill that’s being presented, and I’m thinking about those who

have preceded me on this floor….

I’m not sure that anybody had this opportunity to review the

nature of this arrangement. That’s what we’re being asked to do today.

The fact that the NDP created it, then they modified it, and now they’re

trying to fix it. Those are just the facts. The fact that there were

successive governments in between…. This Legislative Assembly never saw

it. Never saw it in 1995. It’s seeing it today. So this government has a

responsibility for what it’s doing right now, and it’s accepting the

responsibility to address it.

So let me ask the minister. When we talk about the references in

this arrangement, the Insurance (Vehicle) Regulation,

section

88(4.1)(6), says: “The corporation” — meaning ICBC — “is not liable for

any expenses paid or payable to or recoverable by the insured” — again,

we’re talking about

part 7, benefit recipients — “under a medical,

surgical, dental or hospital plan or law, or paid or payable by another

insurer, except expenses referred to” below. And it states it

out.

To the minister, there are a number of applicable legislative

instruments here. This is one. At least, it has been one. So to the

minister: how is it that this arrangement has been operating contrary to

what’s set out in that regulation?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll make this point. It’s the province that pays the health care

costs. That’s the arrangement with ICBC. They pay the health care costs

first, and then ICBC will reimburse for some of those costs. That’s how

it works.

[1:55 p.m.]

I’d also make this other point, because the member does sort of

seem to want to say: “Well, it’s the NDP that brought this up and the

NDP brought this up” and “Oh, 1995 was the first time in opposition.”

I’ll remind him that there is at least…. Well, there is one member on

the opposition who was here in 1995 and would have been here when this

was raised and subsequently became the minister responsible for ICBC,

just as other members of this House have been responsible for ICBC. So

to somehow suggest that “oh, this is the first opportunity that the

House….” Government, which is responsible for ICBC, has a cabinet and

has a minister in charge.

There is nothing nefarious and there is nothing secret about this.

This is — as I keep saying and will continue to say — based on good,

sound public policy, and we are ensuring that the interests of the

public here are protected and that that makes it crystal-clear in any

litigation that payments were made properly and in a legal

way.

M. Lee: All I’m saying, of course, is that in the absence of any specific

approval required by this Legislative Assembly under any applicable

legislation, there wasn’t that opportunity. The minister can talk about

subsequent members of successive governments and the roles that they

might play, but I’m just talking about members of this House being asked

to approve legislation which, given the nature of $34 million a year —

what some might consider to be an additional tax of some nature — should

be brought to this House.

Coming back to the specific

section of the insurance regulation.

As the minister just indicated, the province pays those health care

costs. ICBC is asking to reimburse the Ministry of Health for those

costs. ICBC is effectively taking from the entitlement or the payout or

the coverage the dollar amount, the benefits, available to a person — an

insured person, a British Columbian — those costs. That’s where the

money is coming from. It’s coming out of the pockets of those injured

British Columbians. This particular regulation says, in effect, that

ICBC is not required to pay for the costs of those medical

expenses.

So how is it that we have this arrangement that is doing that?

That is my question to the minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: These payments are not intended to — nor do they — take away from

people’s benefits. In accordance with how medical costs are covered in

the province, the province is the first payer, is the payer. ICBC, as I

said a moment ago, subsequently reimburses for some of those

costs.

M. Lee: Well, I mean, I think that we’re talking about the route through

which these payments are occurring, but effectively, the arrangement is

that ICBC is transferring these costs to the Ministry of Health. Is that

not correct?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: We are a single-payer health insurance system. The province is the

payer of those health costs, and, just as in many other jurisdictions,

in this case, ICBC, the public insurer, reimburses the province for some

of those incurred costs.

M. Lee: When we look at the parties to this master agreement again, it’s

between the province, through the Ministry of Health, and ICBC. That’s

the channel through which these payments are being made.

Effectively, the reading of the regulation would suggest that ICBC

should not be paying to MSP the cost of physician visits arising from

motor vehicle accidents or injuries, since those medical expenses have

already been paid or are payable by MSP. So again, a strict reading of

the regulation itself would suggest that is what is occurring

here.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Again, how is it that this arrangement that we’re being asked to

bless, in effect, complies with what is set out in the

regulation?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll make the following comment in response to that question. In

essence, that is the subject of any litigation. This legislation, as I

repeatedly said, now ensures that payments are validated and were made

in a completely legal way — so there should be no issue in that regard —

and that the policy and the arrangement, in terms of the province being

the payer and ICBC reimburses some of those costs, is good for both the

province and for the insurance ratepayer.

M. Lee: I think that we…. In asking this question three times and getting

a response the same way three times without the minister coming out and

saying it, although he just referred to it, I can understand the

minister’s response. Meaning, I understand the words he’s saying. It

doesn’t address the specific question I’m asking, in terms of the

concern, but it does give the government’s position. That position, of

course, is the same position that they’re taking….

Well, let me ask you this. Is that the position of the government

in response to any claim, class action or otherwise, through

litigation?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: The regulation does not prohibit ICBC from reimbursing health care

costs. The arrangements that have been in place through successive

governments, under which payments have been made — and in which, by the

province in terms of covering health care costs by ICBC in reimbursing

for some of those health care costs — were, certainly, formalized in

’88. Informal arrangements prior to ’88, or what existed, have served

this province as good public policy through successive governments. This

legislation ensures that that is the case.

M. Lee: I think what I’ll do is just move over to another question related

to clause 2.

There are other considerations about this arrangement. For

example, under the Canada Health Act, it sets out the funding that the

province of B.C. would be receiving for insured health services.

Specifically, under

section 2 of the Canada Health Act, it has an

exception. That exception is for services. It doesn’t include any health

services that “relates to workers or workmen’s compensation.” That’s the

wording in the act.

There isn’t a similar carve out for these kinds of insured health

care services, for motor vehicle accidents. In order to receive the

transfers from the federal government, there are certain principles that

the province needs to follow.

To the minister, does the province currently receive…? Is it the

minister’s view — would he agree — that currently, under transfers under

the Canada Health Act, that the province does receive funding for

insured health care services for those people who are injured in motor

vehicle accidents?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The province does receive Health Canada health transfers for

health care for British Columbians. It does not specify where those

transfers are to be spent, unless it was for a specific area, such as

equipment.

I remember once, when I was Minister of Health, we did some

transfers to buy MRIs and things like that, but the federal government

does transfer money to the provinces — Health Canada transfers — but

they are for health care. Then the province — who is responsible for

health care, obviously — runs the health care system.

M. Lee: In the general response the minister just gave, just to be clear,

we are in agreement, then, that the province receives funding from the

federal government for the cost of insured health services, which is a

term that’s defined within

section 2 of the act, as I mentioned

earlier.

The only exclusion from that, as much as the minister referred

to….

[2:10 p.m.]

It is definitely a general definition — “insured health services

means hospital services” — and, more importantly, at least pertinent to

this bill committee debate, “physician services and surgical-dental

services provided to injured persons….” Then it does have that exclusion

that I mentioned earlier in terms of health services related to

“workers’ or workmen’s compensation.”

The minister did say in his response that there isn’t any

particular level of detail. I think I would connect that up with what I

just referred to, other than this definition, which would suggest, then,

that the funds this province is receiving, like other provinces in

Canada, can be put towards physician services for those people who are

injured in motor vehicle accidents. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll make these comments in response to the question. Yes, there

is, indeed, that carve-out for WorkSafe claims. There is no such

carve-out for auto vehicle accidents. We do, indeed, receive moneys from

Canada health transfer. The province is the first payer in the insurance

cases in terms of health care costs. We get reimbursement from ICBC for

some of those costs, and our policy is in line with the Canada Health

Act.

M. Lee: Mr. Chair, can I just ask the minister to continue his comment in

terms of: how is it that the province’s policy or approach is in line

with the Canada Health Act? What does the minister mean by

that?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We are a single-payer publicly funded health care

system.

M. Lee: Yes, and I think that gets us back to some of the principles for

which British Columbia can receive the funding relating to public

administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability and

Just coming back, then, in terms of…. I don’t hear any difference

in opinion or view in terms of the nature of what those federal

transfers can be put towards. So that does invite the question: if it’s

the case that the province of B.C. is receiving from the federal

government health cost transfers for insured health services and that

can be put towards the cost of health services provided by physicians

for people who are injured persons in motor vehicle accidents, why is

there a need then for ICBC to transfer the same amount for those

physician services to the ministry if they’re already receiving funding

from the federal government?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’d make this point. The health care system is far more than

automobile accidents. The health care system is cancer. The health care

system is diabetes. The health care system is a broken leg. The health

care system is losing your vision. The health care system is heart

surgery. The health care system is maternity wards. The health care

system is a myriad of health services applied that people need. That’s

what the health care system is.

