Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, May 17, 2022

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 209

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia

N. Letnick

Local Government Awareness Week and action on climate change

K Greene

Okanagan wine industry

R. Merrifield

Gwa’sala-’Nakwaxda’xw Nations

M. Babchuk

Cliff Michael

G. Kyllo

Farmers markets

J. Sims

Oral Questions

Government priorities and museum replacement project

K. Falcon

Hon. M. Mark

Business plan for museum replacement project

K. Falcon

Hon. M. Mark

T. Stone

Hon. M. Farnworth

Museum replacement project and relationship with Indigenous communities

A. Olsen

Hon. M. Mark

Business plan for museum replacement project

P. Milobar

Hon. M. Mark

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance (continued)

P. Milobar

Hon. S. Robinson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 15 — Low Carbon Fuels Act

Hon. B. Ralston

T. Shypitka

M. Lee

E. Ross

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)

S. Bond

Hon. A. Dix

TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2022

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: M. Dykeman.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Ralston: Today is one of the most important, if not the most important, days in

the legislative calendar. It’s Mining Day in the B.C. Legislature. B.C.’s

mining sector is well positioned as a responsible supplier of choice in

global metal markets, given our low-carbon footprint, high environmental

standards and leadership in advancing economic reconciliation with

Indigenous peoples.

Joining us today to celebrate this joyous occasion are Kendra Johnson,

president and CEO of the Association for Mineral Exploration of B.C.; Alec

Morrison, the president and CEO of the Mining Suppliers Association of B.C.;

Michael Goehring, president and CEO of the Mining Association of B.C.; and

Jill Tsolinas, executive director of the B.C. Centre of Training Excellence

in Mining. I invite the Legislature to welcome these people to the

Legislature, and please participate in the many events celebrating mining

here in British Columbia that are taking place right here today.

R. Merrifield: Well, continuing on the celebration of Creative Industries Week, I am

excited to have a constituent, a neighbour, a fellow entrepreneur, business

owner and friend, Jim Csek, in the House today. Jim Csek is a CPA and CMA

and has been a professional accountant for over 25 years. He is the founder

and current COO and CFO for Csek Creative and NowMedia, alongside his wife

and CEO business partner Nikki Csek. Csek Creative and — get this — the

umbrella of NowMedia Group, NowCities, 16Flights Publishing House, Level Up

Events, D6 Print Studio and IVA Productions. Wow. The Csek Creative team

literally embodies the creative industries.

Jim is not your stereotypical accountant, however, and having had

dinner with both him and Nikki, I will agree. But he has those underlying

core values of a professional accountant. He understands what businesses

want and understands how to put their objectives into action and then become

a customer. Would the House please join me in welcoming to the gallery Jim

Csek.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the gallery today we have a first-time visitor. They are Bhupinder

Hundal, the news director of Global B.C., who started that position in

December 2020. It’s their first time in the House since becoming news

director. He is a former member of Hockey Night in Canada , Punjabi

edition, on both camera and behind it. He was raised in Port Alberni, a

Surrey resident for over 25 years and a recipient of the Queen’s Diamond

Jubilee Medal for contributions to the community. Would the House please

make him most welcome.

A. Olsen: I’m going to introduce someone who is actually introduced fairly

regularly in the House, my friend Jason Goertzen. This morning Jason met me

on the trail out near my riding, on my bike, and he was on his bike. If you

know Jason, you know that he’s an avid cyclist. We got in here in record

time. I don’t know whether Jason was pushing me or I was pushing him, but

either way, I think that both of our legs are screaming right now. Can the

House please make Jason welcome, as usual.

A. Walker: I’d like to make an introduction, but I see that they are not here

yet. I’d like to introduce the House to Bill Diez. They use the they/them

pronouns. They aren’t here yet, but I know they will be passing through the

House real soon. They are incredibly important to me and the member for

Surrey-Newton. I hope the House and everyone in this House will please join

me in pre-emptively celebrating the arrival of Bill Diez.

[10:10 a.m.]

R. Russell: As I think a member from the Kootenays mentioned a while ago, we don’t

often get constituents here from our part of the world. So it’s my pleasure

to welcome Rob and Marilyn Irwin to the House. They got married a few years

before I was born, which is a pretty remarkable accomplishment, I think. I

pass on a message from their favourite niece, who works in the building, so

welcome on behalf of all of us.

T. Shypitka: I just want to follow up from my colleague the Minister of Energy and

Mines.

May is my favourite month here at the Legislature, not because it

draws a close to the end of session or because the flowers are in bloom here

in the capital city but because it’s actually Mining Month. It’s not only

Mining Day, but it’s actually Mining Month here and a chance for us all to

celebrate the positive impacts that mining has on our communities past,

present and into the future. Mining is our gateway to a low-carbon future,

while at the same time building partnerships and fostering reconciliation

with our First Nation governments.

In the House today, as already mentioned, we have four dignitaries

that are good friends of mine — no pun intended: Michael Goehring, president

and CEO of Mining Association of B.C.; Kendra Johnston, the president and

CEO of AME; Alec Morrison, president and CEO of Mining Suppliers Association

of B.C.; and Jill Tsolinas, executive director of B.C. Centre of Training

Excellence in Mining.

Would the House please welcome these fine folks.

B. Banman: Today is actually my 36th wedding anniversary. Believe it or not, Mr.

Speaker, somebody has actually been putting up with me for 36

years.

Interjections.

B. Banman: I know. It comes as a shock to me as much as it does to you. Trust

me.

I would like to wish my wife, Sharon, a very happy anniversary. We are

apart. She hates that part of it, but as we all know, that’s part of the

job. So I’d just like to wish my wife, Sharon, a very happy

anniversary.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

INTERNATIONAL DAY AGAINST

HOMOPHOBIA, TRANSPHOBIA

AND BIPHOBIA

N. Letnick: Today, on the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia

and Biphobia, I stand with members of the LGBTQ2 communities to

celebrate gender diversities and combat discrimination on grounds of

sexual orientation or gender identity.

All individuals are equals as human beings, and human rights are

universal and inalienable. The World Health Organization’s removal of

homosexuality as a mental disorder, in 1990, helped challenge stigmas

and increase access to health care and social support. However, with

more than one-third of the world still criminalizing same-sex

relationships today, we have a lot more work to do, as the LGBTQ people

continue to experience prejudice, stigma and hostility. Discrimination

against this community is not only unethical but also entails

substantial economic and social costs, as people who experience

homophobia are at greater risk of depression, substance abuse and mental

disorder.

LGBTQ people should be able to be who they are, without

harassments or attacks based on fear. As individuals, we need to do our

part to counter our unconscious bias and create a sense of belonging for

the LGBTQ community. As a society, we must continue to advocate for

equal rights for the LGBTQ community, as no one deserves to be denied

civil rights, legal protection or essential services because of who they

are.

Let’s work together to build a tolerant and inclusive society for

everyone to live and fulfil their potential in British Columbia. Today,

on the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia,

on this international day, let’s make sure that we keep this in mind

every day.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AWARENESS WEEK

AND ACTION ON CLIMATE

CHANGE

K Greene: This week has been proclaimed as Local Government Awareness Week

in B.C. Whether you have a city council, island trust, regional district

or modern treaty nation, your local government has a direct impact on

your family’s day-to-day life. They deliver services that are essential

— from fire and police services to garbage collection and recycling, to

roadworks and development permits.

[10:15 a.m.]

Local governments have been on the front lines, tackling some

incredibly challenging issues over the last two years. Throughout these

difficult times, they have remained committed to delivering services,

supporting economic recovery and planning for the future. Local

governments are helping to lead climate action by taking steps to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions and enhance community resilience to the impacts

of climate change. Our government is pleased to support this work with

the $76 million local government climate action program.

In my community of Richmond, council has recently adopted the

community energy and emissions plan 2050, or CEEP, which puts Richmond

on track for a 50 percent GHG reduction by 2030 and net zero by 2050.

One of the pillars of the plan is Richmond’s award-winning district

energy program, which currently heats hundreds of thousands of square

feet of residential and commercial buildings at near-zero emissions. I

look forward to seeing CEEP in action over the coming years.

This week is the time to celebrate all that local governments do

to connect with residents and ensure community needs are met today and

for future generations. I want to extend a personal thank-you to all

local governments, many members of which I have met over my time as a

city councillor. I know how hard the past few years have been on your

communities, and your leadership and the work of your capable staff

matters to the communities you serve.

I encourage everyone to reach out to your hard-working community

leaders during Local Government Awareness Week and thank them for their

commitment, perseverance and guidance.

OKANAGAN WINE INDUSTRY

R. Merrifield: When I first came to the Okanagan, the wine industry was just in

its infancy. To put this in perspective, Mission Hill winery and the

beautiful buildings that are there today had not yet been

built.

The wine industry would not be what it is today without the

pioneering vision of the Stewart family — first, the member for Kelowna

West and now his brother, Tony Stewart, at the helm — or the likes of

Anthony von Mandl, who has created the entire Mission Hill empire. But

now the next generation of visionaries join them, with Dennis O’Rourke

and the Kitsch family, Trent and Ria.

What is most exciting about today is that it’s not just about the

wine of the valley and how this industry impacts our GDP; it’s also

about how this industry involves celebration and festivals and brings

our community together. A completely sold-out Okanagan Wine Festival was

back in Kelowna this last week, and more than 600 people came to the

Rotary Centre for the Arts to get their hands on some of the best wines

the Okanagan has to offer, as well as discover some new ones they had

not yet seen.

If you were not fortunate enough to get one of these tickets, fear

not. This spring wine festival is ten days long, featuring more than 70

events throughout the Okanagan Valley. Known for being one of the best

spots in the entire world when it comes to incredible-tasting wine,

wineries from across the Okanagan have missed being front and centre for

people to discover.

This is only the beginning. Wine festivals are hosted seasonally,

so if you missed out on this spring, fall and winter are still to come.

Or if smaller tastings are your speed, please join a tour from one of

our incredible tour companies, like Cheers or Beach Bum Tours, and hit

up any one of the 20 wineries that are in my riding of Kelowna-Mission

alone.

GWA’SALA-’NAKWAXDA’XW NATIONS

M. Babchuk: The Gwa’sala-’Nakwaxda’xw Nations traditionally existed as two

separate tribes. Their traditional homelands are distinct and separate

and are located on B.C.’s central mainland coast.

In 1964, the Gwa’sala and ’Nakwaxda’xw tribes were forcibly

relocated from their homelands and amalgamated. They moved to the

Tsulquate reserve, adjacent to Port Hardy, on the north coast of

Vancouver Island. They were promised housing, better access to health

care and education.

They arrived to find only three unfinished houses. Many tried to

go back to their homes and villages, but they were burned down by the

federal government. After the pain of this forced relocation, many

turned to alcohol. Many did not survive. Their population dropped to

around 200.

Today the population is approximately 1,100 registered members,

and 56 percent of those members reside at Tsulquate. The average age of

the members, according to the 2016 census, is 28 years old.

A forward-thinking comprehensive community plan in 2010 resulted

in the K’awat’si Economic Development Corp. The KEDC has been behind the

modern, four-star Kwa’lilas Hotel as well as other activities such as

tourism, forestry, fisheries, construction and transportation. They’re

also very invested in finfish aquaculture as well as seaweed and

shellfish aquaculture.

[10:20 a.m.]

The Gwa’sala-’Nakwaxda’xw Nation is an independent nation that

manages all of its finances, education and social and cultural agencies.

