First Session, 42nd Parliament (2021)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Wednesday, March 24, 2021
Afternoon Sitting
Issue No. 40
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
Routine Business | |
Office of the registrar of lobbyists for British Columbia, Investigation Report 20-02, lobbyist: Dave Cyr, January 19, 2021 | |
Office of the registrar of lobbyists for British Columbia, Investigation
Report 20-03, lobbyist: Adrienne S. Smith, | |
Orders of the Day | |
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 2021
The House met at 1:33 p.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: L. Doerkson.
Introductions by Members
Hon. K. Conroy: Today I’d like to ask everyone to join me in wishing a very happy birthday to our oldest daughter, Jennifer.
I also want to acknowledge that last year was a very difficult year for so many families, including ours, but Jennifer had even more to deal with. She was diagnosed with breast cancer in late December 2019 and spent 2020 in treatment and dealing with all the issues that COVID brought. Then in December, her husband and son tested positive for COVID, and they had to spend two weeks at Christmas quarantined — her and her daughter upstairs, and her son and husband downstairs.
Through it all, she stayed positive, and I’m really happy to say that she returned to work a few weeks ago and welcomed back as a much-loved EA in her local high school.
Please join me in wishing her a really happy birthday.
R. Russell: I have the privilege today to welcome in the House my son and daughter, Gabriel and Juno Russell, as well as one of their friends, Thomas Mitchell. They come all the way from Grand Forks, B.C. Of course, I expect that question period will be a shining example of civility and humility, as always.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
FLEETWOOD BUSINESS
IMPROVEMENT
ASSOCIATION
J. Brar: In March 2020, our lives were turned upside down by the COVID-19 pandemic. Many organizations came forward to support and guide the community and local businesses during this extremely difficult journey through unknown parts, with unknown ends.
One such guiding light in Surrey-Fleetwood is the Fleetwood Business Improvement Association, or BIA. Representing roughly 350 businesses, the Fleetwood BIA has worked diligently throughout this time to support small businesses and connect them with the local community. The BIA designed programs to educate businesses and shoppers on the public health guidelines and worked tirelessly to issue newsletters and communications to their membership to provide valuable information on access to government resources.
During the early part of the pandemic, the BIA launched the open4business marketing campaign, a shop-local initiative, to inform the public of the local businesses ready, able and eager to serve the public. In recognition of its contribution, the open4business marketing campaign won a Business Improvement Areas of B.C. Excellence Award.
The Fleetwood BIA reports that at the beginning of the pandemic, roughly half of the 353 businesses had closed. But upon entry into phase 2 of the plan, almost all Fleetwood businesses reopened in accordance with the public health guidelines. In fact, Fleetwood has actually seen a net increase of 12 new businesses that opened during the pandemic. Job well done.
A huge thanks to the Fleetwood BIA board members led by president Sandeep Gill, and to the executive director, Dean Barbour, for their creativity, hard work and commitment to make the Fleetwood community a success story.
MIKE BENNY
S. Bond: Well, he was the voice in our heads in the morning. He had an amazing sense of humour, and our community loved waking up with Mike Benny. Mike moved to Prince George in 1986 and started work with CKPG radio on the afternoon drive and eventually settled into his role as the morning man on 101.3 the River.
It’s not an exaggeration to say that Mike was a legend. He was a mentor for young broadcasters, his colleagues loved working with him, and he genuinely cared about people. Mike was well known for his love of craft beer, bacon and computers. He did a joke of the day for years and ended up having them published in a book called The World’s Punniest Joke Book.
Mike cared about what was happening in our community. He was amazing at getting people to donate to countless organizations and events. I was always on the list, and who could say no when Mike Benny was calling you out by name on the radio? One of my favourite visits every year was visiting Mike on the roof of the Coast Inn as he helped to raise money for the Christmas tree of lights.
Mike was diagnosed with lung cancer in the summer of 2019. We were so deeply saddened to learn that on February 11, 2021, Mike lost his courageous battle and left us all far too soon. Mike loved his family so much. We are grateful to his wife, Laurel, and his four children — Katherine, Claire, Alex and Colin — for sharing him with all of us.
March 13, which would have marked his 35th year in our city, was declared Mike Benny Day in the city of Prince George. While I will miss starting my mornings with Mike Benny’s voice in my head, I will always be glad that I got to know this very special person.
Mike, we miss you, but you will never be forgotten.
MEDICAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF
CLIVE
DUNCAN
R. Leonard: It’s my honour to pay tribute to Dr. Clive Duncan, the orthopedic surgeon who, to our benefit, moved to B.C. to practice in the subspecialty of hip reconstruction.