[2:15 p.m.]

So to sort of say: “Oh, we’re getting these moneys from Health

Canada, so why on earth should you be reimbursed by ICBC…?” There’s also

sound public policy that those who cause the accidents bear some

responsibility in terms of those costs. That policy has been in place,

as the member likes to point out, for decades — under successive

governments, when they sat on this side of the House for 16

years.

What this legislation is doing is ensuring that the payments that

were made, that there’s absolutely no doubt that they were made in the

appropriate way. Our policies are in line with the Canada Health Act,

plain and simple.

M. Lee: Well, I mean, there are two things about what the minister said

there, but let me just take the second one first.

Yes, we did touch on no-fault. Effectively, under the 1994

agreement, the NDP government expanded the scope of this arrangement

from those who were at-fault drivers to pay out this additional cost out

of their benefits back to the Ministry of Health. This, again, was an

arrangement that was in place from 1973 and then documented in 1988. In

1994, under an NDP government, they expanded it to put that burden on

people, regardless of their fault.

We know, in the debates that we’ve had in this House over the last

two and a half, three years, including the bills that led to this

amendment today, that this government continues not to see that

difference. The coverage under the so-called no-fault regime is

available for at-fault drivers and those who are not at fault. This

government doesn’t see the difference. That’s what they did in 1994, and

that’s what they’ve done on no-fault as well.

I think that it’s very clear that the NDP have a particular bent

on this. Obviously, we all recognize that the health care system serves

more than just people who are injured in motor vehicle accidents. Family

members, parents, grandparents, children, all have experienced,

unfortunately, other needs for our health care system, which is under

strain. We don’t have to get into that right now.

Just to put this in perspective, we’re talking about $34 million

that is being transferred that the Ministry of Health is looking for

from ICBC. What is the total, because I don’t have this readily at hand,

although I could probably look it up in the Canada health report. But

just to ask the minister, given that he raised the matter: what is the

total amount of that health care transfer from the federal government to

the province annually?

Hon. M. Farnworth: You raised the issue of health care transfer payments, not

me.

The Chair: Through the Chair, of course, Minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: So I would make this comment. Look, the amount that you get from

health care transfer payments from Ottawa is a subject of Health

estimates, and you’ll have plenty of time in the spring session to ask

what the health transfer payments are that we get from

Ottawa.

M. Lee: Yes. I have a copy of the Canada Health Act Annual Report

here. Unfortunately, I don’t have a full copy of it. So the pages that

would presumably set that amount out I do not have here for easy

reference.

I’m only saying the minister made a comment that suggests that

whatever the amount is — which, presumably, is more than $34 million —

it is to be put to other good uses. There’s no dispute about

that.

[2:20 p.m.]

The fact of the matter is that this province is receiving funding

that can be put to the physician services for those British Columbians

who are injured in motor vehicle accidents.

I guess that the question could be: why isn’t that the

case?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll come back to the same answer that I have given, which is that

it is good public policy that those who create the risk bear some of the

responsibility, in terms of the costs associated with those risks. And

yes, this province gets health transfer payments, as does every other

province, just about — and the other provinces that have public auto

insurance as well.

Again, I’ll just repeat that this legislation is…. There’s nothing

nefarious about it. There’s nothing secret here. The way in which…. When

you guys sat on this side for 16 years, the Finance Minister would have

been very much aware that coming into the finances of the province would

have been revenue or transfers or the medical costs. Reimbursed medical

costs is the best way to put it — the reimbursed medical costs for some

of the medical costs that the province paid out as the first payer in

our single-payer public health care system. It’s as straightforward as

that.

M. Lee: I have just been informed by one of my colleagues that the amount

of annual transfers is in the order of magnitude of $5½ billion a year —

$5.6 billion in 2020-21 and $5.8 billion estimated in 2021-2022. So it’s

a large sum of money, as we would expect, and $34 million out of $5.8

billion is obviously a small fraction. Of course, as the minister would

say, and we all would agree, there are lots of needs for those health

care dollars in our province.

The minister just brought up an interesting comment that I’d like

to ask him about, then, in terms of the arrangement. Certainly, I do

understand, and I’m sure all members of the House understand, that other

provinces are receiving similar transfers. That’s not a matter in

dispute here. But since the minister raised it, can he tell this House

if there are other similar arrangements in place for other provinces in

terms of the transfer of driver-related ICBC costs of this

nature?

Hon. M. Farnworth: As far as I understand, yes — Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Quebec.

It’s the same approach taken by this province with the similar way in

terms of dealing with payments. It’s the same that has been done in

those jurisdictions as well.

M. Lee: Has there been any legal challenge of that arrangement in those

other jurisdictions?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Not that we’re aware.

M. Lee: This arrangement has not ever been tested in the

courts?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Not that I’m aware of.

[2:25 p.m.]

M. Lee: I appreciate the minister’s willingness to have this discussion at

the committee stage, appreciating the circumstance in which this bill is

being brought forward. The exchanges that we’re having, hopefully, are

helpful to create some understanding about the nature of what we’re

being asked to approve. But I would say that the responses and the

ability to assess the responses, given the nature of the regulatory

framework, can be somewhat challenging.

I’d say that, obviously, the government is in this chamber giving

its response in a way that would not prejudice its responses in any

court proceeding. I understand that. The minister has not had to refer

to that, but I do appreciate that that may well be the case. It makes

for a challenging discussion, though, because we’re not really getting

to the heart of the matter. I feel personally, not being able to study

the transcript of the response, that we’re not really getting to the

issues at hand.

I do think that the ability to discuss this provision and to

understand it is important. I appreciate that the minister and the

members of the ministry team that are with the minister are providing

some nature of responses to the questions that I am posing on behalf of

our opposition caucus. It’s clear, Mr. Chair, that the government does

not see any concern relating to how British Columbians are being asked

to pay, out of their benefits, the specific costs of physician

services.

Can I ask the minister…? I understand that there’s some sort of

internal ICBC policy relating to when those particular costs would be

paid out, such that it would not supersede the top limit on the benefits

payable to an injured British Columbian. Can the minister please

describe, to this House, the nature of that policy and the purpose of

it?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, the internal policy of ICBC was that the payments were not to

come out of people’s benefits, and that’s the case.

M. Lee: Is that at all times? Or is it only if it’s going to exceed the

maximum benefit limit that an injured British Columbian is entitled to

under

part 7?

Hon. M. Farnworth: At all times.

M. Lee: I understand, although that is the policy, that that hasn’t been

the case and that ICBC has to acknowledge that on some occasions, funds

have been pulled away from their benefit payments. There has been some

element of mistake that ICBC has apologized for, for some injured

British Columbians.

To the minister: how many cases has that occurred in, in terms of

ICBC having to apologize that they made a mistake despite the policy

being in place, where there has been a reduction in the amount of the

benefits payable to have come out of what that person was entitled to —

an amount payable for physician visits? How many times has that

occurred?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. There are over 100,000 claims

a year on average. Whenever there is a system like that, there will

occasionally, as the member has remarked, be a time that a mistake is

made. As I said, ICBC is reviewing approximately 500 in order to make

sure that there are no errors. But if any errors are found, then

restitution is, in fact, made. The appropriate amount is

paid.

M. Lee: With that policy in place, how does that qualify, in any nature,

the amendment that’s being proposed here in terms of…. If that policy is

being followed within ICBC and there are some number of mistakes that

have been made — could be administrative, could be otherwise…. But

assuming even if that administrative policy was followed 100 percent of

the time, what’s the concern in terms of what’s being addressed here by

way of this amendment?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This legislation has no impact on the accident benefit

claims.

M. Lee: Just coming back to our discussion previous. That is the concern

around what is already being provided under the Canadian Health Act to

this province and what might be a situation where we’re talking about

the same taxpayer paying their federal tax — having those funds

effectively being transferred to this province for provincial health

care coverage — and that coverage being made available to those who have

been injured in a motor vehicle accident and need to see a physician and

those costs being paid out again, from ICBC to the ministry, even though

the province is receiving funding for the same services.

Is there any consideration by this government that what we’re

being asked to approve here, by way of this amendment, is effectively in

terms of the transfers that are being made? When we talk about the costs

of health-related services as defined under 14.2(1) of clause 2 of this

bill, is that effectively considered as a tax?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No.