The land has started to be prepped for the new big house, and the four

main poles are already carved. And in collaboration with our ChildCareBC

program, a new on-reserve daycare will celebrate its grand opening on

May 31.

They continue to have social and cultural challenges but are

strong and vibrant with a strategic focus on their future.

I’m proud to be part of a government that is committed to

self-determination, self-governance and reconciliation. I’m hopeful we

will see our federal counterparts take the lead so the

Gwa’sala-’Nakwaxda’xw can look forward to meaningful and productive

consultations with all levels of government.

CLIFF MICHAEL

G. Kyllo: Being an MLA is the honour of a lifetime. It is never a right but

a privilege earned every day through our service and devotion to our

communities and the people who have elected us to serve as their

representatives.

Today I stand to honour the passing of a former MLA whose legacy

truly exemplifies one we would all be proud to share when we leave these

chambers and eventually this world. On Thursday, May 12, Cliff Michael

passed away at the age of 88.

Cliff served as a personnel manager for Federated Co-operatives

and went on to represent the Shuswap-Revel­stoke riding as an MLA

of the Social Credit Party. Through his tenure, he served as Minister of

Transportation, Minister of Tourism and Minister of Governmental

Affairs. But as a fellow resident of the Shuswap, I remember Cliff for

the things that he helped to bring to our community, including the

Salmon Arm sports complex and the Shaw Centre, to name but a

few.

The many lives that Cliff touched throughout his career and life

are certainly too many to name here. Cliff is survived by his devoted

wife, Dilys, his son Milton, daughter Colleen, step-children Kim and

Rock and his many grandchildren and great-grandchildren. And my heart

goes out to all of those close to Cliff who feel loss in his

passing.

I recall in my early 20s, during a family dinner, the phone

ringing. Back in the day when there was a phone line — you didn’t have a

cell phone at the table — I had to go in the other room to take a call.

I had my dad and my aunt and uncle there, and as I got back to the

dinner table, my dad seemed quite annoyed. “Who were you talking to on

the phone during dinner?” I was immensely proud to say: “Well, that was

Cliff Michael. That was our local MLA.”

Cliff was so connected with his constituency. He made a call to me

when I was just a young man, only 20 years of age, to ask me about the

tourism industry and what was happening in Sicamous and the surrounding

community. It’s that connection to the community that made such an

impression on me as a young man. I felt so proud and honoured to come

back to the table and to let my dad know that the MLA actually thought

that I was important enough to give a call to, to look for my

opinion.

I think it is for that reason that Cliff Michael was an amazing

man. I consider him a friend. And I hope that the House will please join

me in passing along our condolences to his wife, Dilys, and his

family.

FARMERS MARKETS

J. Sims: Farmers markets are said to have started over 5,000 years ago in

Egypt. Farmers and craftsmen came together in urban areas to sell and

trade goods. The market was always the best place to get local fresh

goods and support our local farmers.

Today these markets are vibrant, diverse community gatherings

where people of all ages come together to shop, eat, be entertained and

socialize and where you can still find the freshest produce.

There are more than 145 of them along B.C.’s Farmers Market Trail.

In Surrey, we are very fortunate to have three farmers markets operating

at different times throughout the city. The Clayton Community Farmers

Market, located in the parking lot of a high school, opened for the year

on May 1. Farmers, artisans, food trucks, baked goods, entertainment and

smiling faces were everywhere.

Beginning on May 28, Cloverdale Market day offers fresh, locally

grown prepared foods, local artist exhibitions and family-fun

activities, showcasing the amazing restaurants and shops that that part

of Surrey has to offer.

[10:25 a.m.]

The Surrey Urban Farmers Market will open at Royal Kwantlen Park

on June 11. Along with all of the vendors, the urban market offers

community workshops, kids’ activities with an outdoor pool, and live

entertainment. Every dollar spent goes to local growers, makers, bakers

and strengthens our local community.

As we all head into summer, I look forward and I hope that you

will get an opportunity to visit markets in your area. I will visit

these markets, meeting new friends and supporting our local farmers,

artisans and community volunteers who make it all happen.

Buy local. Buy B.C.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT PRIORITIES

AND MUSEUM REPLACEMENT

PROJECT

K. Falcon: Last Friday this Premier stumbled forward with a billion-dollar

vanity museum project that nobody asked for, with no business plan and

no credible explanation as to why they were doing this.

This, keep in mind, is at a time when the NDP is clawing back

funding for parents with autistic children; when one out of five British

Columbians do not have access to a family physician; when six people a

day are dying of overdoses, the highest in history; where there are more

than four violent, random assaults taking place every day in the city of

Vancouver alone; and where gas prices are the highest in North America,

right here in British Columbia. Yet this Premier thinks that now is the

time to blow a billion dollars on a poorly thought-out vanity museum

boondoggle.

My question is a straightforward one. Will this Premier, having

heard the overwhelmingly negative reaction to this boondoggle, do the

right thing and scrap this project?

Hon. M. Mark: When we formed government in 2017, we made it very clear that we

were going to modernize the people’s museum, the Royal B.C. Museum. The

reason why we’re doing so is because it’s seismically unsafe. The

members opposite don’t mention that. They knew in 2010 — they were

briefed; they were well aware — that the building, which houses our

collective history…. Let’s put it into context — seven million objects

spanning over 27 kilometres.

The members are laughing, but two floors are under sea level.

We’ve seen major change in our climate over the years. If there were a

flood, we would be wiping out our collective history. That is not a

decision that we’re going to make.

The members opposite made a calculated decision not to protect the

people’s museum. We are investing in the people’s museum to protect our

shared history — our collective history — and to support the tourism

sector. The members opposite…. I haven’t heard them say anything about

how important museums are to tourism and how important they are — to

invest in infrastructure.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

BUSINESS PLAN FOR

MUSEUM REPLACEMENT

PROJECT

K. Falcon: Well, thank you. That was an interesting answer. This building has

served the residents of….

Interjections.

K. Falcon: I haven’t got to the best part yet. Apparently, this government

has concerns about floods. Now, this building, of course, has served the

greater Victoria area and this province well for over 50 years. Suddenly

the NDP are concerned about floods.

Well, that’s interesting, because apparently they’re not concerned

about the 60,000 people a day that go underneath the Massey Tunnel.

Apparently that flood concern….

Interjections.

[10:30 a.m.]

K. Falcon: If this Premier is so stubbornly wanting to go ahead with one of

the dumbest capital decisions I’ve seen since they cancelled the

ten-lane Massey bridge that would have been opening this summer, if they

want to stubbornly go ahead with this, then British Columbians deserve

to see a full and unredacted business case. It’s important that I say

“full and unredacted business case.” We don’t want to see the joke of a

business case they tried to trot out when they were trying to justify

the ridiculous eight-lane tunnel at the Massey Tunnel.

I’ll remind everyone in this House that that so-called business

case didn’t include a value-for-money analysis. It didn’t include a risk

analysis. It didn’t provide any of the construction costs or the cost of

land acquisitions. It didn’t include a cost comparison between their

ridiculous eight-lane tunnel idea, which nobody supports, and the

ten-lane bridge project that came in $600 million under budget. No.

There wasn’t even a description…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

K. Falcon: …of cash flows or the cost of tearing out the old

tunnel.

My question to the Premier is straightforward. If the Premier

thinks that this vanity museum project can withstand the scrutiny, will

they table a full, unredacted business plan today in this

House?

Hon. M. Mark: I forgot to welcome the blast from the past into these chambers.

Coming in here, bringing here….

There’s no need to fearmonger. I’ve got the….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Would the members be interested in getting an answer?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: If you stay quiet, the answer will be provided.

Minister.

Hon. M. Mark: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Yesterday the media did request, for the business case…. We’ve

heard it in the media today — that government is working on it. My team

is working around the clock….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Mark: No. With all due respect, we’re working on getting, if you let me

finish…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Mark: …and handing over the material as quickly as by the end of this

week.

There are processes. Having the opposition heckle the fact that

there are processes for due diligence, for government to go through

rigorous processes to build business cases….

The answer is yes. We will be handing over the business case as

soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, second supplemental.

K. Falcon: Mr. Speaker, it is rare that I am completely at a loss for words

in this House, but I’ve got to tell you. To hear a minister, days after

they’ve announced a $1 billion vanity museum project, stand up and say,

in reference to the business case, that they’re working on

it….

Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me?

Just a message to the minister.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

K. Falcon: You’re supposed to have the work done before you announce a

billion-dollar boondoggle.

Is it any wonder that every single capital project these

characters have under their jurisdiction has been behind

schedule and

over budget? Is it any wonder? Is it any wonder that the Site C project

has gone from $8 billion to $16 billion under their watch? This is a

staggering level of incompetence.

I have a straightforward question to the minister, who is

apparently still working on this business case. Will the minister at

least release the portions of the business case she is working on, to

this House, so that British Columbians can better understand how much of

a boondoggle this really is?

Hon. M. Mark: I did answer the question that the member opposite asked. I said

yes. The business case has been approved. It’s approved. That’s what we

announced on Friday.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Mark: The request to hand over a document that has to go through

rigorous processes, part of government and due diligence….

The answer is yes. We’re going to be transparent.

[10:35 a.m.]

Let me take a moment to talk about how important this project is.

The business case informed that we need to protect our province’s asset.

Across the street from this legislative chamber is our shared history.

Our government is not going to take the risk, through an earthquake,

through floods, to wipe out our collective history.

Those are calculated decisions that the members opposite chose to

do. We have come forward to the public that we are building a new,

modern, state-of-the-art facility that is going to be accessible. It’s

going to be built with mass timber, supporting the forestry sector. It

is going to be a magnet for international visitors to come to Victoria,

the province’s capital, to access the state-of-the-art

museum.

There’s more to tell you, hon. Speaker, but I wish that the

members opposite, during B.C. Museums Week, would be celebrating this

important investment.

T. Stone: So which is it? The minister, on one hand, says that they’re

working on the business plan, and then in the next minute, she says that

they’re working on — I assume — releasing it.

The minister was putting out little bits and pieces and details in

a press conference last Friday, which was really just to announce the

expenditure of $1 billion, with not much to support it. Then in other

media interviews, you get a little piece of information here, and you

get a little piece of information there. She’s all over the map, just

like this plan.

British Columbians were shocked and dismayed at the announcement

of an expenditure of $1 billion for a vanity museum project. Not only

does this reflect a Premier and a government that’s completely out of

touch with the struggles that British Columbians are facing today, but

they haven’t even given any details about a business plan. There wasn’t

even a rendering. There was not even a picture of what this museum might

actually look like. There were no design details released.

In fact, this is what the minister said about this: “I don’t want

to tell British Columbians what it’s going to look like. It’s an open

canvas.” A billion dollars of taxpayers’ money on this project, and it’s

an open canvas? Are you kidding me? No business plan, no design details,

not even an explanation as to why it’s going to take eight

years.

Again, the question to the Premier is: will the Premier either

scrap the project today or stand up and release the business plan, or

the bits and pieces of the business plan, that informed an announcement

of $1 billion for a vanity museum project?

Hon. M. Mark: I’ll remind the members that in 2017, in our throne speech, we

committed to modernizing the museum. In 2018, we were transparent about

the process that we were building the collections and research building

in Colwood, to house our archives, which are important institutions that

help inform reconciliation.

Along the way, we have made it clear to the public, through

engagement, by saying: “What does a new, modern museum look like?” We

have gone to the public about what a new, modern museum could look like.