He’s grown an international reputation over 52 years as a researcher and innovator, and over 40 years as a globally sought-after teacher and mentor. He’s a professor emeritus of medicine at UBC. He served over ten years as chair of the department of orthopedic surgery and as head of orthopedics at VGH and UBC hospitals. Seeing 500 patients a year, he’s given so many people’s lives back, including my own. With surgical precision, he’s carved out time to publish 350 full-length works and deliver 675 keynotes and honorary presentations in 22 countries.
He has received dozens of recognitions for his contributions in primary and revision hip replacements in B.C., Canada and internationally, not least B.C.’s David Bachop and America’s Harris gold medals, Britain’s Sir John Charnley award, twice; the Frank Stinchfield Award, twice; and the North American Hip Society’s Lifetime Achievement Award.
Some of his accomplishments. Dr. Duncan developed the world’s first Centre for Hip Health and Mobility in Vancouver, revolutionized treating infected joint replacements, known as the Vancouver approach. He’s designed new hip replacements and helped develop minimally invasive hip surgeries as well as limb-sparing treatment for bone cancer, the Terry Fox disease. His brilliance has shone with his compassion, curiosity, collaboration and commitment.
Please join me in thanking him for his phenomenal contributions and wish him well. Hip, hip, hooray.
GIRLS HOCKEY PROGRAM IN
WILLIAMS
LAKE
L. Doerkson: On behalf of my constituents of the Cariboo-Chilcotin, it’s both a pleasure and an honour to rise today to talk about how central amateur hockey is to people of my riding, this province and to just about every Canadian from coast to coast. So it gives me great pleasure to name just a few of our hockey legends from our girls hockey program in Williams Lake. The dedication of these young female players at all ages increases as they improve their skills and begin to move past one accomplishment after another. This is truly remarkable because of all of the restrictions these players face during the pandemic.
Allow me to name a few of those who now shine as examples of new and younger players starting out. Paige Outhouse graduated in 2020 and was signed to the University of Prince Edward Island and is now a star with the Panthers. Brette Kerley, three seasons with the Northern Capitals, will graduate in June and is signed to the University of Calgary, playing with the Dinos. Pyper Alexander has spent three seasons with the Northern Capitals, graduates in June and is signed on, belonging to the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology, the SAIT Trojans.
Cadence Petitclerc Crosby is currently in grade 11. She has played two seasons with the Northern Capitals and is now with the Okanagan Hockey Academy. Keira Vermeulen is currently in grade 11, and she’s playing her first year with the Northern Capitals, and Rachel Loewen, who is currently in grade 10, is playing her first year with the Northern Capitals.
As you can see, Williams Lake has certainly done its part to contribute to great hockey across this country. We’re very grateful to the volunteers, the parents, the coaches that keep this great girls hockey program running in Williams Lake.
YOUTH MENTAL HEALTH
AND COLLABORATIVE ACTION ON
ISSUES
R. Russell: On a Friday morning last October, I experienced one of the most emotionally powerful moments of my campaign. My two friends Clint and Edie and I had woken at 4:30 in the morning in order to get across my riding in time for an outdoor morning meeting in Princeton. Somewhere near Bromley Rock, we were slowed down behind a police cruiser with someone walking up ahead. The walker turned out to be Anishnaabe sergeant Kevin Redsky, at that moment supported by his wife, Harmony. I’m sure many here have heard about their Hope in the Darkness Walk for Youth Mental Health across Canada.
I rather abruptly jumped out of the car to walk with Kevin, thrilled that some serendipity had brought our paths together. Our conversation covered a lot of ground while we walked, but today I want to highlight one theme.
We talked about the work of creating space for different people to come together, including faith-based organizations, police, educators, Indigenous leaders, social workers and beyond, all with an eye to listening, connecting and then doing — doing the things that we need to do so that youth don’t get lost in the reductionist and siloed colonialist system that we have inherited. Especially in rural communities, those spaces to bring people together for good, whether for youth mental health, for watershed stewardship or for anything beyond, are critical to our success and often not easy to create, nor to maintain.
As a concrete example, I reflect on the new situation table funding in my riding, spearheaded by the town of Oliver and supported by our government. These tables, to borrow the words of Sheila Malcolmson from last September, help our communities “problem-solve one case at a time so at-risk individuals don’t fall between the cracks.” I applaud this good work and look forward to more.
I’m proud to be a part of this House, and I hope to be proud of what we, as a group of 87, can accomplish together by doing some hard work ahead and breaking down the artificial barriers that limit the potential of our communities.
ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE SERVICES IN
ALBERTA FOR EAST
KOOTENAY RESIDENTS
T. Shypitka: No two-minute statement I have ever given is as immediately important as the one I’m giving today. By now most members in this House know the dilemma the constituents of my riding have with access to health care in our neighbouring province to the east. With 1,000 kilometres and six mountain passes to the Lower Mainland, travel is unaffordable, unsafe and, in most cases, without family support. Many people are making life-and-death decisions based on the feasibility of such travel.
The plight for medical access continues to worsen in Kootenay East. In my riding, we have one ophthalmologist to service over 60,000 residents. Our one ophthalmologist has spent the past two decades giving outstanding care to his patients. He has built a strong referral network to include specialists in Calgary. Those relationships are now being dissolved. The Albertan surgeons he refers patients to are willing to take his patients. However, the Alberta Health Services administrators are turning our B.C. patients away.
I have a constituent in dire need of access to tertiary ophthalmology eye care in Alberta. Going to Kelowna is not a viable option because an interocular gas will be placed in his eye that does not allow for travel at high elevations. Driving back from Kelowna over mountain passes or flying are not options. To keep himself in Kelowna post-surgery for about six weeks, as the gas dissipates, is a financial burden, to say the least. To make the situation even worse, my constituent also receives dialysis three times a week. If he could go to Calgary for the procedure, he could come home shortly after with no disruption to his dialysis treatments and carry on with his daily life.
Let me be clear. From all of the work that I have done on this file, it is very certain that this is not a capacity issue. It is my contention that this is a billing issue between the two provinces.
We as a province must all work together in finding safe, reliable health care for everyone in our province.
Oral Questions
GOVERNMENT ACTION ON
OPIOID CRISIS AND MENTAL HEALTH
AND ADDICTION ISSUES
S. Bond: In 2020, 1,724 deaths. In January of this year, 165 deaths. And now, in February of this year, we get the news of another 155 deaths. Each month it’s the same story — a new record, another heartbreaking milestone reached in a deadly health crisis. The government’s response in the chamber and beyond remains the same every month.
Earlier this month the Premier said: “To focus on the societal disaster is the responsibility of all of us — not just the minister, not just families who are grieving, but everyone in our community.”
Perhaps the Premier can get up today and tell us what specific steps he is taking to ensure that next month and the month after that and the month after that, we are not having the same conversation.
Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her question and the spirit with which it was offered. I agree, and I know all members of this House agree, that the persistent opioid crisis has affected families in every corner of British Columbia. Unacceptably high numbers have been exacerbated by the global pandemic. We’ve not been able to have people gathering and congregating, so more and more users are finding themselves alone and isolated and not having someone at their side when they most desperately need it.
As we see public health orders relieved over the next number of months, I think we’re going to see a positive outcome when it comes to the unacceptably high opioid deaths. But there’s a whole host of other initiatives we can and have been working on, and I’ll inventory some of them for the member.
Firstly, of course, we want to make sure that simple possession is not a crime. We all understand, and I think we all agree. We can debate the edges on these questions, but ultimately, if someone has an addiction challenge, they are a patient, not a criminal. We need to make sure we disaggregate those who are preying on vulnerable populations for criminal intent and those that are just trying to get by, riddled with an addiction.
We’re putting resources into treatment. The member and I will be talking more about that after question period. We’re putting money into resources. We’re putting money into housing. We’re trying to build up the capacity within communities, large and small, to address these challenges in a compassionate way, not in a crime-fighting way, which had been the approach, as all of us know, for many decades prior to the turn of the century.
It’s only now that I think many communities are coming to terms with the fact that a four-pillars approach does involve enforcement, but it involves also making sure that harm reduction is in place, making sure that the services that people need are there and, most importantly, treatment.
I’m hopeful that as the questions continue through this question period, we all burrow down and get to that focus that we’re going to need to make new investments in communities while we grapple with COVID, to come through this stronger than we went into it and make sure that all of us redouble our efforts as individual legislators and as people, as part of communities, that we’re doing what we can to reduce stigma and focus directly on the challenges these people face.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.
S. Bond: I appreciate the answer from the Premier. The loss of 155 lives in February represents a 107 percent increase over the same month in 2020. This is a situation that continues to get worse. It’s taking people from all age groups and economic situations, and nearly 60 percent of the deaths are occurring in private residences.
Earlier this month the Premier said: “If we keep our shoulder to the wheel, keep focused on that and have respectful dialogue, as we’ve done today, on this important issue, we will make progress, the progress that all of us demand not just now but in the future.” Well, the numbers paint a tragic picture. We’re not making progress.
Can the Premier tell us specifically whether his delayed budget will include a significant increase in badly needed resources for mental health and addiction services?