M. Lee: If that’s the government’s view, why are we looking at this

amendment then?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: In response to a potential class action, that there can be no

doubt that these payments that were made under successive governments,

whether they be Social Credit, NDP, B.C. Liberal were made in a lawful

manner.

Whether the Solicitor General or the minister responsible at the

time for ICBC were members on the other side or my side, whether the

Minister of Finance at the time, who would have known about transfers

coming, accident reimbursements, health care reimbursement costs coming

from ICBC, whether it was Kevin Falcon, who was the Minister of Finance

when this was operating or whether it was a Finance Minister on our side

— all of those were done in a completely lawful way, no doubt about it,

in line with the Canada Health Act.

M. Lee: Let me just try and stick to the matter at hand here. The timing

of this amendment being raised was communicated by the Attorney General

of this province back in April to the lawyers for the plaintiff. It

certainly talked about the legal agreement being negotiated in 1988

between ICBC and the Ministry of Health and then setting out the

arrangement — and that the agreement in 1994, as amended, has been

operative since then.

The purpose of the timing of this letter…. To the minister: it was

written at what juncture of that litigation proceeding?

Hon. M. Farnworth: My understanding is that the letter the member is referring to, or

the communication the member is referring to, was sent back in April.

Then, of course, the bill was tabled June — I think June 15 or June 16,

somewhere around there — of this past year.

M. Lee: As the minister says, the letter makes reference to communicating

to the lawyers for the plaintiffs that the government intends to propose

legislation for consideration by the Legislature.

[2:40 p.m.]

The intention is that the proposed legislation will include

provisions that are explicitly retroactive and provide clear statutory

authority for the reimbursement of costs of health-related services by

ICBC.

Just to look at that particular communication by the Attorney

General, when the Attorney General, on behalf of the government, is

communicating that this legislation that we’re looking at today provides

clear statutory authority, what exactly are the specific areas that the

government is of the view that it needs to provide that clear statutory

authority?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It was on the basis of the potential of the class action suit, and

we felt it was important that the plaintiffs also be informed that

government was considering this so that everybody is operating on the

same basis of facts.

M. Lee: For the purpose of the class action suit, as you and others might

appreciate, the nature of these litigation proceedings is such that

there is quite a bit of analysis done and documents provided for

consideration — affidavits and other statements of claim.

Presumably, of course, the government of B.C. has had the

opportunity to review the nature of the claim and what has been brought

forward. So I can only assume, of course, for the purpose of this

discussion, that there is some concern relating to the nature of the

claim — that there is some element that I’m sure, of course, the

government would not comment on here as to concerns as to whether there

is clear statutory authority for the reimbursement of costs of

health-related services by ICBC. That is what the Attorney General

communicated to the lawyers for the plaintiff as to what this

legislation is about.

Presumably, as the minister has responded, this legislation

addresses — these are my words; these aren’t the minister’s words — the

concerns raised by the potential plaintiffs in the class action,

assuming they get certified. They’re not. As I understand it, the class

action has not yet been certified, so we have not gotten to that next

step. But assuming they proceed and assuming a class action is heard and

that that is the substance of it, there are some challenges there that

this government wants to address.

This puts us in a tough position. Clearly, given the nature, we’ve

canvassed a few of the issues that might be of concern, and we may still

take the opportunity to canvass some other issues here, at least on this

particular provision of clause 2.

It does put members of this House in a position where we’re being

asked to make legal an arrangement that has been questioned — questioned

more than just a spurious type of litigation claim. Because I presume,

of course, that if the Attorney General of our province thought that

this claim was non-material, non-significant — that is, the government

of B.C. would have a defensible position — we wouldn’t be going to all

of this. We wouldn’t be introducing legislation that is retroactive 48

years to the time where the NDP created this.

[2:45 p.m.]

I will just, only for the purpose of this proceeding, invite the

minister to comment, if he chooses to at all, on the challenge that this

government is putting this Legislative Assembly in when we are passing

retroactive legislation of this scope — $34 million a year, the claim

that is being brought on behalf of a very large class of British

Columbians.

These are British Columbians that would’ve received

part 7

benefits over 48 years, who were involved in motor vehicle accidents.

Effectively, this government is being asked — for us as Members of the

Legislative Assembly — to substitute our judgment for the

court’s.

I’d ask the minister to comment in response to my

concerns.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I understand the member’s question, and I’ll offer these comments

in response to it — that is, that for the last 48 years, we have had

sound public policy when it comes to health care costs and the

reimbursement of health care costs by ICBC to the province. We believe —

in fact, we are confident — that this has been very much in line with

the Canada Health Act, that the public policy has served this province

well in terms of protecting the province and ratepayers, that this

legislation is about ensuring, without a shadow of a doubt, making

crystal-clear to any court, that that is in fact the case.

M. Lee: I suppose, though, it stands to reason that the timing, which I

was getting at earlier, of the letter from the Attorney General to the

legal counsel for the plaintiffs and the timing of the introduction of

the legislation in June — recognizing that we’re not sitting until, now,

October — is such that the government is of the view that the shadow of

doubt, as the minister raised, is a risk. It’s a risk that the courts

would rule against the province for an arrangement that’s been in place

for 48 years.

Again, I stress this because this was created in 1973, as far as I

can determine, because that’s what the retroactive nature of this

amendment is for. So as far as I see, what we have is a government that

is part of a party that created this in 1973, enlarged it in 1994 and

’95, and is now trying to make it fully legal beyond a shadow of a

doubt.

That’s a pretty big onus that the government is placing on the

Members of this Legislative Assembly, given that — as I mentioned

earlier, and we got to this — this House has never had the opportunity

to review this arrangement. I appreciate that there have been successive

governments, but we are being asked holus-bolus to be looking at this

amendment to make legal beyond a shadow of a doubt this arrangement, in

the face of a court proceeding that is representing all British

Columbians who have been involved in motor vehicle accidents who are

subject to and receive

part 7 benefits.

When you stand back and look at this, we have a responsibility to

ensure that this is reviewed, adjudicated in a proper forum. I don’t

take lightly, and would I suggest that all members of this House do not

take lightly, the passing of legislation of this nature, to have that

far retroactive effect — 48 years, $34 million a year, what some

estimate to be $1 billion. That’s significant.

[2:50 p.m.]

The fact that this has all happened under an NDP government

watch…. That’s why members of the opposition caucus are here speaking

about this, speaking about the fact that this government, with an

Attorney General that has once again weighed into a legal dispute by

basically, effectively, informing the counsel for the plaintiffs, “Oh,

you know what? That little legal claim that you have against us — well,

we’re just going to make it go away.”

It’s more than a shadow of a doubt. It’s reasonable concerns that

have been raised. Now we’re being asked to pass this legislation to

address it, to fix it, in the course of a proceeding.

This is, some would say, important for British Columbians to have

a voice, to have the ability to take their dispute with the government

to court. Yet we have the chief legal officer of our government here,

the NDP government, once again putting his hands on the scale to tip

them in the government’s favour in such a way that this government is

now introducing legislation that puts back the legal effect of what has

been happening, once again under an unwritten agreement, since 1973.

Documented for the first time in 1988. Expanded again in 1994 under an

NDP government. And now we’re addressing it here.

I’m very uncomfortable with being presented legislation of such a

significant impact. To the minister, does he not see the importance of

enabling and allowing British Columbians to have their day in court, as

they’re trying to do? That they should stand down this particular

provision of the bill, such that British Columbians have the opportunity

to have their dispute with this government addressed through the court

system, as they should?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’d like to remind the hon. member that this legislation will not

stop the litigation. It will not stop the litigation.

What it does do is ensure that payments that were made by ICBC for

health-related costs for the last 48 years, which has been good public

policy that has served Social Credit, NDP, B.C. Liberal governments….

I’ll remind the member that while he may not have been in charge of

ICBC, may not have been the Minister of Finance, current colleagues

certainly were. Former colleagues of some members of the House, who have

aspirations to be back in this House, certainly were and did not have a

problem with the policy that was in place.

What this is doing is ensuring that sound public policy was

absolutely valid. The idea that somehow this is unique or has not been

done before…. I would remind the member, because he’s familiar with UBC

and the UBC parking and towing that was retroactively done away with by

the previous government when they were on this side….