We have spent years — from day one, since we got elected in 2017 — to

build a concept plan, build our business case. We came forward to the

public on Friday — that the business case has been approved. We are

doing the work. We are doing the right thing.

To answer the member’s question, yes, we are going to hand over

and share the business plan. But I want to remind the member opposite

that the context in which he’s saying, “Did you have any indicative

designs?” — yes, there are indicative designs. But the public said they

wanted to be a part of this process on what a new, reimagined

21st-century museum is going to look like. That is the commitment that

British Columbians are asking for, from us.

To answer the member’s question…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. M. Mark: …yes, we are going to hand over the business case. But I want the

members opposite, during this moment in chambers, to admit the fact that

on day two of the B.C. Liberals coming into this House, the first thing

that he says he’s going to do is to cut an investment in protecting our

shared history. Shame on the member opposite.

Mr. Speaker: Opposition House Leader, supplemental.

T. Stone: Well, that is absolute, utter nonsense, and the minister should

know it. Since 2017, there has been discussion at the Royal B.C. Museum

about a $50 million renovation, an $80 million upgrade, a $100 million

upgrade.

[10:40 a.m.]

Just last year, to great fanfare, the minister announces that

there’s going to be the shutdown and the renovation of the Old Town

exhibit in the existing museum. Then, only months later, suddenly the

entire building needs to be knocked down and replaced with a $1 billion

vanity project.

British Columbians are saying: “Give us a break.” They can’t

afford gas. They can’t afford to put groceries on their table. They

can’t afford housing costs and rent. And this is a priority that the

province brings forward? It’s outrageous.

Not only did the Tourism Minister reference this $1 billion

project as being an open canvas, but here’s another thing that she said

to the media yesterday: “Business cases contain thousands and thousands

of pages of documents.” But an important detail. Not a single one of

those thousands and thousands of supposed pages has actually been

released for British Columbians to see.

Somehow, before coming up with the design, government wants us to

believe that this open canvas is fully costed at $1 billion. They’re

going to move ahead almost immediately to close the existing museum for

eight years, presumably while they figure out the details. That’s not

how you’re supposed to build major projects, to the minister. People are

actually going so far as to call this project fast ferries

2.0.

Will the minister release a full, unredacted business plan, or are

they just too afraid to show the details of this $1 billion vanity

museum project?

Hon. M. Farnworth: First, I just want to make one point. The only vanity project in

this place is that member thinking he can sit on this side of the

House.

The second point…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: …I want to make is, listening to them talk about business plans….

The minister said the business plan is going to be tabled. But you know

what, hon. Speaker? We are still waiting for a tabling of the business

plan of the Port Mann Bridge, which that member said was going to be

tabled when he sat on this side of the House. There was never a business

plan tabled for the Port Mann Bridge.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In fact….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That’s the other thing, hon. Speaker. Since he arrived here

yesterday, all we have heard is…. He’s going to cancel the museum. He’s

going to cancel the tunnel.

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I never thought someone who was the best buddy of Maxime Bernier

would suddenly now become the leader of cancel culture.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, shhh. Members. Members, order.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, when I listen to that side of the House…. One, they

don’t want to protect the collective cultural history of the province of

British Columbia.

The minister said a business plan is being tabled, and the Leader

of the Opposition seems to make a big deal about it. I’d just like to

remind him…. I’d like to remind the Leader of the Opposition…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: …that when he stood, in 2008, with the Premier and promised to

extend SkyTrain to Surrey and Broadway, he announced a plan that would

be $3.1 billion, 2.8….

Interjection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Oh, he says blah, blah, blah. I guess he would say that, because

when he was Finance Minister four years later, there wasn’t a dime in

the budget for any of those projects.

[10:45 a.m.]

This side of the House is working every day to make life better

for British Columbians. All they ever do is complain.

MUSEUM REPLACEMENT PROJECT

AND RELATIONSHIP WITH

INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES

A. Olsen: On Friday, our Premier stood and announced an $800 million

monument to colonial storytelling, the rebuilding of the B.C. museum. In

the presser, the Premier said: “The stories told here have failed to

accurately reflect our colonial history or include everyone.” Yesterday

in question period, the Premier and then, today, the minister said that

they’re surprised that we don’t support “investing in our collective

history.”

Well, this is the challenge that we face. It depends on where you

sit. As uncomfortable as the truth is, the history the surprised Premier

and minister today are celebrating is the grave-robbing of my

ancestors.

The museum has had no problems telling the story of natural

history. The woolly mammoth, a well-loved feature. Everybody can agree.

Old Town breathes life into the adventurous spirit of explorers and

settlers.

The museum’s problem is how they relate to Indigenous people. It

has been identified as a terrible place for Indigenous people to work.

It cannot be fixed by a bigger, brighter, shinier museum built with mass

timber and wrapped in a

Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-inspired veneer. A new

shrine to house the systemic rot is not the solution.

To the Premier, does he not understand that this announcement is

actually a powerful act of aggression, a power play wrapped in the

rhetoric of reconciliation?

Hon. M. Mark: I have the deepest respect for the member opposite, as a fellow

Indigenous person who stands in these chambers, representing not only

your constituents but also your heritage. I appreciate the words that

the member is sharing.

There’s a lot of work going on at the Royal B.C. Museum. There

have been complaints about the workforce, and we’re trying to fix it. We

have a new CEO. We’ve been committed, from day one, that we were going

to modernize the museum. That includes the way people work there, the

way the exhibits are shared, working with the First Nations whose

territory it’s on.

It is on the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ

territory. We are working hand in hand — I say paddle together — with

the Songhees, with the Esquimalt to have their validation and to follow

protocol in a good way about the work that is going to carry on, moving

forward.

With respect, my village, Laxgalts’ap, is very far from here. Kids

in schools in the Nass Valley can’t come down here and access this

museum.

The Royal B.C. Museum is the people’s museum. It needs to be

brought into the 21st century, which means….

Interjections.

Hon. M. Mark: I don’t know how the members opposite can’t resist heckling. I’m

talking about our important history. I’m talking about sharing our

important history beyond Victoria, with the rest of the province. It’s

the people’s museum. Through technology, through virtual tours, by

digitizing our shared history….

To the member opposite, when we learned, which we’re working on….

We’re coming towards the one-year anniversary of the 215…. The archives

building plays an important role in reconciliation and repatriation.

When I saw images of the children at Tk’emlúps….

Interjection.

Hon. M. Mark: You’re going to keep mocking?

I wish I had pictures of my grandparents and I understood what

they went through. That institution is an important vessel for

education.

We are going to do things better. I want to commit to the member

opposite and to all members of these chambers that we must do things

better. We must bring it into the 21st century. We must work with

Indigenous communities. We are going to reset the relationship with the

RBCM. That is precisely what was called for in the Declaration on the

Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act action plan.

[10:50 a.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Member for Saanich North and the Islands, supplemental.

A. Olsen: The minister is lucky. She’s lucky because her items are back in

her community, many of them. That repatriation, many of the

repatriations up there, has already happened as part of treaty, which

Indigenous nations around this province are waiting for in order to be

able to have our items come back home. Most Indigenous people I speak to

have no desire to visit their culture in a museum.

This announcement brought me to tears multiple times this weekend,

right here. The cultural significance that museums and the Premier call

“artifacts” are not oddities from another century. They are meaningful

to our living and breathing cultures — contemporary items. In fact, some

of the items in the museum’s collection are the missing puzzle pieces to

the broken parts of our culture, the parts that we haven’t had the

benefit to access because they’ve been locked away in cabinets in the

basement.

Growing up in the western culture, we’ve learned to celebrate

museums and the strictly curated narratives that they tell about our

history. But we want our sacred items home. We want our technologies. We

want our innovations. We want our designs. We want them in the hands of

our teachers and our children so that they can be inspired by their

ancestors at home. We don’t want to visit our culture locked behind

glass. We want it on the land and on the water, where our culture lives

and breathes.

Mariah Charleson, the vice-president of the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal

Council, tweeted: “I wonder how many stolen items could be repatriated

to the appropriate owners with that amount of money.”

Why is this B.C. NDP government spending $800 million to warehouse

Indigenous culture and in 2020 only invested $500,000, in $30,000

increments, for Indigenous nations to repatriate their ancestors and

items of cultural significance?

Hon. M. Mark: There are many things that I agree with the member opposite on.

This is why we have to do this important work. This is why we need to

bring it into the 21st century.

The member opposite can shake his head. I am being sincere in

telling you. I have told my staff. Who stole and raided my cupboards and

our kitchens as Nisg̱a’a people, as Gitxsan people? Our bowls, our tools

are over behind glass cupboards. I have said that. I’m not trying to be

provocative or politically incorrect.

These institutions were created at a moment in time. Times have

changed. All members in these chambers voted for the declaration on the

rights of Indigenous peoples. We are going to do things differently, and

that includes repatriation. That is a part of our action

plan.

I want to say in these chambers, for the record, with all due

respect, I’m Nisg̱a’a, Gitxsan, Cree and Ojibway. My daughter is Haida.

We don’t all agree. We don’t all think the same. That is the importance

of self-determination. There are some nations that want their archives

to be in these institutions as opportunities for learning, to understand

how things were created, to teach. That is what institutions like the

Royal B.C. Museum are intended to do. We are going to fix

things.

The members opposite who kind of mock and make jokes like cancel

culture…. Now more than ever we need to use institutions like the museum

to bring us along, to bring up our awareness, to have understanding,

especially here in B.C., where so many Indigenous people have not had

the best experience with the Crown.

BUSINESS PLAN FOR

MUSEUM REPLACEMENT

PROJECT

P. Milobar: Well, the excuses are hard to keep track of, but let’s make one

thing very clear. The minister keeps talking about protecting a

collection. I will point out to the minister that this side of the House

has not once taken issue with the $224 million being spent in Colwood to

make sure there’s a proper storage facility for artifacts from British

Columbia’s museum. So let’s take that off the table right from the

get-go.

[10:55 a.m.]

The minister says: “During Museums Week, I can’t believe this.”

Well, I have news for the minister. Museums across this province were

hoping that instead of having to beg and beg and repeatedly beg the

minister for $50,000 here or $25,000 there, on Friday, they might have

had an announcement that supported museums across this

province.

Instead, a billion-dollar vanity museum project for the Premier

that has no business plan, no timelines and no expectation it will even

be done properly — let alone the timeline that Old Town gets shut down,

with no mention of this happening. And in mid-renovation, magically, the

building needs to be torn down completely instead of

renovated.

Now, this isn’t just the opposition saying this. I have lots of

quotes, but I’ll just read one. This is what George Fraser wrote: has

the Premier “lost his marbles? He has certainly lost my vote. A billion

for a museum today will explode to a billion and a half eight years from

now.”

When will this Premier, when will this minister, stop playing

games with the business plan and agree to release the full, unredacted…?

Not working on…. “We’re working on release” means that they’re working

on redacting the heck out of it.

When will this minister release the full, unredacted business plan

for this open canvas of a boondoggle for the Premier’s vanity museum

project?

Mr. Speaker: When the question was asked, everybody was quiet. I appreciate it.

Let’s hear the answer now. Everybody should be quiet.

Hon. M. Mark: I’ve sat in these chambers for 30-something question periods.

There have been no questions about tourism. The member opposite is

asking five questions now and has not mentioned tourism. I’ve answered.