Hon. J. Horgan: I’ll have to take a step back to fully answer the member’s question. We did see a significant decline in opioid deaths in 2018-2019, as a result of a concerted effort by front-line workers, first responders, the availability of naloxone, the ability for us to work in congregate settings to make sure that people were getting the care that they needed. With the advent of COVID-19, those congregate settings no longer were available to people, and we saw more and more people isolating, as I said in my first response.
We’ve also seen an increase in the toxicity of the drug supply, because the borders have been slammed shut. That means that those that are preying on the vulnerable are using more toxins to spread their supply out and do damage to human beings. That is beyond reprehensible, but it is a challenge that we’ve tried to address, working through Public Safety to make sure law enforcement has the tools they need to continue to stamp out the flow of toxins into the supply and also working with the federal government to make sure that we can have initiatives.
The Minister of Mental Health and Addictions has been at the vanguard on this, to make sure that we do have safe supply and safe alternatives for people using street drugs that can help them through their challenging time so we can get them into treatment, as all of us want to do.
But it is a multi-pronged approach. I fully agree with the member. We all get this. The numbers are going up because we cannot congregate together as we did in the past, because we cannot regulate the drug supply. There are initiatives underway. We need leadership from both orders of government and from communities.
As the member full knows — and I look at the regional distribution of my colleagues across the way — this is not a downtown Vancouver issue. It’s a B.C. issue. That’s the first order of business: that we all go back to our communities — me in suburban, rural Victoria, and the Leader of the Opposition to her community of Prince George — and talk about this as not someone else’s problem. It’s our problem. It’s our brothers, our sisters, our moms, our dads. It’s people who find, through no fault of their own, addicted to an insidious substance that requires intervention — medical intervention, not criminal intervention.
T. Halford: Yesterday the minister said it was a disservice to question the closing of much-needed services. Today we sadly see why we are asking those questions, when we see the closure of services in Penticton, Keremeos and Vancouver.
Young people are struggling with mental health and addictions. Two Victoria teens who needed services desperately — and, I think we can all agree, were let down by the system — met with the Premier and the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. This is what they had to say: “They say ‘reach out,’ but where? And to who and how? Because you can’t. You really can’t. It’s a great phrase to say, but unless there’s stuff actually in place to support people reaching out, it’s empty promises.”
My question is to the Premier. We need less words and more action. Will this Premier put forward a budget that actually supports people with mental health and addictions?
Hon. J. Horgan: We do need action, but we also need words. We need to talk about this openly and candidly not just in this Legislature but in our schools, in our health care settings, so that Emma and Ella, the two young women who I had the good fortune of engaging with a week or so ago, had received what they characterized as positive, affirming services when they were youth, but when they aged out and became adults, the situation changed.
That was news to me. Of course, the minister was aware of this, and she is taking steps. And I’m sure in subsequent questions, she can answer directly the member’s question.
What I took away from a discussion with two young women, living in suburban Victoria — not the Downtown Eastside, not in a far and remote part of British Columbia, but in, basically, the capital city of British Columbia — were satisfied with their services as youth and appalled by the services that they were presented when they became adults. That’s a challenge for us to fix. That’s a challenge for the health authority and practitioners.
This isn’t about throwing people under the bus. What those young women did was what we’ve asked them to do. They wanted help. They asked for help, and when they went to receive it, it wasn’t up to their expectation. So that means we all do better. That means practitioners have to do better.
We need to make sure we’re preparing young people through our K-to-12 system to meet the realities of an increased challenge of mental health, as a result of COVID and a whole host of other challenges that modernity presents for all of us. You know, this is not Leave It to Beaver any more. This is a complex world that we’re asking young people to come into with little or no expectation of how they’re supposed to act. We need to be there as adults to help steward them from their childhood into their adulthood.
When it comes to addressing mental health issues, I believe we put some $3 billion into mental health services through our health authorities across the province, and if we need to do more, we will do more. This is the challenge of our times. It’s not just the addiction challenges that the Leader of the Opposition raised, but it is mental health for young people, regular people walking down the street that need help, and they need compassion, not stigma.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey–White Rock on a supplemental.
T. Halford: Thank you to the Premier for the response. The Premier rightly issued a challenge to all of us today, when we go back into our communities and advocate for the support we need. I just don’t know how we do that when we’re seeing what we’re seeing in something like Penticton. We need to be focused on the present.
Here’s a quote: “The province should provide more comprehensive and wraparound services to youth using drugs and their families, particularly in their communities.” Those were the words of the Representative for Children and Youth.
We’ve seen this government close services that are community-based. It’s the wrong approach, and this government knows it. We need more services, not fewer, to the point the Premier just previously made.