This is about ensuring and protecting the interests of British

Columbians, both in terms of taxpayers and of ratepayers. As I keep

saying, it’s nothing nefarious. It’s not secret. The plaintiffs were

told that this would be coming back in April. The legislation was tabled

in June. The opposition has been able to review and see this

legislation.

[2:55 p.m.]

It’s been sitting out there from June 15 to July 1, from July 1 to

August 1, from August 1 to September 1, from September 1 to October 1

until now. There has not been a big uproar, because people look at it

and go: “Oh, yeah. You know what? Okay. It makes sense, what’s being

done.” That’s what’s happening here today.

I appreciate the discussion. I appreciate the questions, and I

appreciate the member’s interest in this legislation. But let’s also

recognize that this is also the right thing to do.

M. Lee: Well, you know, I think, obviously, those who are moving this

forward, and on behalf of other British Columbians who have had their

benefits challenged by this…. And, obviously, all the payments from

ICBC. I mean, that does affect ratepayers. All those payments that went

out from ICBC to the Ministry of Health. That was another way to

increase costs for those ratepayers.

There is an impact here, and I dare say that the nature of this

challenge is of far greater scope than the example the minister

provided. I think if this was about doing the right thing, I think there

are other people who certainly disagree, and they’re outside this

chamber.

I appreciate that the minister has a good understanding of history

and has a good understanding of the timeframe from which we’re talking

about — 48 years — but we’re also talking about since April and June. I

appreciate that the minister can count down the months. But the fact of

the matter is that it doesn’t change anything.

We’re still being asked to review this piece of legislation in

front of the House today in committee stage. We’ve been at this for a

couple of days in terms of other bills that have come in front of this

House. This is the opportunity to have that discussion.

When the minister says they’re doing the right thing, I’ve just

got to say about doing the right thing that this government has

repeatedly had a history, a track record, of overriding the rights of

injured British Columbians, that, as we know, we had an Attorney General

that changed the rules of court. That was a rule pulled back.

We’ve had an Attorney General that has been in conflict at the

same time that he’s been the Minister Responsible for ICBC. That is the

situation that we are in the backdrop of what’s being addressed. That

occurred over some years under the government.

The Chair: Excuse me, Member. I recognize the Attorney

General.

Point of Privilege

(Reservation of Right)

Hon. D. Eby: I rise on a point of personal privilege and reserve my right to speak

to it later.

The Chair: Thank you. I believe that would be…. Is that a point of order? Or

is it a point of personal privilege?

Hon. D. Eby: Point of personal privilege, the allegation that I was in a conflict,

which I do not believe is true.

The Chair: Thank you, Attorney.

Please proceed, Member.

Debate Continued

M. Lee: Well, this is something that I have spoken about in the House at

length, Mr. Chair. The member for Vancouver–Point Grey is certainly

aware of that. We’ve had much discussion about that in the past, and he

knows my views very well.

My concern, of course, is that he wrote this letter too. This

letter…. Even though he’s not the Minister Responsible for ICBC any

longer, this minister is. It is still yet another example where the

heavy hand of government has come over top of the rights of injured

British Columbians — not just going forward, but looking back over 48

years.

Again, how is it that the government is now putting in place or

bringing forward this legislation in light of the litigation that is in

front of the courts?

[3:00 p.m.]

Does the government not have a concern that it is effectively

quashing the rights of those claimants to bring forward that

claim?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll just repeat what I said earlier, which is that this

legislation will not stop the litigation.

M. Lee: We don’t have the opportunity to speak to the minister who wrote

the letter to the lawyers on behalf of the claimants. So I’ll just raise

this with the minister here, which is that certainly the Attorney

General, on behalf of the government, did have some understanding that

there would be some impact on the above-mentioned actions.

If the minister referred to the letter, he would know that it

says: “While it will be within the discretion of cabinet to introduce

such legislation” — that’s happened — “and within the discretion of the

Legislature” — which is what’s happening now — “to pass such

legislation, I write to inform you of this intention, which is to

propose this retroactive legislation, which, if passed will have an

impact on the above-mentioned action.”

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

What is the reference and what is this to mean, from government’s

view, that it would have impact on the above-mentioned

action?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It will not stop litigation, but what it certainly does is…. The

legislation, as it’s laid out, will make it crystal-clear that the

health care payments made by ICBC were done in a completely lawful and

proper way. That’s what the legislation is all about.

M. Lee: One example of the lawful nature of the arrangement is the concern

that this arrangement is effectively another tax, that there is a double

payment going on here, that the province of B.C. is already receiving

the funds to cover physician visits for those injured in motor vehicle

accidents by coming under the Canada Health Act from the federal

government. We covered that earlier.

This arrangement, by transferring further funds to cover the same

amounts, is going from ICBC to the Ministry of Health and that

effectively is a double-dip, a double tax of some nature. That payment

scheme, for example, has never been approved by this Legislative

Assembly.

In response to a question I asked earlier, the minister responded

with a short answer, no. But this is part of the challenge, which is

that that is a concern, on its face, as to whether this charge — this

additional charge, this transfer of amounts, this levy — is an amount

and a payment scheme and arrangement that has never been approved by

this Legislative Assembly.

Just so we’re all clear here, this will be the first opportunity

in 48 years that we can approve this arrangement. If there is any

concern relating to this being an unconstitutional or illegal tax, part

of the elements of that is the fact that it needs to be approved by a

legislative body. It’s the principle of no taxation without

representation. This can’t be done on a handshake deal, which is what

was happening between 1973 and 1988, expanded again in 1994 by the NDP

government, created in the first place under 1973.

[3:05 p.m.]

As members of this Legislative Assembly, we’re being asked to

judge that. We’re being asked to make that go away, if that was a

concern. Just to address that concern, I think it is helpful if the

minister is prepared to share a little more than one word. I didn’t ask

the question this way, I will admit. So I will ask the question a

slightly different way, which is: could the minister share with this

House the view of the government as to any concern as to why this is not

an unconstitutional tax?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think the fundamental response to that question is that we do

not believe this is a tax. It’s that straightforward. The details, as

the member points out, obviously would be argued in

litigation.

This is a public policy that has been in place. It is based on

accepted principles in terms of a policy around those who have the risk,

cause the accidents, have a higher proportion of those health care costs

to pay. That’s how things have operated. This is totally in line with

the Canada Health Act, as I’ve said a number of times now — the

single-payer principle — and ICBC reimburses some of those costs. It

does not come from benefits. It is not a tax. The government is

confident that that is very much the case.

M. Lee: I hope the minister does appreciate, obviously, that as members of

the opposition, we don’t have the benefit of any further explanation

beyond what the minister has said, which makes it very limiting in terms

of our ability to assess how we would support this provision.

There are, on its face, at least, serious questions and concerns

being raised about this arrangement in the courts by nature of this

claim. By virtue of this amendment to the legislation, this will

effectively address…. I mean, I’m sure the government is not going

through this to leave any holes in this.

Let me ask this question to the minister. It’s a slightly

different way of approaching this. In view of the claim against the

government of B.C., does this amendment address all of the potential

challenges that can be raised in the nature of that litigation

claim?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, it does not.

The Chair: The committee will recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:09 p.m. to 3:18 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

M. Lee: Mr. Chair, thank you for that recess.

I just wanted to bring us back to the discussion. Certainly, the

minister has heard our concerns about the nature of this provision, in

the face of the active litigation claim that’s coming in front of the

B.C. courts. I just wanted the minister to comment, if he’s aware of the

decisions that have been made in the past, looking at these sorts of

retroactive pieces of legislation.

[3:20 p.m.]

As the minister has talked about this, he demonstrates that the

government is familiar with both the arrangement and, certainly, the

retroactive fix, so to speak, to address this. I presume, and I just

want to confirm, that the minister is familiar with, and his team

advising him are aware of, the Supreme Court of Canada decisions that

have considered legislation of a retroactive nature that has been put

forward to address other types of concerns relating to unconstitutional

tax issues — whether there has been an assessment made as to whether

there is any challenge in terms of even this legislation coming forward,

in the face of that claim.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It is the government’s position that this is not a tax and that

this is the appropriate way for us to proceed. Of course the case, if it

gets to court, will be argued in court, but the government is confident

that this is not a tax.

M. Lee: I just want to draw the minister’s attention, then, to some of the

court decisions of the highest court of our land, the Supreme Court of

Canada. There is a decision, Kingstreet Investments v. New

Brunswick , a 2007 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where

Mr. Justice Dickson said the following: “If a statute is found to be

ultra vires the Legislature which enacted it, legislation which would

have the effect of attaching legal consequences to acts done pursuant to

that invalid law must equally be ultra vires because it relates

to the same subject matter as that which was involved in the prior

legislation. If a state cannot take by unconstitutional means, it cannot

retain by unconstitutional means.”