To the questions that members have asked, I’ve said yes, we will release

it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, let the Chair hear the question and answer,

please.

Hon. M. Mark: I’ve said yes. We are going to release the business plan. But I

want to mention what the tourism industry, what Paul Nursey, the

president and CEO of Destination Victoria, said about the

museum.

“The Royal B.C. Museum has been and will continue to be a vital and

essential demand driver for the visitor economy in greater Victoria. At

Destination Greater Victoria, we are excited about the significant

capital investment downtown on the Inner Harbour in the heart of the

capital city. We believe this investment will elevate the Royal B.C.

Museum experience to become globally competitive.

“We also acknowledge the years ahead during construction will have

challenges to overcome, but we are also hopeful that the strategy that

the Royal B.C. Museum has put in place will help to mitigate these

temporary impacts. We are a forward-looking city and organization, and

we look forward to what is to come.”

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call estimates debate on the Ministry of

Finance.

In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee stage, Low Carbon

Fuels Act.

In

Section C, the Birch Room, I call continued estimates for the Ministry

of Health.

[11:00 a.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

FINANCE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B);

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 11:04 a.m.

On Vote 26: ministry operations, $318,847,000

(continued) .

P. Milobar: I’m just double-checking with the minister because there was an

outstanding question at the end of the day yesterday, but I was going to

transition to BCFSA questions today.

[11:05 a.m.]

I’m not sure if she wants to deal with the question first, and

then we’ll roll into new questions. I’m good either way.

Hon. S. Robinson: I’d be happy to respond to the member’s questions. Yesterday, I

think, the last question of the day — there were many questions — was

about…. The member asked me, as minister, to point to where in the

budget is the $240 million worth of what he calls subsidy to Parkland.

That’s what I recall as the last question.

The low-carbon fuel standard credit system does not result in cash

or revenue for government that can then be provided as a subsidy. That’s

not how it works. There is no subsidy provided to any company through

the LCFS system, including to Parkland. Any company like Parkland is

able to enter into an agreement under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction

(Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act and receive compliance

credits to offset their investment in the production of low-carbon

fuels.

Credits are awarded when a company achieves milestones in their

project. The credits have a value that can be monetized by the company

selling the credits to others on the private market, so this is a

private transaction. They are usually bought by companies that can’t

achieve the carbon intensity requirements set out in law, thus allowing

them to buy compliance with the low-carbon fuel regulatory requirements

and avoid penalties under the act.

If the member is looking for greater detail, I would need to

encourage him to canvass the ministry responsible, which is the Ministry

of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation.

P. Milobar: Thanks to the minister for that. No, that’s fine. That puts

further clarification on the process there.

Jumping into the BCFSA questions. I recognize we’ll be up against

the clock fairly quickly before lunch. Then, just so the minister is

aware, the Green Party will be doing the first hour after lunch, and

then I’ll pick up after that with various Crowns.

There’s been a lot of discussion, obviously, with the BCFSA around

cooling-off periods — various reports and advice that we’re waiting for

from the BCFSA. Has the report on the cooling-off period come forward

yet, and if so, when will it be released?

Hon. B. Ma: While the minister is preparing her answer, may I seek leave

to do an introduction?

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Ma: The grade 11 class of the global perspectives program from

Sutherland Secondary is visiting from North Vancouver.

I may be accused of being biased, perhaps, but I believe that the

teachers at Sutherland Secondary are some of the best in British

Columbia. They’re so committed to their students. They work incredibly

hard to ensure that their students have a very good education. In

particular, I would like to acknowledge the teachers Claudia Panton,

James Nevison and Jeffrey Aw-Yong for bringing their students here to

the Legislature today in order to observe proceedings.

I know it can be a little bit confusing, what’s happening on the

floor of the chamber, sometimes. What’s happening is that we are in

budget estimates. The member for Kamloops–North Thompson is a member of

the official opposition. We have the Minister of Finance here on this

side of the House, with the B.C. government.

The official opposition will be asking questions about what is in

the Minister of Finance’s budget, and the Minister of Finance will speak

with her staff and then prepare an answer and respond. That will happen

for hours and hours at a time. So you get the privilege of seeing some

of the real work in action right here in the chambers.

Would the House please join me in welcoming them to the gallery

today.

Debate Continued

Hon. S. Robinson: Welcome to the students from Sutherland. We do all of our speaking

through the Chair. It’s safer for everybody that we do that. That’s why

we address and turn to the fabulous-looking people at this centre table.

They are the ones that we engage with, rather than directly across the

aisle, although sometimes we do throw a shot across the bow. But we

really try to stay focused to the table.

With that, I’m happy to report to the member that we have

committed to and that BCFSA has committed to delivering that report to

me this spring. Even though the weather doesn’t feel spring-like, it is

this spring, and I’m hoping to receive it shortly.

[11:10 a.m.]

P. Milobar: That’s a little concerning, though. I mean, we are three or four

weeks post–dealing with the bill and first discussing, and about a month

since the minister first said “expecting it shortly.” In fact, we were

half under the expectation and discussion that it may actually even be

ready, based on the minister’s comments while we were debating the bill

still or shortly thereafter. It’s obviously not at the speed we saw the

FOI fees brought in after that bill was enacted, at this

point.

I guess be careful what you wish for, though. But I think

somewhere between the speed that that OIC was signed off on by the

Minister of Citizens’ Services and now, waiting for what seems to be the

never-ever plan for a report, is troubling. Spring — it depends. Weather

is one thing. Calendars are another. Spring is only a few weeks away

from being summer. A month ago was “soon.”

So could we get a more firm date than “spring” and “soon” from the

minister as to when a critical report that is going to guide

recommendations around something as fundamentally important as a cooling

off period, geographic differences and whether or not deposits will be

lost — people who have saved for ten or 15 or 20 years for a down

payment that they may lose if they decide to back out of a deal…? This

is a pretty serious and significant report to changes on how people

would buy and sell their biggest investment, for most people, in their

lives.

To hear, a month later, “soon” and “sometime in the spring”

frankly just doesn’t cut it with a whole lot of people out there, let

alone the people that are currently trying to buy and sell and trying to

figure out what their future might hold. So can we get a more definitive

date? BCFSA representatives are advising the minister today. Surely they

must have a pretty good sense of when that report would be actually

done. When exactly are they telling the minister that that will be

delivered?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I see that the students from Sutherland are still here. They’re

fascinated with what we’re talking about.

I want to introduce into the House Erin Seeley, from the BCFSA,

who is here, as well as Chris Dawkins, from the policy and legislation

division.

The member accentuated that this is a serious and significant

report. I completely agree. This is a serious and significant report.

That’s why, back in November — November 4, to be specific — when we

asked the BCFSA to take on a robust consultation…. We directed them to

work as quickly as they could, while doing a robust consultation, and to

get a report back to us this spring. So I’m fully expecting to get it

back this spring.

The terms of reference were made public back in the fall. That’s

available on the BCFSA website, if anybody is interested to see the

terms of reference for the BCFSA to do this. I urge anyone to go take a

look at what we asked them to do on government’s behalf.

I’m happy to share that, in January and February, they embarked on

this consultation. Over 100 groups participated. That’s a significant

participation on a very specific set of issues.

It is important. The member is absolutely right. It’s a serious

and significant report. So it’s important to make sure….

I want to express gratitude to BCFSA, as well as to all those who

participated, for getting the recommendations right. That is going to

inform us on how to best proceed.

I also think it’s important to acknowledge…. They were asked to

consult about other issues. We wanted to make sure that we were

capitalizing on people’s time. It would help inform us about what more

might need to be considered as we address overactive real estate

markets. What are others doing?

We did ask them to consult around blind bidding. We wanted to get

a better understanding about what the risks were with unconditional

offers. We wanted to understand about mandatory inspections. Would that

be something that would help — again, as a consumer protection measure?

The member is right. People are making significant investments in their

homes. Unconditional offers carry significant risks. How do we help

people in these very difficult times?

It’s also important that we did this consultation…. It was broader

than just the real estate industry itself. They engaged with consumer

groups and regulators as well. So it was a very, very fulsome and very

broad consultation.

You can only imagine, Mr. Chair, how complex it is to go through

over 100 groups that participated and analyze the information, collate

it, have it make sense and pull it together in a cohesive report that

delivers good advice to government. That’s what they’re working

on.

Again, I’m advised that it is coming shortly. I know that it’s

frustrating for the member. It’s frustrating for me. We have important

work that needs to be done. I also think it’s important that they get it

right. I will say that they’ve moved with significant speed. They did

the consultations in January and February — that’s a lot of groups to be

meeting with over just a couple of months — and then to collate it over

March, April and May and get it written.

I’m hopeful that we will all see it fairly soon.

[11:20 a.m.]

P. Milobar: Well, the delay would be more understandable if things like

looking at blind bidding and things of those natures, in the minister’s

answer, hadn’t been part of the initial consultation and they had to go

back out and look into those things. But that’s not what happened. The

whole bundle of things were being consulted with at once. Yes, it was

100 groups, and yes, it can take time.

The problem I have is that we’re trying to seek an actual date,

because the “shortly” answer has lost its effectiveness. This report is

supposed to form the basis of regulation on a bill that was rushed

through the House so that it would be ready to go so that regulation

could be developed as soon as the report landed. That was the rush for

the bill.

Problem being…. And this is what the minister’s words were on

March 30 of this year, speaking of the bill: “It will move through the

House, and we’ll certainly, at the same time, be able to review the

report” — review the report at the same time as the bill — “and bring in

the regulations. I’m expecting that we’ll be able to do this very

quickly for both.”

But the only thing the minister seems to have moved very quickly

on is a bill that has no detail whatsoever in it, except giving her

regulatory powers to do whatever she wants as it relates to cooling-off

periods, blind bidding, people potentially losing their deposits — their

down payment that they saved for ten, 15 years. And the minister

confirmed during committee stage that that is, in fact, a consequence,

if you have clauses, regulations, that will remove deposits: losing

them, making them non-refundable.

Whether or not there’s going to be geographic differences for what

has now been deemed a consumer protection bill and not an actual way to

regulate prices of housing and make them more affordable — so whether or

not people in various parts of the province will have different consumer

protection or not…. All of that, on March 30, was supposed to happen

very quickly.

It’s May 17. The best we can get from the minister, with the

people, with the agency that’s actually tasked with writing the report

here advising…. And just for the viewers at home — and I can’t see if

the kids are still here or not, but just so they’re aware — it’s not

just staff in estimates in the room that you see that are helping

advise. They have staff in offices watching these proceedings,

communicating back and forth with the minister and the staff here, to

make sure that the question, in theory, gets a comprehensive answer and

not spin.

So the answer I’m looking for to the question is: can the minister

define a date that we will see the full and unredacted report publicly

from the BCFSA as it relates to the cooling-off period, blind bidding,

deposits, inspections — all of that? What is the actual date that will

be delivered?

People, I think, deserve to at least have a date. If the deadline

is missed, we can address it at that point. The fact there is such

hesitancy to give a date — to not work towards a date, to not tell and

task the BCFSA, as the minister, “I want this report by this date,

because I said on May 30 that it would be soon, and it’s now May 17” —

is not good enough. The minister has the ability to do that.

Will the minister provide us with a date, on May 17, of when we

can expect this report? On March 30, she said it would be soon. Soon has

long since passed.

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I can assure the member that the students are still here in the

chamber.