For the Premier, as we see these numbers grow tragically, will he commit today to putting the resources that British Columbians need and deserve for mental health and addictions?
Hon. S. Malcolmson: Thank you to the member for the question. Good ideas can come from all sides of the House. I look forward to the member’s support for our budget.
We have been on a path of committing unprecedented increased supports in every form since we first formed government in 2017. There was no system of care in place at that time. We’ve been working day and night in every way to build that system up. The challenge of fighting now two public health emergencies has put tremendous strain on the health care system in British Columbia.
I’m encouraged to hear the support across the aisle for increasingly deeper spending. That’s certainly something that we committed to British Columbians again in our second election, both in 2017 and 2020. That’s something that we are working hard towards. Over the last five years, we did commit almost $750 million.
PROTECTION OF OLD-GROWTH FORESTS ON
VANCOUVER ISLAND
AND ECONOMIC
OPTIONS FOR INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES
A. Olsen: The satellite images don’t deceive. No matter how the Minister of Forests chooses to organize the devastation in her mind, it’s hard to unsee the fact that there are no valleys remaining on southern Vancouver Island that are like Fairy Creek in the Premier’s riding. You don’t even need to bother counting trees; just look at the pictures. You can’t miss the reality that the government of British Columbia has already laid waste to most of the monumental, high-productivity old growth in our region.
This government, like previous provincial governments, signed revenue-sharing agreements with Indigenous nations and industry — in this case, logging. They’re often very narrow conversations to facilitate logging above all else, without putting forward other economic opportunities. Let be me be clear: an approach of take it or leave it without alternatives to logging does not provide real options for economic development.
My question is to the Premier. Will he direct the Ministers of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, Finance, and Forests to develop a package for our relatives in Pacheedaht that includes conservation financing and a buyback of the cutblocks in order to provide real options to save Fairy Creek?
Hon. K. Conroy: I thank the member for the question. The member needs to know that we are dedicated to bringing in a fundamental shift in forestry to make sure that we are working with Indigenous nations and to make sure that we are protecting and preserving forests for people today and for years to come. We’re going to do this important work while supporting forest workers and communities.
I know that the member has expressed concerns in the past. I will agree with him in that for too long, communities did not have a say in how their forests were managed. For too long, the people in the region did not have a say, and definitely Indigenous nations did not have a say.
We are taking a different approach. We were the first province in Canada to bring in the declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, that all people in the House sat and supported. This legislation creates a path forward that respects the rights of Indigenous Peoples. We are committed to working forward on this path and committed to working with nations and ensuring that we can all move forward to ensure that we have a sustainable, well-managed forest industry for years to come in this province.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands on a supplemental.
A. Olsen: Let’s be clear. The declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples isn’t an end point. It’s a path that we’re walking on today. That Fairy Creek watershed is the very definition of the high-risk ecosystem. The old growth strategic review panel recommendation 6 called for immediate deferral while an old-growth strategy is developed.
The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs is calling on this government to provide critical funding needed to fulfil its obligations to Indigenous people to implement the recommendations of that old-growth panel. They say:
“The current landscape of old-growth logging has been exacerbated over years by successive B.C. governments working to commercialize all old-growth timber and foster an economic dependence on old-growth logging in First Nations communities. They have achieved this by arranging agreements for revenue-sharing, employment, joint ventures and tenures for old-growth timber in contentious areas for First Nations, who face limited economic opportunities as a result of years of colonialism and racism.”
Tomorrow the courts will hear an injunction request by Teal-Jones to remove blockades from Fairy Creek and gain access to logging in this valley.
My question, again, is to the Premier. Will he direct his ministers to develop a package for our relatives in Pacheedaht that includes conservation financing and a buyback of the cutblocks in order to provide real options to save Fairy Creek?
Hon. K. Conroy: We are moving forward with the report that the member has referenced. We already took that first step where we discussed and engaged with Indigenous Nations to ensure that we could defer nine areas across the province to defer old-growth forests right across the province. We recognize that the number one recommendation in the report was to engage on a government-to-government basis with Indigenous Nations, and we are moving forward to do that — to ensure that we have those discussions with the nations.
We are starting to do those discussions, but reminding the member that it is critically important that we have those discussions, that we have the time to do it, but that we also make sure that we are having those discussions with industry, with working people, with the communities that are affected, as the member has mentioned.
I want to make it clear that the Gorley and Merkel report, the recommendations that they brought forward…. It said to make sure that we have that discussion with Indigenous Nations. It’s critically important we do that, and we are committed to doing that.
ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE SERVICES IN
ALBERTA FOR EAST
KOOTENAY RESIDENTS
T. Shypitka: As per my two-minute statement today, communities along the eastern B.C. border have been forced to travel long distances to Vancouver for health care needs instead of what has been historically received treatment in nearby Alberta. Six mountain passes and 1,000 kilometres make a 12-hour trip into 14 or more hours in the winter, sometimes impossible due to mountain pass closures and dangerous winter driving conditions that can happen in a moment’s notice.
For example, in my riding, an eight-year-old child with reoccurring epileptic seizures, as well as a family needing neonatal care for 14 weeks, were forced to travel 12 hours to travel to Vancouver in the middle of winter instead of three hours to Calgary. These trips are costly, unsafe and stressful for families.
To the Premier, what has the Premier done to ensure families can get urgent care in Alberta when it is the closest and safest place to go?
Hon. A. Dix: The member will know, because we’ve talked about this on a number of occasions, that we work closely with the Alberta government to ensure that care is provided. The reality is that wait times in many clinical areas, the majority of clinical areas, are less in B.C. than they are in Alberta. That’s a challenge, of course, for our friends in Alberta as well, although the member will agree with me that we appreciate the ongoing work of the government of Alberta accommodating, especially, emergency B.C. patients and to work with us to try and solve these problems. So we’re in regular contact with them.
This is not a technical issue. We have done, I think, an excellent job, and the Interior Health Authority has done, in providing services. But we clearly have to continue to do this work with the government of Alberta, and we will. Their decisions, the decisions that they make about their health system, obviously have some impact on people in British Columbia and people in the Kootenays who get care.
We’re going to continue to work with the government of Alberta to help resolve some of the concerns that the member has with respect to local issues while we continue to improve wait times for services in British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Kootenay East on a supplemental.
T. Shypitka: It’s very disappointing to hear this minister sing from the same song sheet that he has for the past two years on capacity issues, when it clearly is not. I have sworn testimonials from physicians in B.C. and in Alberta that have a great referral system. The space is there. But once it gets to Alberta Health Services it gets shut down.
This is more of a billing issue than anything else. I think the minister should be really concerned about it, because it’s really costing a lot of families some very tough times and hardships. The lack of action — or misaction — from this Premier is concerning.
Right now I have a constituent in dire need of tertiary eye care in Alberta. In surgery, an interocular gas is placed in the eye that does not allow for travel at elevated heights. Driving over mountain passes or flying are no option. If he could go to Calgary for the procedure, he could come home shortly after with no disruption to his dialysis treatments, which he gets three times a day, and carry on with daily life with his support systems in place.
My office has made many pleas to the staff in the Health Minister’s office since February 12 with no response whatsoever. There are other jurisdictions in Canada — Lloydminster, for example…. They have memorandums of understanding between Alberta and Saskatchewan. Ottawa and Hull, Quebec, have memorandums of understanding between those two provinces to allow health care to pass seamlessly between the provinces — yet no action on this, Minister.
Maybe the Premier can take a shot at it, since the Minister of Health is not helping out much. Will the Premier commit today to ensuring my constituents can get needed care in Alberta when it is the closest option?
Hon. A. Dix: Well, with great respect to the member — and I think members of the House will know that they always get great respect when issues of constituents are brought to my office — we are going to continue to work with the government of Alberta to resolve issues.
Some of these issues, remember, are made in another jurisdiction. Some of the decisions are made in another jurisdiction. But we work closely with the government of Alberta not just to provide and ensure that British Columbians have access to service but, often, as well, that citizens of Alberta receive access to care both while in British Columbia, which they frequently are, and when they need to travel here. These are issues we worked out, as the member knows. I regularly do this with his office and his team. I’m happy to work on any individual case with his office or anyone else.
I would say that the fact is that British Columbia in many areas of care has lower wait times. This has been a subject of concern, as the member will know, in Alberta, where we also seek access to care, especially for emergency care of the type the member talks about.
We’re going to work on it. We work on it all the time. We work on it every day. I don’t think it’s an issue of disrespect or commitment by people in the Ministry of Health, as the member suggests, but rather some real challenges that are faced in Alberta and in British Columbia that we need to always make improvements on. I think people in the Kootenays deserve that….
Mr. Speaker: Thank you.
Hon. A. Dix: And that’s the care that we try and provide every day.
RENT INCREASES FOR TENANTS
ON CROWN LAND
J. Sturdy: Despite a residential rent freeze, some renters in British Columbia are still seeing rent increases of as much as, believe it or not, 300 percent. This is for one reason and one reason only, and that is because their landlord is the province of British Columbia and they live on Crown land.
For some reason, the government excluded itself from its own rent freeze rules. The Premier is holding himself and his government to a different standard than is applied to every other landlord in British Columbia.