This provision and this statement seems to speak to the situation

that we’re in here. Again, has the government assessed the viability of

this legislation in the face of this legal claim?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member’s question and the statement. I’m aware

that that applies to an unconstitutional tax case. It is the firm belief

of government that this is not a tax. Retroactive legislation is

something that has been used before and, no doubt, at various times into

the future by successive governments, may well be used again. But we

have, as government, the view that this is the appropriate legislation,

that the path being chosen is the appropriate one. I repeat again, this

is not an unconstitutional tax. It is not a tax.

M. Lee: Just as we proceed through this bill, I would ask again the

minister to address a comment I raised earlier in terms of the timing

and the sequence of this amendment being considered by the House at this

time in the face of the litigation claim ahead of the decision to be

rendered by the court in terms of whether the class action will be

certified, and then to move forward through further judicial

proceedings.

[3:25 p.m.]

It certainly would be, with the amount of issues that we’ve

canvassed here today and the responses that government has provided

through the minister, that there are quite a number of issues to be

addressed here, issues that are not easy to assess in this forum because

there is some degree of complexity involved with the legislative

framework and the ability and the preciseness and clarity of the

responses that the minister can provide while this matter is in

litigation proceedings.

I appreciate that we’ve been receiving fairly general, definitive

— at least the way that the minister is expressing it on behalf of

government — responses because the position of the government of B.C. is

under review and in dispute.

It would seem appropriate to myself and other members of our

caucus, including the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, that we ask

the minister to consider standing down this particular clause 2 — that

the other parts of Bill 12 be considered but that clause 2 not be moved

forward for approval. Certainly, we would not support that adoption at

this time, in face of the litigation proceeding.

Would the minister consider standing down this particular clause

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the discussion that we have been having, and I

appreciate the questions from the member and, obviously, his interest

and the role that he is in, asking questions as one of the opposition

critics on this piece of legislation. But as I’ve outlined, I think the

government has made its position clear in terms of the direction and the

way in which they’re proceeding with this particular issue and the

legislation before us. So respectfully, I would have to decline his

request to stand down this section.

The Chair: As we’re constantly learning in this position, apparently the

correct procedural way to do it is, when I call for the vote, to

vote against the clause.

Anything else on clause 2?

Clause 2 approved on division.

On clause 3.

M. Morris: Just a couple of questions on clause 3. I see that some

definitions have been moved into

section 113 under clause 3 here.

Definitions have changed slightly here, and I’m just wondering what the

reason and the rationale was for changing these.

The definition of “dependent child” under sub (

b) now includes “on

the date that a benefit under this Part becomes payable.” I’m just

wondering: why was that particular definition changed to

that?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s been changed for internal consistency. There’s no substantial

change to what the definition specifically means.

M. Morris: Thank you for that.

It talks about a prescribed class of persons under subsection (c).

Would that be the same as the prescribed portion under

part 7 of the

regs, under “supported child”?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, they are different. One definition deals with enhanced care

going forward. The other deals with the system that was.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

M. Morris: Just for clarification. A lot of this is technical in nature, I

guess, just changing from one format to another, and some

definitions

are changing in here.

[3:30 p.m.]

I’ve looked through this very carefully, and I don’t see any issue

to raise from clause 4 to clause 34.

Clauses 4 to 34 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:31 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 12 — INSURANCE (VEHICLE)

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 12, Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2021, reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following

division:

[3:35 p.m. - 3:45 p.m.]

YEAS — 51

Anderson

Bailey

Bains

Beare

Begg

Brar

Chandra Herbert

Chant

Chow

Conroy

Coulter

Cullen

Dean

D’Eith

Dix

Donnelly

Dykeman

Eby

Elmore

Farnworth

Fleming

Furstenau

Glumac

Greene

Heyman

Horgan

Kahlon

Kang

Leonard

Malcolmson

Mark

Mercier

Olsen

Osborne

Paddon

Popham

Ralston

Robinson

Routledge

Routley

Russell

Sandhu

Sharma

Simons

Sims

A. Singh

Starchuk

Walker

Whiteside

Yao

NAYS — 22

Ashton

Banman

Bernier

Bond

Cadieux

Clovechok

Davies

Halford

Kirkpatrick

Kyllo

Lee

Letnick

Milobar

Morris

Oakes

Paton

Ross

Rustad

Stone

Sturdy

Tegart

Wilkinson

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage, Bill 17.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 17 — PROTECTED AREAS OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT

ACT, 2021

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 17; N. Letnick in

the chair.

The committee met at 3:52 p.m.

The Chair: Minister, would you like to introduce your staff

first?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you very much, Chair.

Joining me on my right is Rumon Carter, and on my left is Brett

Hudson.

On clause 1.

P. Milobar: A few overarching questions, I guess, at the beginning, for the

minister, given that a lot of this is semi-housekeeping as we move

through. And this will come as no surprise to the minister that the

first few questions will be around UNDRIP and consultations that have

taken place overall.

I’m wondering if the minister can give us an idea of how much

consultation, and what shape that took, with Indigenous communities

throughout this bill and the overall bill in its entirety?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. We in fact

conducted extensive consultations, as we do with all of our actions in

changing parks boundaries and establishing parks and naming parks and

discussing management issues.

Specifically, we consulted with First Nations on the establishment

of the new park, the park and conservancy additions, the boundary

modifications, the renaming proposals and the cancellation of Elk Falls

Protected Area.

[3:55 p.m.]

Where we did not consult was on the replacement of the boundary

descriptions for Lakelse Lake Park with an official plan and the

administrative update to the boundary description for Ellison Lake.

These were strictly administrative changes and do not impact the

boundaries or management of the lands in any way.

We also consulted with the Attorney General’s ministry about

whether our level of consultation met the requirements of various court

decisions, pieces of legislation, as well as our own Declaration on the

Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and acted accordingly.

When we get to each specific section, I’d be quite happy to detail

the specific consultations for each one of the sections of the

act.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

P. Milobar: I’m just wondering if we could get that further description of the

consultation that took place. How were the area bands decided? Were the

area bands all consulted? Was it provincewide, as well, in terms of

other organizations?

We’ve heard that from various ministries — that various provincial

Indigenous groups have been consulted, not individual bands, on some

legislation. So to get a flavour of what actually happened in

section 2

consultation….

Hon. G. Heyman: I’ll answer the second part of the member’s question first. We

consult directly with the nations that have interests, rights and title

to areas where we are considering establishment may mean adjustments,

additions to particular parks.

We do not consult with provincewide umbrella organizations on

these, because they’re not directly impacted. It’s the nations with

rights and title. Specifically with respect to

section 2, the K’ómoks

First Nation; the Wei Wai Kai First Nation; the Wei Wai Kum, otherwise

known as Campbell River Indian Band; and Homalco First Nation were

consulted between 2011 and 2019.

B.C. Hydro consulted on the proposed land exchange in 2011 and

2012 and provided notification to the Laich-Kwil-Tach Treaty Society in

June of 2012. B.C. Hydro also met with the K’ómoks, Wei Wai Kai and Wei

Wai Kum First Nations in 2018 and ’19 to ask for final comments or

concerns regarding the land exchange.

The K’ómoks First Nation, the Wei Wai Kai Nation and the Campbell

River Indian Band have impact-and-benefit agreements with B.C. Hydro,

and they provided letters of support as part of their IBAs.

[4:00 p.m.]

The Homalco initially responded with no objections, reserving the

right to further comment after completing traditional land use and

archaeological studies. At a subsequent meeting in May of 2018, they

raised objections, citing their own asserted territorial rights to the

land. B.C. Hydro followed up, citing the previous responses on record

from Homalco First Nation, but received no further response.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

P. Milobar: I’m wondering if the minister…. It looks like Beatton Park,

located up by Fort St. John…. Would this be considered in the area of

the Blueberry River First Nations, and if so, how would the recent court

ruling be taken into account, with any changes contemplated within this

piece of legislation, with Beatton Park?

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. G. Heyman: As the member will know, the change to Beatton Park was the

addition of 23 hectares of private land, which was purchased by the

ministry in 2007, and 11 hectares of foreshore next to the private land

addition.

Consultation was initiated with Blueberry River First Nation in

April 2019 — the answer is yes, it is in their territory — and concluded

in June 2019. The only response that was received from Blueberry River

First Nation was a request to provide some further information, which

was done. There was no further communication from Blueberry

River.