The report. First of all, the report will be made public. It will

be on the BCFSA website. It will be a full report, unredacted, available

for consumers to see, available for everyone to see. It has always been

about consumer protection, and I expect to receive it before the end of

this month.

P. Milobar: That’s good, because we’re still in session into June. I’m sure we

can follow up with that if that’s not out.

Will the report be made public before the regulations are in place

or after the minister has already decided what she will or won’t action

of the report and has already made regulations, as the bill has provided

her the powers to do?

Hon. S. Robinson: Bye, everyone.

I can let the member know that the students have now vacated their

seats.

The regulations will be made after the report is

released.

P. Milobar: Another area with the BCFSA is strata insurance. I’m just

wondering if the minister and the BCFSA feel that strata insurance

rates, insurance prices, had been corrected by the end of 2021 or

not.

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member asking the question. I do think that this

has a significant history that goes back…. I call it the before times,

before COVID. I remember how challenging this was, and certainly back in

2019, we were hearing from strata owners, council members and

stakeholders that were very concerned about the rising insurance costs

and difficulties in obtaining insurance for some strata

corporations.

We were hearing that right around the province — not just here,

but in other jurisdictions as well. In 2020, we directed the B.C.

Financial Services Authority to conduct an in-depth investigation to

better understand the extent of the cost increases and the many cost

drivers, the many factors that were driving up the prices of the strata

insurance.

BCFSA issued a final report into the strata insurance market back

in December 2020. The final report found that the strata insurance

market at the time was unhealthy because of a number of factors. There

was a higher loss experienced by insurers in the market; a risk of

catastrophic losses, including flood and earthquake. A reduction in the

number of insurers in the market was also contributing severely to this.

Insurers were leaving the market.

We saw an increase in the number of insurable buildings. Buildings

were aging. Poor maintenance records were contributing to this, as well

as increasing building costs, and the volume and magnitude of claims.

All of the elements were what the BCFSA came back with.

In 2020, Bill 14 received royal assent. That’s the municipal

affairs and housing amendment, No. 2. This legislation was intended to

help mitigate the impact of rising insurance costs for strata

corporations and to increase transparency for strata lot owners and

purchasers.

Further changes were made to the regulations under the Financial

Institutions Act. They were deposited in September 2020 to ensure that

strata property owners are provided better disclosure. We want to make

sure that strata owners understood the disclosure from insurance

companies and brokers, that they had all the information they needed to

— again, a bit of a consumer protection piece — understand what needed

to be insured and what was happening in the industry.

Insurers, insurance brokers are now required to provide advance

notification to strata corporations if they anticipate a change to a

policy or a non-renewal of a policy so that they have the time they need

to do their due diligence and to do any shopping that they might need to

do. Insurance brokers are now required to disclose the commissions they

receive on strata property contracts of insurance so that everyone

understands…. Much more transparent as a result of the work that we

asked the BCFSA to undertake, and the work that we’ve done as

government, in collaboration with them.

The BCFSA also worked with insurers to effectively end the

practice that was known as best terms pricing in B.C.’s strata insurance

market at the end of 2020. Best terms pricing is when premiums for

property insured by multiple insurers are based on the highest bid, and

everyone bumps up their fees. That has been eliminated as

well.

What I can assure the member at this point is that there is some

early anecdotal evidence to suggest that the market for strata insurance

is improving overall. There’s been a data call put out for 2021 data,

requesting updated data on strata insurance pricing. Staff right now are

going through the data and will provide government with an update as

soon as they have completed their work.

P. Milobar: There doesn’t seem to be, however, a noticeable decline in the

cost of insurance by the end of 2021. That was really the premise of the

question.

[11:35 a.m.]

Just looking for a brief answer of whether the minister and BCFSA

believe that strata insurance prices have corrected themselves by the

end of 2021.

Hon. S. Robinson: As I noted in my earlier response, there is early anecdotal

evidence that suggests that the market for strata insurance is improving

overall. I need to remind the member that this is a global market. These

are large companies. We are a small jurisdiction, relative to the world,

so it is a challenging industry to affect and to impact. Having said

that, there are some early and anecdotal indicators that things are

improving overall.

Ministry staff, I’ve been told, have heard from some stakeholders

that premiums have gone down for some strata properties with a low

claims history. Properties with a high claims history are those with

identified and unresolved risks and do continue to face challenges.

Again, that’s anecdotal, and it’s really important to take a look at the

data so that better informs government.

Right now, they have put out a data call. They are sifting through

the data to make sure that they understand what is happening in our

small market here so that we can figure out how to best respond to what

is happening based on real data and not just on anecdotal

information.

P. Milobar: Well, we’re almost halfway through 2022. I’m asking these

questions because, much like we saw with the mandate letter for the

minister around rent subsidies, renters rebates, which haven’t been

actioned, strata insurance costs are in the mandate letter of the

minister as well. In fact, it says: “If rates have not corrected by the

end of 2021, explore a public strata insurance option.” Not “if

anecdotal evidence” or anything of that nature. It’s if rates have not

corrected.

I never heard anything in the answer there that suggested the

minister was already starting to take preliminary steps of exploring a

public strata insurance option, which is in her mandate letter, very

clearly spelled out by the Premier, on a timeline that would trigger

this action to start, which was the end of 2021. Here we are, almost six

months later. Has the minister initiated any actions with the BCFSA

around exploring a public strata insurance option?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The member asked about what actions I’m taking on my mandate

letter. I’m happy to report that I am taking action on my mandate

letter, which is why we asked for the data. That is action on…. I have

been directed by the Premier to monitor this carefully and to watch and

engage with the insurance sector to see what additional actions we might

need to take.

We’ve taken initial steps. I read into the record about, for

example, the best terms pricing, the legislation that we did in Bill 14,

regulations to the Financial Institutions Act to ensure that strata

property owners are provided better disclosure. I think it’s also

important that the member and the public know that we’re working on this

particular challenge in collaboration with the Attorney General and the

Minister Responsible for Housing.

The housing policy branch is consulting on possible regulatory

changes, as well, under the Strata Property Act, with respect to

requiring strata corporations to obtain strata depreciation reports.

Previously they could be postponed indefinitely. So they’re looking at

what can be done there — and providing more insurance information to

prospective purchasers and increasing minimum contributions to strata

corporations’ contingency reserve funds from both developers and owners.

That work is being reviewed in terms of policy development.

As well, I want to go back to the member’s question around me

acting on my mandate letter and the fact that I’ve directed staff and,

thus, the BCFSA to do a data call for 2021 to understand what’s

happening in the insurance markets. Given that you can’t get the data

for 2021 until 2021 has passed and that we put the data call…. The

request for data went out in February so that the data could be

obtained.

It was presented to…. The insurance companies have been very good

at providing the data, and it arrived at the BCFSA in April. So in order

to understand the state of the market through the end of 2021…. Once we

get the results, we’ll certainly consider next steps.

P. Milobar: Well, it certainly sounds like we don’t have a definitive answer

on whether or not the pricing has improved or not. Fortunately, the

Housing Minister’s estimates still haven’t happened yet, so I’m sure

there’ll be some follow-up there as well.

I know we’re getting close to having to note the hour here once

the other rooms come in to report, so I want to loop back to the report

we’re waiting on around the cooling-off period and that, just to clarify

with the minister. We’ve come to realize….

Again, the most glaring example would be the

freedom-of-information bill that the Minister of Citizens’ Services

brought in that was going to be consulted with. People were going to be

consulted before regulations around fees were brought in, and then,

within a few minutes of the bill passing, debate and interactions like

this counted as the feedback and consultation, and suddenly the fee was

enacted.

I’m not suggesting this minister is doing that by any means, but I

just want, I guess, for the public record and certainty, to understand.

It was good to hear the minister say that the report will be made public

before regulation is made.

[11:45 a.m.]

For how long will the report be made public, and what is the

intended feedback period or structure that the minister and the BCFSA

has envisioned for their report to get broader…? The report comes out.

How is the feedback going to come back from the general public and

industry to inform the minister on what the regulations will be, and

what does that timeline look like before regulation finally gets

set?

Hon. S. Robinson: I think we need to remember that we have received over 100 groups

that have been consulted on this report. BCFSA has heard from many who

have an interest in consumer protection — regulatory bodies, the real

estate industry, consumers. So there has been lots of robust

consultation on this.

[11:50 a.m.]

I have been told that development of regulation can take some

time, depending on the advice that we receive from the BCFSA. Until I

see the report, it would be really hard to let the member know how long

it would take to develop regulations. Of course, I want to assure the

member that the report will be available on the BCFSA website for a long

time. I just learned that the strata report that we received several

years ago is still available on the website. It will live its life,

available for the time to come.

This is a priority for government, but we also know that we need

to consider whatever recommendations we get from the BCFSA, very

carefully. We’re going to make sure that we have full understanding of

what impacts any regulations, going forward, would have on the market

and on consumers.

With that, Mr. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report

progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:51 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. L. Beare moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 11:52 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 15 — LOW CARBON FUELS ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 15;

J. Sims in the chair.

The committee met at 11:06 a.m.

The Chair: Minister, would you like to introduce your staff?

Hon. B. Ralston: Yes, thank you very much. I’m here with Les MacLaren, who is the

assistant deputy minister, electricity and alternate energy division,

and Michael Rensing, who’s the director of the low carbon fuels

branch.

On clause 1.

T. Shypitka: We’re going to Bill 15. We’re going to have numerous questions

here. As the minister knows, Bill 15 replaces and repeals the previous

legislation, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act of 2008, and adjusts the

formula for compliance credits, increasing department intensity, in turn

making it more difficult, perhaps, to receive compliance

credits.

This bill gives the minister the power in determining additional

carbon intensity through regulation, but this does also require

definition of what is considered additional carbon intensity and how it

is measured.

Replacing the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act, the new legislation

will have an updated scheme for incentivizing the supply of renewable

and low-carbon fuels in British Columbia. The incentives are based on

the creation of what is called the initiative fund that would be funded

by selling compliance credits, which we will require clarification on —

why the fund was created and what the money is expected to be spent on.

Further, as a goal of this legislation is to reduce the greenhouse gases

emitted, we would hope to be provided with material that will identify

if the carbon intensity of base fuels will be changed

dramatically.

Additionally, as the process of lowering the carbon emissions is

so expensive due to the cost of the refining process, how will this

impact the already high cost of gas for transportation? As costs

continue to soar for so many people in British Columbia, this is going

to cause greater stress.

Now, this is a very technical bill, and it can take as long or as

short as we want to make it. We’re looking for some fairly quick,

responsive answers because we could go days, or we could be finished up,

perhaps, even this afternoon. It depends on what we receive, I guess.

I’m hoping it’ll be quick and as painless as possible, because there are

a lot of parts of this bill that I have a hard time grasping.

We’ll stick with

section 1. I can ask a few questions, but I think

I’ll turn it over to my friend from Vancouver-Langara on some further

definitions.

[11:10 a.m.]

M. Lee: I appreciate the opportunity to join my colleague from Kootenay

East to talk about this bill.

I’d ask the minister…. In connection with this bill, there was a

B.C. low-carbon fuel standard amendments discussion paper, dated January

30, 2022, which was distributed for comment. The deadline for comment

was, I think, February 14, about 30 days later.

Can I ask the minister: to which First Nations was this discussion

paper circulated, and how many First Nations actually responded to the

discussion paper?

Hon. B. Ralston: I thank the member for the question. This legislation is enabling

and is not anticipated to have a negative impact on Indigenous peoples.