Can the Premier please explain why he’s charging renters on Crown land rent increases of as much as 300 percent at any time, let alone in the middle of a pandemic?
Hon. D. Eby: Obviously, our government is incredibly proud of our [audio interrupted] to protect and support renters and also to recognize the important role that landlords play in providing housing.
The issue that the member raises is an interesting one. I’m not familiar with it. I look forward to speaking to him about it. I’ll point out to him that our commitment is really clear. We want to make sure that all British Columbians can find affordable, safe housing in our province. We’ve dedicated billions to it. We passed legislation around it, sometimes over the objection of the members across the way, including around renovictions.
This doesn’t have to be partisan. I’m thrilled to hear the member bring forward a question about how we ensure affordability for people, and I look forward to working with him about it. I look forward to hearing more.
Mr. Speaker: The member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky on a supplemental.
J. Sturdy: That is good to hear — although we have been corresponding with the FLNR for two years now on this particular issue. Clearly….
We understand that there is yet another review underway that has been going on for some four or five years now in the FLNR without any progress. While that review is nice, it’s of cold comfort to Joan Amotsen, whose rent has gone from $5,650 last year to potentially $19,650 this year, and who knows where next year. This rent increase is unconscionable and, frankly, would be illegal if government didn’t have its own set of rules for being a landlord.
Will the Premier cancel this over 300 percent rent hike and change the rules so the government must play by the same rules as every other landlord in British Columbia?
Hon. K. Conroy: I thank the member for the question. I ask and advise him to please reach out to me, and we can discuss this further. It’s an issue of people who live on Crown lands. The assessment is being done to ensure that they are charged a rent based on the assessment.
As we know, assessments are going up across the province in some areas. I believe in the member’s own area — they’re going up there. There’s a formula that’s used. I know the ministry is looking into this and seeing what we can do. I appreciate the member raising it.
J. Rustad: Well, 300 percent or 86 percent. Can you imagine that? It’s pretty good if you’re the landowner, certainly not very good if you’re the renter.
I, quite frankly, think the Premier and everybody on that side of the House would agree. That is completely unacceptable, to see that kind of an increase at this time. Melanie, who is in the Cheakamus Valley, says: “I am a single mom on disability with a special needs son. My mom is sick and in care. I’m struggling to keep up with the lease.”
This increase is unacceptable, and I know the Premier has implemented a rent freeze. Why will he not extend that rent freeze to his own government, and tell Melanie that he is cancelling this 86 percent increase?
Hon. K. Conroy: Well, I thank the member again for the question and for bringing this one to my attention. I’d be only too happy to discuss with the MLA responsible for the Cheakamus area. I encourage them to reach out.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Nechako Lakes on a supplemental.
J. Rustad: Well, it might be fine and dandy for the members to engage and the ministers to want to engage. I accept that. That’s good that they want to engage, because this is a serious issue. But it is a serious issue, and it’s a real simple answer. The compassionate thing to do is to just cancel these increases. This is a very difficult time.
Melanie goes on: “An 86 percent increase in rent is unacceptable anywhere, especially during COVID. I think especially by government that has the power to be considerate and reasonable.” Melanie and her family have lived on this property for generations. She is trying to figure out how she can stay on this property. It’s unacceptable that this should go forward, and she is legitimately worried about her future.
To the Premier, cancel this increase. Tell Melanie today that she doesn’t have to worry and that she has a place to live and she doesn’t have to be worried about being turfed out by an unreasonable rent increase.
Hon. K. Conroy: Again, I’ll say the ministry is looking at this. This is a policy that was brought in place under the previous government — the previous Liberal government, just to clarify. It’s done with B.C. Assessment, which looks at the price of property around the area and makes those adjustments based on that. We are looking into, as I said. I would be only too happy to discuss it with the MLA responsible for the constituents who are raising the issues.
[End of question period.]
A. Olsen: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
A. Olsen: I’d like to introduce Pacheedaht Elder Bill Jones and Hereditary Chief Victor Peter, as well as Friends of Carmanah-Walbran’s Erika Heyrman into the House this afternoon. They were here to hear the questions about the territory in their community that I was asking during question period.
HÍSW̱ḴE SIÁM. Thank you.
Tabling Documents
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present Investigation Report 20-02 and Investigation Report 20-03 from the office of the registrar of lobbyists for British Columbia.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage, Bill 5.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 5 — INSURANCE CORPORATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2021
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 5; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.
The committee met at 2:21 p.m.
The Chair: Members, we will be taking a five-minute recess before we resume. Thank you.