The consultation efforts that were undertaken have been considered

in light of the Yahey decision of June 2021. We believe that the Crown’s

duty to consult in respect of these amendments, in light of that

decision, have been met.

P. Milobar: I’m just seeking further clarification. I know that part of that

court decision was that the government had to come to accelerated

discussions and negotiations with the Blueberry River First Nations

around things like permits. A lot were put on hold. The ability to issue

permits was put on hold, for the most part.

Was there was any governmental permitting that needed to be done —

and that was not signed off on by the Blueberry River First Nations —

with this amendment, or is it not subject to any type of permitting

whatsoever from government, even if it’s an internal permitting

structure?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: That’s a good question. There are two parts to this decision. We

purchased land and added it to a protected area, so that, in and of

itself, doesn’t create an impact. One of the things that was the subject

of the Blueberry River First Nation court case and the ultimate decision

known as Yahey ….

There is, however, an existing water intake that did not require

permitting when it was on private land. If it requires permitting in the

future because it’s part of the park, then, of course, that would be

subject to consultation with the Blueberry River First Nation before any

action was taken on that.

P. Milobar: So with this park then, with the addition of lands coming in….

Does that change any of the ability, any of the land mass in that area

that would be available for hunting in regards to either Indigenous or

non-Indigenous peoples in that area with this park boundary

change?

Hon. G. Heyman: Well, currently, because we haven’t passed this bill yet, it’s

private land. Hunting is only allowed with the permission of the

landowner, including hunting by Indigenous people.

With the inclusion of this area in the park, it will be available

for the exercise of traditional hunting rights by Indigenous people.

It’s also available for hunting to anyone else with a licence, but the

issue of quotas for particular animals or species would be pursuant to

the Wildlife Act. That would undoubtedly trigger a consultation by the

ministry administering the Wildlife Act — which is not my ministry —

with the Blueberry River First Nation.

P. Milobar: In terms of further down in 3, if I’m reading this

correctly….

In the description of the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy Park, I

get — and many of these parks, I guess, would be similar and following a

similar vein of this question — that it’s only a few hectares here and

there that we’re moving around with mapping. But sometimes that could

have significant consequence, depending where that line moves,

especially when it comes to foreshore areas and abutments around lakes

of that nature as the riparian area would come into effect.

Was any assessment done on the parks that start to impact a

remapping, a realignment of their boundaries as it pertains to those

water bodies and what the neighbouring properties’ impacts are on

riparian areas and buildable areas of potential use next to the parks,

or is that not part of the assessment overall?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: The change to the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy Park is nowhere

near a water body or riparian area. It is a small piece of road, which

services four existing private lots, that was erroneously included in

the park in the first place. The road pre-existed. This just simply

ensures these lot owners can continue to have access to their lots, but

there is no impact on water.

P. Milobar: Thanks for that. It was a little confusing.

Of course, when we’re dealing with large tracts of land…. When the

description is the easterly shore of the natural boundary of Kootenay

Lake, one would assume we’re talking about lakeshore. Like I say, many

others are talking about foreshore.

I guess, in general, just a follow-up to the overall question

around foreshore and this bill in general. This comes forward every

year. With the riparian act now being in place for ten, 15 years, does

the overall assessment take that into account, as these boundary changes

come forward on foreshore and other areas of these park adjustments that

we see described throughout this bill?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question.

The answer to the question is that we always consider impacts to

riparian areas when we add foreshore. But to take a step back from that,

what happened is that we purchased private land, and we’re bringing it

under the Parks Act, which enables us to directly address any riparian

impacts as part of a park management plan. So the ability to apply

protections that are consistent with the Riparian Areas Act is

enhanced.

E. Ross: In terms of the consultation, I heard the answer given previously.

But my question is pretty specific to the consultation regarding

Blueberry River, for example. We know there is some type of agreement,

in principle at least.

[4:15 p.m.]

When we’re talking about boundaries in terms of lands here,

whether it be foreshore or not, will this be part of the Blueberry

agreement that’s currently being negotiated right now as we

speak?

Hon. G. Heyman: To the member, I’ll repeat that we consulted with Blueberry River

First Nation on the amendments that were within territories where they

have rights and title and, of course, interest, and provided the further

information they requested and received no other requests for

information or commentary from them.

Presumably, they were satisfied, but I am not part of the

negotiations to resolve issues of permitting and impacts that flow from

the Yahey decision, so I can’t say if that’s been brought up.

Although I assume that if it had been, I would be informed. I guess,

potentially, the Blueberry River First Nation could raise issues related

to parks in their territory but have not, to date, to my knowledge, but

again, I’m not at that table.

E. Ross: There’s a difference between treaty bands, non-treaty bands and

the band that actually achieved title through the courts. We’re talking

about Tŝilhqot’in, for example.

In terms of the mandate that we’re talking about now, in terms of

the Crown adjusting the boundaries as per this bill, were non-treaty

bands that are in the process of negotiating a treaty…? Were they made

aware of this through the negotiation structure of each

community?

Hon. G. Heyman: I’d like to, before giving an answer, ask a question of

clarification of the member for Skeena. Is your question general, with

respect to all of the amendments, or specifically to

section

E. Ross: It’s specific to

section 3.

Hon. G. Heyman: The answer would probably be the same no matter what the member’s

answer to my clarifying question was, but I thought it was important to

ask.

We consult with both treaty nations and non-treaty nations. We

consult with nations who assert an interest in lands where we’re

proposing activities or, in this case, additions, amendments, etc. We

consult quite broadly, and we consult with any nation that asserts that

they have an interest.

E. Ross: To be clear, then, the First Nations that are negotiating treaties

right now are actually clear on the idea of the boundaries changing or

being amended? That is part of their treaty negotiations?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: The changes to boundaries or additions are not part of the treaty

negotiations. I guess, potentially, they could be, if a nation put them

on the table. But they are just simply subject to the consultations that

we do with Indigenous nations in our regular activity — in this case,

with respect to amendments to the protected areas act.

E. Ross: That was true prior to 2017. That was true. That’s not true

anymore. Bill 41 has actually highered the standard above and beyond

anything else that we have ever seen. We actually don’t know what the

standard is anymore. So now we’re talking about a government

decision.

Previous to that, it was a government decision that affected

asserted rights and title, whether they be treaty or not. So the

question is: do the bands that you consult with understand what this

means in the context of treaty negotiations and how that affects the

parks and protected areas chapters in treaty negotiations, for

example?

Hon. G. Heyman: As part of our consultation, we serve notice to nations that have

asserted an interest in the territory, and we include in that a

description of what we’re proposing as well as maps. When we get

responses, we answer questions. We engage in discussion with them, and

part of our legal analysis of whether we meet the tests that are

required is an analysis of whether we meet the tests required under our

new piece of legislation, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

Peoples Act.

E. Ross: My last question. In the notification…. I’m presuming that it was

a notification that was sent out, in terms of the amendments that we’re

talking about here in Bill 17. In the Crown’s communication, was there

any mention of accommodation when we’re talking about the decisions that

we’re making in terms of land designations?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you for the question, because it allows me to offer further

clarification. In our notification to Indigenous nations, we provide

information. We provide maps. Then, we ask them if they believe that

there are impacts on their rights, their title, their interests,

anything else that is significant to them — traditional use, culture,

archaeology.

When they give us an answer that, yes, there is, and this is how,

we then engage with them around what can be done to accommodate that, if

anything can be done to accommodate that. Usually the case is that we

find an accommodation, and that is the nature of our consultation and

our work with Indigenous nations pursuant to DRIPA as well as existing

court decisions and legislation.

E. Ross: Maybe I should actually bring it back a bit to clarify what I’m

getting at. As I said to one of the other ministers here, regarding a

bill, consultation is not just notification. That’s not what it

is.

[4:25 p.m.]

If the government goes back to read the case law that’s been

actually established in the courts of B.C. and Canada over the last 40

years, it talks about meaningful consultation. It means follow-up. It

means discussion. It means a lot more than just sending out a letter and

then expecting a band council that’s got probably 40 or 50 different

things to do on that day to find the time to respond. They’ve got

different things to do. They’ve got treaty negotiations to decide. It

might be an arm of the council, or it might or their own separate

society. It’s quite complicated.