The ministry engaged on the basis of advancing UNDRIP and

relationship-building with Indigenous peoples.

The ministry initiated engagement on this bill with the remote

community energy strategy working group on December 14, 2021. That

included a presentation and discussion on interests and concerns with

proposed legislative changes. This group consists of representatives

from eight remote communities in the province.

All 204 First Nation communities in British Columbia were sent a

notification letter outlining the scope of the proposed legislative

changes and linking to a publicly available discussion paper — I think

that’s the one the member referenced — and an optional response form.

This letter was also sent to the First Nations Energy and Mining Council

and the First Nations Leadership Council. This letter provided the

opportunity to comment on the bill or to request a meeting for further

discussion and indicated the engagement would be ongoing through

To date, the ministry has received responses from five Indigenous

communities and from one Indigenous organization. The minister provided

an additional seven days for the Indigenous organization to respond to

the letter.

M. Lee: I would just note that in the discussion paper, the ministry

believes that the expanded scope of the new act will lead to an

increased supply and affordability of low-carbon fuels in the province

and that the ministry believes the outcomes to be in alignment with the

rights asserted through articles 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 32 under the

Declaration Act.

Under the Declaration Act, Bill 41, which became the DRIPA act,

article 27 refers to: “States shall establish and implement, in

conjunction with indigenous peoples concerned, a fair, independent,

impartial, open and transparent process, giving due recognition to

indigenous peoples’ laws…”

I’m just reading through the rest of the section: “…to recognize

and adjudicate the rights of indigenous peoples pertaining to

their…resources, including those which were traditionally owned or

otherwise occupied or used. Indigenous peoples shall have the right to

participate in this process.”

Now, as the minister well knows, I’ve taken the opportunity to

discuss with other ministers of the Crown, at various bill stages of

various other bills — and estimates, with the Minister of Energy; in

fact, in this minister’s Energy estimates as well — about the DRIPA

action plan. We know, of course, that when UNDRIP was passed, there was

a very high expectation placed on ensuring that all laws of British

Columbia were consistent with the articles of UNDRIP.

[11:15 a.m.]

I note that the actual reference to the articles of UNDRIP is set

out in the discussion paper. In talking with other ministers of the

Crown, in terms of the level of consultation required under

section 35

jurisprudence, coupled with UNDRIP itself….

I would ask the minister…. Given the nature of this act in

changing the framework around how low-carbon fuels will be dealt with in

this province, including the input on fossil fuel–based inputs like

natural gas, turning that natural gas into a cleaner, low-emission, no

SOx, no NOx, no particulate matters, a much cleaner burning fuel…. I

know that there are….

The minister, I’m sure, has been informed of one of the

proponents. I believe one of the five First Nation communities, and just

the communities that would have responded to this discussion paper, that

we can talk to…. The member for Skeena, the member, myself spoke to this

at second reading. We’ll get into that in a moment.

I’m asking the minister… I would assert that notification is not

good enough, given the nature of the change under this act, given the

impact on First Nations. Recognizing that they need to have the

opportunity and the right, under

article 27, for example, under UNDRIP,

to participate in an open, fair, and transparent process, notification

is not sufficient.

I appreciate that there is much to be dealt with by way of

regulation, which has always been a challenge with this government.

Parking that for a moment, I’m talking here about First Nations and

their ability to have an opportunity to consider the impacts of this

legislation, this new act, on projects they’re trying to do in this

province in order to accomplish a lower carbon footprint

future.

Why is it, at this stage, given the nature of this act, that only

notification has been provided? Is the minister not concerned that there

has not been appropriate, fulsome consultation on the nature of this act

in light of and, in particular, with the requirements under DRIPA and

the UNDRIP act?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: The member for Kootenay East made reference to the process by

which this bill came about.

Initially, it was thought that it might proceed by way of a series

of amendments to existing legislation. The legislative drafters

determined that rather than have a series of amendments — a rather

complicated and somewhat messy process — it was cleaner and more

transparent to simply replace the previous legislation with new

legislation incorporating all the proposed amendments. So that’s the

process that we’re engaged in.

The bill itself does not change the basic scheme of the previous

legislation or the way in which it operates. It makes — I expect we’ll

discuss this — some amendments and extensions to the powers that are

afforded under the previous act. So in deciding on the manner in which

this bill would engage with the Declaration Act, it was decided that the

method in which the ministry proceeded was the appropriate one, and

those were the steps that were taken.

I would say that the First Nations Energy and Mining Council, in

my experience as the Energy Minister, is very often the chosen agency of

the First Nations Leadership Council, although I understand…. I’m not

claiming that they represent everyone because representation is…. But a

substantial representation and, certainly, a leadership organization.

The First Nations Energy and Mining Council, in my experience, has the

expertise in this sector to evaluate complicated proposals and

legislation. That’s why they were chosen to be notified, and engagement

was created.

E. Ross: Regarding that last answer, in terms of who the government chose

to consult on this bill…. This has always been a question for every

single bill that’s been brought in the Legislature per DRIPA. This

government promised to consult on every single bill, law and legislation

that passed through this House, regardless of the existing case law that

was established in the courts of Canada and B.C.

To be clear, there was a roadmap in terms of consultation and

accommodations laid out by the courts. It was very clear in terms of the

direction that government had to take and, in response to that, the

direction that First Nations had to take in responding to that request

for meaningful consultation.

Now, for every single bill ever since DRIPA that’s been passed in

this House, the same questions have been brought up in terms of

meaningful consultation. I’ve brought it up a number of times before.

Groups like the Leadership Council and the Energy and Mining Council do

not represent rights and title. They do not represent communities.

Rights and title are held on behalf of communities.

[11:25 a.m.]

This Consultation is misguided. It’s misplaced. There are 203

communities in B.C. that hold rights and title that actually are

supposed to be afforded meaningful consultation. But I do understand

this government has no intention of actually fulfilling meaningful

consultation as laid out by the courts of B.C. and Canada, so I’ll

direct my question specifically to the First Nation communities that

might have been sent notification, in terms of Bill 15.

Chiefs and councils are really busy entities. They deal with

education. They deal with health. They deal with public works. They deal

with every single thing that normally gets covered off by different

entities in different jurisdictions. In this case here, Bill 15, the Low

Carbon Fuels Act, 2022, is a highly technical, complicated bill. Unless

you live in this world, nobody’s really going to understand it. It’s 42

pages long.

Can I ask the minister: in terms of the consultation of the 203

bands that the government sent notice to, were there any offers of

capacity funding to go with this? First Nations councils are not

educated in low-carbon fuels — or anything, for that matter — to that

extent. Chiefs and councillors usually have to hire the expertise,

whether it be consultants, lawyers or somebody that specializes in

low-carbon fuels or the fuel industry in particular.

Were there any funding offers put towards the 203 First Nations so

they could fully understand the ramifications of Bill 15?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: I thank the member for his question. This is perhaps a minor

quibble, but I’m told there are 204 First Nation communities, not 203. I

don’t think that’s really significant in my response.

The process was the notification letter, which went to all 204,

and then there were some responses from the First Nations. I have some

of them here, and I’ve asked staff to supply the others. The ones that I

have been told responded were Tsawwassen, Musqueam and Gitga’at, and I

believe there are several others.

The economic opportunities presented by this bill will come at the

stage where there’s an opportunity to enter into what are called

initiative agreements. That’s the agreement with the authority that

would enable a project to earn credits, which is a considerable economic

incentive.

I think you’ll recall that when we had our news conference, the

refinery was going to finance much of the construction through credits

that they had earned through supplying low-carbon fuels. The act that’s

proposed will also enable the people or entities that are not suppliers

to enter into discussions with the authority as well, which is a change

which broadens the application of initiative agreements.

In terms of that process, there will be an opportunity to provide

capacity dollars at that stage for individual nations who wish to pursue

and explore the possibility of an initiative agreement. That’s what’s

contemplated as the bill goes forward.

M. Lee: I appreciate the question from. the member for Skeena. To follow

on with this, obviously, the question relating to capacity funding and

the ability of First Nations to evaluate the nature of this new act is

required up front, when this new act is being brought into place. The

minister has just referred to

section 15, the initiative agreement

section. We certainly will be talking at length relating to that

particular section, amongst others — by the member for Kootenay

East.

We are in

section 1 and

definitions. Base fuels, for example, is a

definition, as I understand, in speaking to some of these First Nation

proponents the minister referred to…. What we hear is that of the 204

First Nations, three or five have responded.

When you look at the formula that’s set out under

section 13 of

this bill — which again, I’m sure the member for Kootenay East will be

able to try and go through in detail — the mathematical formulas require

outside input, I would expect. We require outside input, which is the

reason why the minister has the ministry staff around him here

today.

This is the kind of example, when I point to

section 13, with the

complexity involved with the technical nature of this 69- or 68-section

bill, that requires the kind of support to enable a First Nation to

evaluate the regulatory environment in which they are having to bring on

new projects.

[11:35 a.m.]

I would say to the minister that given the nature of this new act,

the change in regulatory framework that’s being brought forward, the

response form and the minister’s comments initially, when the minister

referred to remote community electricity generation — that I appreciate

that that’s been a long-standing issue in this province and for the

various First Nations, the eight that the minister referred to in

December. But there’s more at stake in this bill, in this act, than just

that.

That’s an important area, but the nature of the focus around the

notification and what’s there is important. I would say that paragraph 6

on page 3 of the discussion paper does refer to “providing the authority

for the act to consider all uses of base fossil fuels in any energy

source that is used in substitution for a base fuel and would enable,

under the new act, to provide compliance credits for those shifting away

from fossil fuel use.” This is what is relevant to the concern, in terms

of the transition that is being made under this new act.

To the minister: what is in mind here, in terms of the input on

natural gas, when there is a proponent group that is looking at working

for a project in this province? As the member for Skeena and I spoke to

at second reading, we understand that there are projects that are going

forward, under consideration, with major partners in Prince Rupert,

Prince George and, with the Musqueam, co-located and near the Vancouver

Airport Authority. We’re talking about cleaner aviation fuel, cleaner

marine fuel, for example — the ability to do that.

What is the impact on the change, under this new act, on a project

like that, which uses natural gas as the input fuel source, runs it

through the plant, and generates a lower-carbon fuel on the outside of

it, on the output side — which, again, would have low sulphur oxides,

low nitrogen oxides, low particulate content — much lower than many

other so-called lower-carbon fuels that are being utilized in this

province today?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: The member has made reference to base fuel. What is meant by base

fuel is a fossil fuel. Fuels made from fossil natural gas will be

treated as fossil fuels.

The projects that the member has referenced…. YVR was proposed, or

Prince George or Prince Rupert. The understanding is that they would be

powered by renewable natural gas, which would make them eligible for

initiative agreements and credits under the act. I understand, though,

that that proposed project is basically a business concept that’s at a

very high level, so I think that distinction should be made clear at

this stage.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response. The minister does have some awareness

of this clean energy plant, which is a patented technology which is

already being utilized, as we understand it, in a plant that’s situated

in Alberta.

So it is more than just a business concept. It is certainly a

proposal. It is certainly a plan that proponents are moving forward with

and getting third-party support with, like Fortis, Air Canada and even

discussions with B.C. Hydro, as I understand it.

The funding of these three plants is $1.2 billion, $400 million

per plant. The economic significance to First Nations in the North, in

the Prince Rupert area, to the Prince Rupert Port Authority for clean

marine fuel…. Prince George is situated in the industrial-complex

heartland of our province and what’s connected to that municipal area,

including with First Nations. Then, of course, in the Lower Mainland, in

Vancouver, with Musqueam, being another proponent-type project with the

Vancouver International Airport…. We know that there is much opportunity

to go forward.