The real question — and what I’m getting at in terms of the first

notification that was sent to these First Nations — was the word

“accommodation” used? I’m not talking about the follow-up actions. I’m

talking about the first notification, because as I understand it, this

government is actually substituting notification and letters for

meaningful consultation. So in the first notification of this amendment,

was the word “accommodation” used for the First Nation in

question?

Hon. G. Heyman: The member is quite right: notification isn’t consultation. I

didn’t mean to imply that. I apologize if I did. It is the first step in

consultation. The member is also right that nations have many things

with which they have to deal.

The letter is the first step in the consultation. If we don’t get

a response, we will follow up as part of our review of the proposed

amendments.

[4:30 p.m.]

We also do our own assessment of what we think impacts may be and

ensure that if we see them, we engage with nations about those.

Specifically, if agreements are already in place with nations, whether

they are treaty or other forms of agreements, reconciliation or

otherwise, that specify particular forms of consultation or

methodologies to address issues, we ensure that we follow those — that

we’re aware of them and that we follow those and honour

those.

Finally, in a number of cases, we have been ready to proceed with

something but have not heard back from a nation so we have delayed it to

perhaps another session, another version of a protected areas amended

act until we can be sure that we have spoken with the nation and we have

reached agreement or accommodation or consent. One example of that would

be that we don’t unilaterally, or in any way, choose Indigenous place

names for parks. That’s very much something on which we depend on the

nations to give their consideration, in their own way, to what is an

appropriate name. We follow that lead.

Clauses 3 to 8 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:32 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[4:35 p.m.]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 17 — PROTECTED AREAS OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT

ACT, 2021

Bill 17, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amend­ment Act,

2021, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

Hon. G. Heyman: Could we have a short recess, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: The House will be in recess for about ten minutes.

The House recessed from 4:36 p.m. to 4:45 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. G. Heyman: I call continued debate on the throne speech.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

Hon. N. Simons: I thank my colleagues from all around this House for their welcome.

It’s a pleasure, indeed a surprise, that I’m up on my feet and speaking

about the throne speech again.

The last time we had a chance to do this was just a few days ago, and

I began by acknowledging the leadership of the people of the Sunshine Coast

— upper and lower Sunshine Coast. I reiterate my appreciation for their

ongoing advocacy on behalf of their communities about the people and the

place that they represent.

I’m pleased to be able to talk about the successes and the aspirations

that our government continues to work towards. It’s a pleasure and an honour

to be able to speak to the Speech from the Throne from this new seat of mine

in executive council for the first time. So thank you very much. I

appreciate that.

While the throne speech was delivered some months ago, its importance

and its relevance remains. Our goal as government continues to be to invest

in people and to ensure that we successfully continue to remain resilient

through this challenging COVID-19 crisis, opioid epidemic crisis and the

challenges that many in our communities face on a daily basis.

Our role here is to ensure that we focus our attention on ways that we

can assist individuals and communities as we proceed through the challenges.

We do so with respect and partnership with Indigenous communities throughout

the province to ensure that we continue to pursue the path of reconciliation

that we recognize is not always a straight path, is not always a smooth

path, but is one that we have committed to walk together.

I truly believe that this is a desire of all British Columbians, that

we have, in our province, systems in place to ensure respect for our

differences, our history and recognize the work that we have to do to ensure

that we remedy, as much as possible, the harms of previous actions and

commit to working together to ensure that the responsibilities of the

provincial government meet with the needs of communities across the

province.

I’d just like to take this opportunity to speak about a couple of

events that took place recently surrounding the Day for Truth and

Reconciliation, September 30. In the tradition of many Coast Salish nations,

witnesses are called, witnesses speak of events that they’ve participated

in, events that they’ve witnessed, and events of importance to their

community and to the wider British Columbia audience.

[4:50 p.m.]

I had the honour to be invited to a ceremony by the Tla’amin people on

a river that they used to call tiskʷat —

that, in fact, they still call tiskʷat.

It’s known colloquially now, or officially, as Powell River. It’s one of the

shortest rivers in the world because it was dammed in the early 1900s in

order to create power for a sawmill. In so happening, the company that took

over that end of that river evicted the Indigenous community that was there.

It was a large, important community that sustained many people. It was one

of the largest salmon runs in British Columbia.

The contrast between the name it was given —

tiskʷat, meaning “big river” — to the

current name, named after Israel Powell, who has his own history of

oppression against Indigenous people, seems to be incongruous. In fact,

standing on the banks of that river,

tiskʷat, with Elders present, with

Hegus John Hackett present, with councillors and the executive of the

legislature of the Tla’amin Nation, treaty nation, a ceremony was held in

order to feed the ancestors, the people who had been in that spot since time

immemorial.

A place that had nourished the community was now in the shadow

of one of the largest pulp and paper mills. The purpose of the ceremony was

to recognize that there was a desire for some healing and an opportunity to

share a desire to go forward in a better way.

The mill there will be incorporating the name

tiskʷat into their name. I honour and

respect the work that’s being done as part of a process of reconciliation,

as a symbol, in fact, but an important symbol that helps to, I hope, heal

some of the wounds. It’s just a small step, an important step, and one of

many, I hope, that will be taken as our communities become more aware of our

history.

I just want to say that I think with the tragic discovery and,

perhaps, realization among many of us who were not familiar with the history

and legacy of residential schools, there has been an awakening among

Canadians. In fact, it reinforces this expectation that we have to know the

truth in order to reconcile. We have, I think, as Canadians, understood in a

different way the impact of the residential schools and colonial policies in

Indigenous communities.

Having worked with Indigenous communities myself, I have heard of the

stories. I’ve been told the stories from Elders and from, in fact, people

very close to my age who attended residential schools into the ’70s. What we

need to learn from that is not to let the chauvinism, as they used to call

it, of our perspective, of our culture, ever to dictate what other

communities, how other communities, should be.

They used to call it that while this province was developing a child

welfare system that, in fact, picked up where residential schools stepped

off. In fact, the harms that Indigenous communities faced continued with new

policies.

[4:55 p.m.]

I want to just pay tribute to the people in the Indigenous communities

who fought hard to reassert their authority over their children and child

welfare, who wrestled from government the ability to be the ones to make

decisions about their children and their well-being. It was a long process

and one that continues, in fact, today, when we look at the numbers. And we

have a lot of work to do — a lot of work to do addressing the inequalities

in our society, a lot of work to do to address poverty.

This is work that I am pleased to say that our government is committed

to and has been committed to since being elected in 2017. For years, the

opposition…. When I was in opposition, we were calling for a poverty

reduction strategy for this province. I remember hearing all sorts of trite

responses — that the best poverty reduction strategy was a job, as if that

statement alone was going to resolve the issues.

What we needed was a plan that had measurable outcomes, a plan that we

could measure our successes against. Or our failures. But to measure, to

ensure that we knew there’s a process to address poverty…. That process

involved consulting with British Columbians, figuring out what measures we

needed to use in order to address poverty. The goals were set: a reduction

of 25 percent of poverty based on 2016 numbers and 50 percent reduction of

poverty among children.

At no time would we say that our job is done or that we’re satisfied

or happy. This is a progress report that was tabled recently, reflecting

government’s continued goals towards reducing poverty. That isn’t a job that

will ever end. There will be no great celebration, but what we can be

confident of is that we are measuring. We are keeping account of our promise

— of our commitment, in fact — to the people of the province that our effort

is to ensure that our society is more equal so that we can raise up and help

and support and, in fact, create a better condition for people in this

province.

Poverty reduction, in fact, is more than income, even though our

government introduced and put in place the largest increase in social

assistance in the history of the province. That wasn’t the first increase

since 2017. Last year, when we introduced the increase of $175 a month, that

was the third increase since our government took office in 2017. I might

point out that those three increases followed a decade of zero increases.

So, again, this is not something where any of us would say we have achieved

our goal. This is a process. Income is part of that.

Child care is part of that. Ensuring that families have access to

supports that include child care. Child care that they can trust, that they

can access, that they can afford is essential to families who face costs

that are beyond their control. The commitment of our government to create a

system of universal daycare…. The challenges of one of the biggest social

program investments in our provincial history are great, but they are being

met by our leading ministers and their staff, who are also committed to the

same goal of creating a system that works for British Columbians.

Providing homes. Ensuring that people who are without shelter have

shelter. Give them an opportunity to think and dream of having a safer life,

having, perhaps, a healthier life. But having some ability to actually think

about more than their day-to-day survival. A roof over their head, some

privacy.

[5:00 p.m.]

I’m so proud of the fact that our government took and is taking this

responsibility seriously. In my riding alone, there have been 120 supportive

housing units created. Shelter beds have been opened. People have been

offered an opportunity to have a pillow and have a place to

sleep.