As I understand it, this project, for example, is to be built in

two phases. The first takes natural gas and converts it into diesel that

is deemed to be higher in carbon but is very low in sulphur oxides and

nitrogen oxides. It may not meet the government’s target of a

low-carbon-intense fuel under this act, the way it’s defined. Again, I

know there are carbon intensity

definitions and utilization, carbon

intensity record. There are a number of technical considerations about

the fuel itself.

But if built, in phase 1, it would require the proponents — as the

minister just suggested, I believe I heard — to purchase carbon credits.

For this proponent group — again, for three projects, $1.2 billion,

three different sites…. It would require the proponent groups on these

three different plants to invest in buying carbon credits instead of

investing in the building of phase 2.

[11:45 a.m.]

The second phase of each of these plants would enable these plants

to make a low-carbon fuel, diesel, which would meet the government

standard of a low-carbon fuel under this new act. The new legislation

proposed by the government would discourage investment in this fuel

project, making it difficult to build more renewable fuels.

This is the concern of the First Nations that the member for

Kootenay East, the member for Skeena and myself have been speaking with.

We know there has been — as of last week, on the day after this bill was

tabled on the floor of the House — a meeting with ministry staff. But

that’s how long it took to get to that process.

There was, again, a discussion paper, at a high level, distributed

in the middle of January, a response form that was due by the middle of

February, a submission that was made, as I understand it, a few hours

before the deadline. As the member for Skeena said…. First of all,

notification is not good enough. That’s what I’ve suggested. These First

Nation proponent groups were not informed directly.

Now, I appreciate what the minister said about the First Nations

Energy and Mining Council. The member for Skeena responded about that.

The other point I would make is this. Clearly, if the First Nations

Energy and Mining Council had been aware of these projects, perhaps they

would have included them in their submission to government. I doubt they

would not be supporting a project of this major significance when we’re

all trying to get to a better, cleaner future.

In that, I would ask the minister to clarify the impact of this

new act on these projects. As we understand it…. There may be other

provisions of this act that impact the project in a way that does not

make it economic. The concern is how this new act will treat the input,

natural gas. Under the current statutory regime here in this province,

this project could go forward in a cost-effective way. This new act, by

bringing it forward, will make this project uneconomic.

The Chair: Minister, noting the hour, I’m going to ask you to move the

motion and respond after lunch.

Hon. B. Ralston: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:48 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

HEALTH

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); P. Alexis in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:04 a.m.

On Vote 32: ministry operations, $25,308,645,000

(continued) .

The Chair: Good morning, everyone. We’re meeting today to continue

consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Health.

S. Bond: I would like to start this morning with visitor restrictions in

long-term care. I’m wondering if the minister can…. I’m going to just

outline a concern that has been expressed to us.

[11:05 a.m.]

According to the BCCDC, social visits have resumed in long-term

care. However, we have heard, obviously, stories that visits are being

limited in some long-term care homes due to staffing shortages among

those who enforce visitor guidelines.

First of all, let’s start there. Can the minister confirm that

that is an issue?

Hon. A. Dix: Social visits have resumed in long-term-care homes in B.C. It is

the case, however, that to visit in long-term care, one has to be fully

vaccinated, which means twice vaccinated in this context. Secondly, you

have to have a rapid test at the front door. It’s being done and managed

in such a way as to assist people to get through, but nonetheless,

that’s often a 15-minute process at the front door. So some care homes

are asking family members and families and friends to

schedule visits in

order to be able to manage that situation at the front door.

We have, of course, invested significantly in supporting care

homes — the $143 million directly to contracted providers, the more than

6,000 staff people who’ve been added through the HCAP program and

through our supports to visitations and infection control. So those are

the rules in place.

There are, as the member would understand, practical

considerations sometimes at some care homes that have led some of them,

especially at certain busy days of the year, to ask people to

schedule

their arrivals so that there’s not congestion at the front door. I think

the member would agree that the rapid testing and the vaccine screen

continue to be important ways to protect residents in long-term

care.

S. Bond: Has the minister or the ministry monitored the number of

long-term-care homes that are being impacted in this way? Could he

provide me with a sense of how many long-term-care homes are in the

position because of staffing shortages — that there is not easier

access? No one is denying that we need to have the screening procedures

in place. But has the minister monitored the situation, and can he give

us a sense of how many long-term-care homes are in this

position?

Hon. A. Dix: The visitation in long-term care, the social visitation, is on.

There are these restrictions, which are that one has to be rapid tested

— and one would expect that — and have, obviously, a negative COVID-19

rapid test. In addition, of course, one has to be vaccinated.

These tests do have some impact. Equally, there are still cases of

COVID-19 in care homes that affect both residents and staff. There are.

That can affect certain care homes, including and especially those under

outbreak. Those affect staffing in care homes at different

times.

But that said, visitation…. It’s not the BCCDC that says it; it’s

what’s happening. Visitation is happening in long-term care with those

appropriate restrictions to protect people — not just residents but

family members and staff themselves — in order to ensure that we can

have a significantly more social atmosphere in long-term

care.

To talk about staffing issues, we have massively invested in

staffing in an unprecedented way, and we’ve overturned a decade of

policies that stopped people being paid unfairly in long-term care, and

that has made a huge difference.

But we still have a pandemic on. These changes, these limits on

visitation, which mean you have get a rapid test, do cause, sometimes,

problems at the front door. They just do. If 20 people arrive at once

and each needs a 15-minute rapid test, that causes problems. That’s why

some care homes with less capacity at the front have asked families and

friends to

schedule at times.

[11:10 a.m.]

We’re looking at open visitation policies, and we continue to

support it with the most significant investment in seniors care the

province has ever seen.

S. Bond: The minister can continue to cite — and I would use the word —

“massive” for every single question that I have asked him related to the

challenges in health care. The fact of the matter is we have wait-lists.

We have long-term-care patients that are in acute care beds. We have

issues in long-term care and in the health care system.

The question I asked the minister was: “Is his ministry monitoring

the number of homes that are limiting visitors because there is a

staffing shortage?” Not just my words. There have been stories shared in

the media by families who feel desperate. And I’m sure that the staff in

long-term care, who have done everything possible that they could do

during the pandemic and more, are feeling frustrated too. We do know

this — that social isolation makes a difference as well. We know that

there has been an enormous impact as a result of social isolation during

the pandemic.

My question to the minister was a straightforward one. Has the

ministry monitored the number of long-term-care homes where visitors are

being restricted because of staffing shortages? Meaning that residents,

who absolutely deserve and desire to be with family and friends, at

times are not able to do that because of a staffing shortage.

Hon. A. Dix: Obviously, health authorities have regular calls with care homes

in their areas to see what issues have developed. We’re also, of course,

regularly in touch with industry associations such as Denominational

Health and B.C. Care Providers. The issues raised by the member are not

seen as widespread concerns at the moment.

In addition, though, and as an additional protection, we put in

place an appeal process for people who have concerns. We put that in

place in mid-February 2021 during a previous period of the pandemic.

There have been a total of ten appeals expressing concerns since

February 2021, and I’ll certainly make information about that appeal

question available to the hon. member.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I’m going to switch

topics. I’d like to talk about the flu season now. Obviously, seniors,

we know, are disproportionately impacted by the flu. So I’m wondering if

the minister can share with me what the ministry’s modelling shows about

the expected impact of flu this fall on seniors, in particular. But the

impact of flu now that many of our public health restrictions have been

lifted.

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: For the member’s edification, behind me is Dr. Brian Emerson, who

many people know is the deputy provincial health officer and has done

enormous work during the pandemic. He’s the person who ends up being

responsible for writing all the orders and responding to groups, and he

has done simply an exceptional job. He’s an outstanding public health

officer and public servant.

With respect to flu in the fall, as you know, we made a change

last year, for the first time in B.C., to go to a universal free flu

vaccination model. We obviously are going to be procuring adequate

vaccine to support that, and are, in the coming year. That’s an

important step. The last two years have been relatively low years in

terms of influenza both here in B.C. and around the world, but there are

no guarantees.

We know that when respiratory illness season comes, we need to

prepare across the health care system (1) by ensuring as many people as

possible get their flu vaccine; (2) by maintaining and increasing

COVID-19 vaccinations, on the COVID-19 respiratory side; (3) we need to

prepare and have a plan, as we have in each year of the COVID pandemic,

to deal with the acute care impacts of patients both with COVID-19 and

the flu in respiratory illness season. All of those things are being

prepared.

I think it’s critical to remind people every day of the need to

get their flu vaccine. We’ve made it easier. We’ve changed the policy so

that there are not financial impediments of any kind to getting that

vaccine. I think those changes are very positive.

Our public health teams monitor influenza every day. We know this

because, of course, we’ve been providing public-informed information

about where it stands.

We have been fortunate in the last couple of years, but we have to

take the precautionary principle and prepare. That means that this fall,

with the continuing COVID-19 pandemic and always the potential for

influenza, we have to both prepare our health care system and we have to

generally, for all citizens, prepare to use that precautionary principle

this fall, not only as a health care system and as a society but in our

own individual lives.

S. Bond: I would also extend our thanks to Dr. Emerson and to all of those

public servants and health care professionals who literally went above

and beyond the call to ensure that British Columbia had a strong

response.

Perhaps the minister can just confirm for me, then, that the

funding of the flu vaccine will continue this year. As I understand it,

I think that the…. Did the federal government not cover the previous

year, in terms of the provision of those flu shots? That would mean that

the provincial government is now going to fund the universal application

of flu shots.

Hon. A. Dix: No, the member is quite wrong. The one contribution we got from

the federal government was the provision of the high-dose Fluzone in

long-term care, which was only a portion of it. The overall flu

campaign…. We’ve always funded the overall flu campaign.

We obviously had bought a lot more flu vaccine in the last couple

of years, in preparation for the potential of a COVID-19–flu double

attack on people’s health in B.C. We’ve also transformed the system, as

the member will know, by making flu vaccination much more a

pharmacy-based initiative. In fact, the vast majority of flu

vaccinations given in B.C. last year were from pharmacies. But the

principal funder for that program, the universal program, is the

provincial government, and we’ll be funding it.

With respect to the federal government, I wouldn’t expect any

change on the high-dose Fluzone. It will continue to be provided in

long-term care and assisted living and to vulnerable Indigenous seniors,

for example, in the coming year, as well, regardless of what the federal

government does. With respect to that, I believe it’s their intention to

continue to provide such supports, but we’ll be funding that in any

event.

In addition to that, of course, we’ll just continue to do our flu

vaccine program.

[11:20 a.m.]

S. Bond: Certainly, we agree that the utilization of pharmacies is an

important part of what needs to take place in communities. In fact, I

think one of the reasons the minister has referenced is the uptick. The

increase in uptake of flu vaccine is probably partly due to the fact

that it was more locally available. You can stop by your local pharmacy.

I certainly saw, in my community, that there was a great deal of use of

pharmacies. That’s why we urged the government to consider a similar

process when it came to COVID vaccinations.

I’m wondering if the minister agrees that enhanced flu vaccines

offer additional protection for seniors.