I know that in some communities, there is distraction over the

discussion about whether these supportive housing homes or apartments are

what their communities need. I would just tell you that they are welcomed in

our community.

In Gibsons, the children from Gibsons Elementary School welcomed the

new residents with pictures that they had created in their classrooms. They

were brought just a bit down the hill and put in the welcome in the lobby.

Gift baskets were put together by committed businesses. The town of Gibsons

helped to coordinate that.

I’m just so proud of the fact that as British Columbians, we embrace

the diversity of our communities. We accept the challenges that we are faced

with in our communities without fear, with confidence. They’re community

members.

I remember someone saying to me: “Oh, I don’t want people from

somewhere else coming to live here.” I just knew that there would be

children walking past that supportive housing unit who would know that

people care for those who don’t necessarily have the financial ability to

have a place — that we still care. I know that there are children who go to

that school who have relatives who don’t have a home, and I think about

their perception of the importance of public support.

It’s important that people see that we have a system that doesn’t turn

its back on anyone, so I’m just really pleased at the fact that our

government is investing in people. That sounds like a slogan, but it’s what

we’ve been doing. We’ve been investing in people and in communities —

communities that we hope thrive, continue to thrive.

We build schools. In Sechelt, west Sechelt, we’ve gotten rid of

portables. We’ve made it known to the children of our school system that

this is for their betterment.

I remember opening a school in Powell River, having an opportunity to

speak. This was even before our government, but it reflects what I think

British Columbians expect. I said to the youngsters there that the people

who paid for that school were their mom and dad, their uncle and aunt,

people they don’t know, people in other communities. We all paid for that

school — that beautiful gym floor, the beautiful exterior that’s a welcoming

playground, that’s accessible. These young people…. I think it’s important

for them to know that we share in the costs of creating a society that is

fair.

I am convinced that our investments in child care, in reducing

poverty, in housing those without a place to live, in helping to provide

access to education to those who wish to have that education and support in

jobs for those who can work are fundamental to the health of our community.

I’ve been in this place for many years, and I’m just pleased that this is

the focus of government.

The focus of government is a healthy society where businesses can

thrive, where they have an educated and supported workforce, where we have a

natural environment that contains the most beautiful landscapes, the

diversity of species. These are things that we as government, we as

legislators, can promote and support.

[5:05 p.m.]

I’m proud of the fact that we have 57 of us and 30 committed people —

people committed to their communities in different ways but ultimately with,

I hope, the same goal: to ensure that we have a province that’s healthy, a

province that continues to be a leader not just in handling challenging

situations but in economic recovery from the challenges that we

face.

The sign of a good government is not always flashy. It’s just nose to

the grindstone; work hard. Not everyone is going to be happy with everything

we do. That’s understandable. But as MLAs and as representatives of

government, we have a commitment to our constituents, to the place they

live, to the services they require.

I think that’s what is reflected in the throne speech. It was

meaningful when it was delivered; it remains meaningful now. It is our

intent, as government, to continue on this path and ensure that British

Columbians don’t just get through the challenges but get through stronger,

more resilient, hopeful and healthy.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the throne speech. With that,

I take my seat.

K. Paddon: I’m very happy to rise and speak to the throne speech. It may have

been a bit ago, but we all remember what it was about, because we’ve been

working on it ever since.

One of the first things I’d like to discuss with relation to the

throne speech is the priority of protecting people’s health. Now, I have the

privilege and the honour of serving in Chilliwack-Kent. As we all know,

vaccinations are available. Vaccinations, we have been told and we

understand, are one of best ways to protect ourselves, our communities, our

schools and our health care system.

I was very proud when I received my first vaccination and then again

when I received my second. I’ve had the privilege of speaking with people in

Chilliwack-Kent who were also excited and proud to receive their

vaccinations, as well as speaking with people who may have initially been a

little bit fearful or uncertain. We know that there are multiple reasons for

that.

Some people were uncertain because of the newness. Other people were

uncertain because they’re not used to having a lot of interaction with our

health care system, our medical system — and even, potentially, have had

some experience or heard some stories about negative interactions. So one of

the things that has been an honour and a privilege is to be able to be a

conduit to those trusted sources of information.

As we all know, in the province of British Columbia, we’re very proud

that we understand where the health care decisions should be being made. We

have these trusted sources where information can be obtained and considered

in order to make our informed decisions about vaccinations.

One of the reasons I bring this up is because as we focus — as the

throne speech indicated — on people’s health and livelihoods, we can’t

really do so without at least mentioning vaccinations. So I would take this

opportunity to encourage everyone and anyone who has not yet been

vaccinated, but is eligible, to get vaccinated. Talk to your doctor if

that’s a step that’s important for you to take. But absolutely, the best way

for us to protect our communities, our schools and our health care system is

for us all to get vaccinated.

[5:10 p.m.]

Part of what we talked about in the throne speech, as well, was how

we’re going to help people now, how we’re going to create conditions for a

strong economic recovery that works for everyone. For me, one of the

things…. When I hear the word “everyone,” I think about people I used to

have the ability to serve in a very direct way, in a very hands-on way. You

know, I love what I do now, but there’s something special, as well, about

that hands-on work.

What I used to be able to do…. I’m not sure if my friends know. I was

actually a vocational counsellor, and I worked directly with youth, young

adults, with intellectual disabilities. I helped to prepare them for our

workforce.

There are a lot of myths — I know I’ve spoken about it in the House

before, and I likely will again — about hiring or employing someone with an

intellectual disability. But when we are talking about workforce that is

underutilized and is a resource that is available to us, individuals with

intellectual disabilities are ready, willing and able — that’s a hashtag and

a webpage, so feel free to look it up — to work.

There’s a myth that they require a lot of accommodation or that there

are safety concerns, when in fact — as I know some of my friends and my

able to talk about as well — most accommodations cost nothing or under $500.

There are programs. There are services — Neil Squire Society for one. I know

a lot of employers have been able to take advantage of that in order to do

exactly what the throne speech is calling us all to do, which is to create

that strong economic recovery for everyone.

The other myth around safety…. Individuals who are ready, willing and

able — again, hashtag and webpage — to be employed and ready to help us with

our workforce needs, doing real work for real pay…. Their safety records

tend to be better than the average. They fill a need in the workplace, in

the workforce, for our employers locally. They increase the safety in a

worksite. They also are able to increase the culture, add to the

culture.

One of the things that is also very important is that we recognize

that our local communities have been on the front lines of COVID. Our

government has been there to support them. Throughout the pandemic, we

ensured that local governments could continue providing the services and

keep people who provide those services working. This included social

services, community groups and the things that people rely on day to

day.

One of the community groups that really bloomed — and I think this was

a result of the community needing something to rally behind, the community

understanding that we all needed to be part of something bigger, something

part of our community, after being home for so long — was the Chilliwack

Pride Festival this year.

The Chilliwack Pride Society had a massive event. It was planned by

volunteers. There were volunteers running booths, lots of local

organizations and some amazing businesses from Chilliwack and

Chilliwack-Kent. At the end of the day, there were thousands of people who

came from all around the Fraser Valley.

The president, Teri Westerby, did an

amazing job, welcoming people to our community, showing people that perhaps

old ideas of who Chilliwack-Kent is are not quite as relevant anymore — that

as a community we come together and we support each other, that we’re

inclusive, and that we really are focusing on the community and on the

people who make up our community.

[5:15 p.m.]

Over the next year, as the throne speech calls for, we will take

concrete steps to ensure that British Columbians come back from the pandemic

stronger than ever. Now, we realize that we’re still very much dealing with

what’s happening. We’re still very much in the pandemic. This is, again,

something that we talk about a lot. It’s something that impacts everything

we talk about, because it’s something that touches every part of our lives.

I know that for youth, that is especially relevant.

I just want to say that one of the ways that we’ll be able to bring

youth into creating a stronger B.C. is through the youth leaders council

that the applications were announced for yesterday, through the special

adviser for youth to the Premier. Those are my remarks.

Deputy Speaker: Noting the hour, I will now put the question for the motion for

Address in Reply: “We, Her Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the

Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in session assembled, beg leave to

thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to

us at the opening of the present session.”

Motion approved on division.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. The House is now adjourned. This House

stands adjourned until Monday, October 18 at 10 a. m.

The House adjourned at 5:17 p.m.

Copyright © 2021 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

chamber proceedings are available at www.leg.bc.ca .

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.