Hon. A. Dix: It’s the reason why, in addition to the 45,500 doses of Fluzone HD

for seniors that were provided by the federal government in those

long-term-care and assisted-living settings, we added to that 10,700

doses of Fluzone HD for seniors who are otherwise vulnerable as well,

for a total of 56,200 Fluzone HD vaccines last year.

In addition, this year, we’re committed to purchasing two million

doses of influenza vaccine, which is significantly above our utilization

last year. But we have to, I think…. We need the potential. Last year,

about 1.4 million influenza vaccine doses were administered in B.C. But

we’re committed to buying two million.

As you know, in a flu year, when there is less influenza, there’s

a stop once you get to a certain point in terms of the uptake of

influenza doses, but we believe we need to have adequate influenza

vaccine and that we need to continue to use the enhanced influenza

vaccines in particular settings and particularly in long-term care and

assisted living and in other places.

S. Bond: I am sure the minister has heard this concern, and I certainly

have — that there are seniors in community that would like to take

advantage of an enhanced flu vaccine. Is the government contemplating

making enhanced flu vaccine available to all seniors, not just those who

are more vulnerable or those who are in long-term care?

Hon. A. Dix: The reason that the strategy’s in place, the two million doses

that we’ll be purchasing of influenza vaccine…. The high-dose

vaccination is really for congregate settings. There’s absolutely…. I

don’t need to explain this at length here — the extra risk for those

living in congregate settings from the transmission of influenza and, of

course, other respiratory ailments, including COVID-19. That’s the

reason the policy is in place, why we’ll be purchasing adequate supplies

of Fluzone to deal with the additional risk people face when living in

congregate settings.

S. Bond: Is the minister aware that other Canadian provinces and many other

countries use enhanced flu vaccines to protect their seniors?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: The province purchases a significant number of vaccines every

year. I am aware that other jurisdictions may have different formulas

for the mix of things that they purchase as part of their influenza

immunization programs. Ours is guided by the advice of our immunization

committee in B.C. and by public health.

In B.C., that means more than a million doses of the basic flu

vaccine, which is for most adults. There’s also a pre-filled version of

this. There are vaccines targeted at children from two years to 17

years, which are intranasal vaccines. There’s the TIV Fluad 65-plus,

which is for people 65 plus, of which we’ve purchased 600,000. Then

we’ll be purchasing close to 60,000, with the federal government’s

cooperation, of Fluzone, focused on people in congregate

settings.

The 65-plus vaccine provides better protection for people 65 plus.

The Fluzone high dose is what’s provided in congregate settings, based

on public health advice in B.C.

S. Bond: Obviously, we’ll be watching with interest as we reach the fall,

ensuring that seniors and British Columbians are as well protected as

possible. I’m assuming there will be a campaign around the flu vaccine,

as we have seen in the past.

I’d like to raise the issue of antipsychotics in long-term care.

It was very difficult to read a report that suggested…. Let me just read

the statistics, as I read them. Despite the goal of 18 percent, in 2021

the percentage of long-term-care residents taking antipsychotics,

without a diagnosis, was 27 percent. I understand that the ministry’s

response — or, at least, rationale, in part — to that was that the issue

was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The minister knows that the use of antipsychotics without a

diagnosis of psychosis has the possibility of impacting frail seniors’

ability to move. It potentially makes them sleepy and confused. That is

a significant concern. So can the minister explain how and why rates

increased from 18 percent to 27 percent, in the use of antipsychotics

without a diagnosis, during the pandemic?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: This is an important question and one that, overall, I think we’ve

made progress on over time in B.C., but the pandemic has had a profound

effect, and did have a profound effect, on health care workers, for

obvious and significant reasons. The requirement, in many cases, to

limit mingling between floors and wandering has led to different

approaches in long-term-care homes.

The seniors advocate, in commenting on the increase in the use of

antipsychotics in the past period, in the COVID period, thought that the

number would be higher. That is what it is. It’s too high, as far as I’m

concerned. She expects it to come down, and I expect it to,

too.

There’s also a universal program of training for health care

workers, on issues of dementia. This reflects, I think, broader needs,

in long-term care, of changing the way long-term-care homes are

structured. There’s the idea of dementia villages — which, of course,

the member will know that we’re both promoting and funding — most

notably, soon in the Comox-Courtenay area. They’re so

important.

The number did go up. It went up, clearly, because of the

pandemic, which was very unfortunate. It’s a major test of the quality

of long-term care that it come down. I expect it to, and we are working

hard, between care providers — both B.C. care providers in

denominational health and health authorities — to see that that happens

this year. It needs to happen, and I believe all evidence is that it

will happen.

S. Bond: It does need to change. I am appreciative of the fact that there

are actually performance measures in the service plan related to this. I

will just read to the minister what it actually says as a performance

measure: “Potentially inappropriate use of antipsychotics in long-term

care.” It’s hard to read, much less imagine how families and staff are

managing through that.

I would like to ask the minister: has the ministry met its target

in any year since the goal was set? That was, I believe, in the

2019-2020 service plan.

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: They’re pulling the appropriate document, and then I’ll answer

that question, perhaps in association with her next question if she

wants to proceed, or we can wait and get the appropriate

document.

S. Bond: Well, I can provide the answer for the minister and the ministry.

The answer is no. In fact, in 2021, B.C.’s rate was 6 percentage points

higher than the national average of 21 percent.

With that in mind, when I look at the baseline and the target in

2021, it was 19 percent, and the 2022-23 target is 18 percent. As I

noted, the number at least, in 2021, was 27 percent, so the target has

not been met at all since the target was put in place. I said I was

appreciative of the target being in the service plan.

Can the minister, then…? Knowing that the targets have been set,

that they have not been met, that we saw an increase during the

pandemic, what specific steps are being taken to ensure that we see a

decrease in the percentage of long-term-care residents that are taking

antipsychotics without a diagnosis of psychosis?

Hon. A. Dix: The reason it’s a service plan target is that it’s a high priority

for care providers, for care workers, obviously for families and

residents in long-term care and for health authorities. This work of

meeting the target, which obviously…. You’ll see this number come down

because of COVID, but we want to see it come down to the

target.

Then below the target is work that health authorities are doing

with care providers, both with the choice of training I described and

the work we have to do now that we’re changing, a little bit, the social

aspect of long-term care — or quite a bit, both with external visitation

and internally.

We’ve resumed, for some time now, internal social events that

allow people to move around care homes more again. This circumstance, in

the COVID pandemic, was beyond difficult for people living in long-term

care. The inability for many people who would ordinarily wander to be

able to even wander in these circumstances during periods of lockdown

was significant, and it had an impact.

It is a high priority for us. That’s why we’re setting the target.

When we don’t meet the target, that is a public matter. It will continue

to be a target and a high priority, and I expect significant improvement

by next year.

S. Bond: I believe the minister feels the priority that issue is as much as

I do. I certainly don’t doubt that. It needs to be a priority. It is

devastating to think that our numbers are higher than the national

average, significantly. It is, again, not a reflection on the men and

women who work to care for vulnerable seniors.

I think all of us know that one of the legacies of COVID for us —

for me, specifically — will be the images of frail elderly British

Columbians trapped on the other side of a glass window from the people

that love and care for them. Many of us experienced that; I know the

minister as well.

[11:40 a.m.]

I want to ask a question about hours of direct care for

long-term-care residents. In looking at what’s happening across the

country, I noted that the Ontario government is increasing the hours of

direct care for each long-term-care resident, and the average will be

four hours per resident-day.

The government of Alberta has recommended increasing it up to 4.5

hours over the next four years, so they have a plan for incremental

additional hours of direct care.

In British Columbia, our average is 3.4 hours of direct care per

resident-day across all of the health authorities. What was interesting

to note for me was that the goal of 3.36 hours is maintained through all

three years of the service plan. There is no plan — according to the

service plan, at least — for an incremental increase in the hours of

direct care.

Can the minister describe his thinking, his plan to increase hours

of care in long-term-care and assisted-living residences, and

specifically, does he intend to at least match, if not surpass, the

standard that is being set by other provinces?

Hon. A. Dix: I think what I’ll do is…. I know the member understands the

significance of reaching 3.36, a target set by the government in 2008 as

the minimum standard in long-term care, a target they failed to achieve

in 85 percent of care homes by 2017, so we’ve made changes. The member

is right to note we’ve made very significant changes through direct

investment and by investing in long-term-care workers.

In Fraser Health, we were at 3.05 when I became Minister of

Health; we’re now at 3.56. In Vancouver Coastal Health, we were at 3.03

when I became Minister of Health; we’re now at 3.57. In VIHA, we were at

3.13; we’re now at 3.50. In Interior Health, we were at 3.23; we’re now

at 3.56. In Northern Health, our baseline was 3.36, and we’re at 3.55.

That was the only one that was close.

The total has gone from 3.11 to 3.55 in the third-quarter of

’21-22, which is ahead of other provinces right now and reflects the

commitment of the government to address this long-standing injustice

that had been allowed to linger for too, too long.

So that those listening to us understand the difference, for every

resident, in terms of direct care, between what it was and what it is,

in terms of a week, it’s about three hours plus of direct care a week

more than was taking place before.

We are going to continue to look at making progress in meeting

that 3.36 standard, which is no small act. It was a number that was set

by the previous government and not achieved. We’ve achieved it, and now

we’re well above it at 3.55.

I appreciate other provinces may be making announcements and

promises to do things. This is what we said we would do and what we’ve

delivered.

I might note that the number of facilities prior, as I became

Minister of Health, who were under 2.9 — which is, compared to today,

like 40 minutes a day less care per resident in long-term care — were

75. There are now zero such facilities. There were 88 less than three.

There are now zero such facilities.

We’ve made good progress, and we’re going to continue to do

so.

[11:45 a.m.]

S. Bond: I seem to recall from my work that the baseline was actually 3.11

in 2016-17, so progress has been made.

My question to the minister was…. I understand that a target has

been set. My point was that as we look across the country and we look at

aging demographics, other provinces are adjusting to actually look at

incremental numbers that range, in fact, to four hours and 4.5 hours

over the next four years.

My point to the minister was that he has a service plan that

reflects the same target, 3.36 hours, for three years in the service

plan. Is there any contemplation…? No one is arguing that the baseline

is…. There has been improvement. Is the minister and ministry and the

government prepared to look at what other jurisdictions are doing and

build into their service plans incremental increases?

On that note, if that is the case, I’m assuming there is work

being done. The minister has promised a health human resources strategy.

One would assume that you would link the impacts of increased hours in

long-term care and direct support to residents to that plan and do an

analysis of what the staffing implications are of moving to four — or in

the case of Alberta, 4.5 — hours not tomorrow but over the next four

years.

What is the minister’s overarching plan with regard to direct care

for long-term-care residents, and what are the staffing implications of

an increased number of hours?

Hon. A. Dix: Well, in fact, of course, while 3.36 remains the target in the

service plan, we’ve achieved 3.55 in the Q3 forecast, which is no small

matter. The difference between that, of course, as the member would

know, would be, in the course of a given week…. The difference between

those numbers is an hour and 24 minutes of care a week. That’s the

difference between the two amounts.

The difference between where we were, which is 3.11 provincewide,

and where we are, 3.55, is, for each senior, multiple hours a week of

better and more significant staff care. It’s meeting our obligation to

seniors and meeting our staff standards, which we had failed to do for

11 years before that. Those were choices too. We’re going to continue to

make choices in favour of improving care for seniors and meeting that

test.

That’s why already in place is an HCAP program, which has

succeeded in adding thousands of people to long-term care, and we’re

going to con