The committee recessed from 2:21 p.m. to 2:28 p.m.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
On clause 2 as amended (continued).
M. Morris: It’s been quite a disjointed affair as we work our way through this particular bill here.
The first question I have. Maybe the minister can list the improvements that he sees to the accountability and the transparency, in comparison to the current system that we have, within ICBC, with the fairness commissioner.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. There are a number of areas where there is improvement.
First off, there’s increased independence with the fact that the position is now a Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council appointment. It is appointed by cabinet. The budgeting process is better in that it allows for, if there are issues between the fairness commissioner and the board, those to be resolved — with my involvement, for example.
There’s increased transparency through better reporting. Currently, the fairness commissioner only reports to the board. Now, not only do they report to the board but also to myself and to this House, and also the reports have to be made public.
M. Morris: I was under the understanding that the reports that the fairness commissioner had rendered before were available to the public. Was that an incorrect assumption?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I would note that while, yes, reports were made public, they were not required to be made public. Now they are required to be made public. Also, the board is now required to report to me, as Minister, as well.
M. Morris: Does the Minister know how many reports over the last dozen years or so from the fairness commissioner have not been made public?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I can’t give you the exact number, but I’m happy to find that number out for the member. I would expect most of them have been made public, but the fact that they are required to, I think, is an extra level of rigour.
A reporting requirement ensures that a report, for whatever reason, isn’t delayed — or just somehow fails to be made public. This ensures that, in fact, all reports will be.
M. Morris: I guess it raises a bit of a concern here. Are you suggesting that perhaps sometime in the past, the fairness commissioner has not made the report public for some unknown reason? They wanted to keep something from the public or keep something from public view?
Hon. M. Farnworth: No, I’m not suggesting that, hon. Member. You asked me a question: if I could tell you right now how many…. But I can’t. I said I’d get the number for you. I also said that it’s my expectation that they all would.
I think what’s really important is that what was previously policy is now becoming a legal requirement. I think that is important, and I think that’s a significant improvement.
M. Morris: Thank you for that. The question I initially asked is if the minister could list the improvements to accountability and transparency under this new system being proposed by this bill. Again, what he’s listed really isn’t any different than what has been done before under the fairness commissioner’s office, which has been in place now for a number of years. Now we want to enhance the process itself by establishing an OIC process in order to allow cabinet to pick the position itself.
I’m just curious. Perhaps the minister can explain why they’re suggesting cabinet needs to choose the fairness officer. Has there been some problem in the past with the fairness commissioner’s office that has led this government to believe that cabinet needs to appoint that position?
Hon. M. Farnworth: No. On May 1, there is a significant change taking place with ICBC as they shift to enhanced care. The fairness commissioner is a critical part of ensuring that that shift takes place and that the fairness commissioner has the resources, the skills and the staff to do the job that they will need to do. I have every confidence that they will do that.
By making it a Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council appointment, it just elevates that profile. It lets the public know that this is an important position, that government believes it’s an important position. That’s why it’s being done that way. It also does reinforce that issue of independence.
It does not reflect in any way, shape or form on the practices and the procedures on how the fairness commissioner, as it’s currently structured, has operated in the past. I think it has done an extremely capable and a very good job. Rather, it’s a reflection of the importance that we attach to the changes that are taking place on the first of May.
M. Morris: To establish the importance of the position, is the position predicted to become more important than it is in the current form? Will the new fairness officer have additional duties that complicate the process to the point where they need this added rigour through an OIC appointment?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I think what I’m…. My answer is based on…. On May 1, there is a significant change taking place. We go to the enhanced care model. We want to make sure…. I think there will be a heightened awareness around the importance of ensuring, both within ICBC and outside ICBC, from the customer, that (1) people are treated fairly and that (2) procedures and policies are followed and implemented in the way that they’re meant to be.
I fully expect that the fairness commissioner will be very much aware of this. I think the fact that we’re making it a Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council appointment also sends a message that the province understands and recognizes this. We want the public to know that this is a key part of that change, that this legislation is there to ensure that key part takes place and that they will be able to do the job they’re required to do.
M. Morris: So do I understand correctly, then, that because of the enhanced care model that is starting within the coming weeks…? Does the minister expect the numbers of complaints to the fairness officer’s office to increase and the complexities of these complaints to increase to the point where they require that OIC appointment?
Hon. M. Farnworth: There’s a new change taking place. I think there is an expectation by everybody. You want to make sure it goes smoothly. You want to make sure it goes properly. So whether it’s within the corporation, going with policies and procedures that we want to make sure are being implemented and followed properly…. Likewise, the fairness commissioner is going to be acutely aware that they will be making sure that that, in fact, takes place. And that’s not unusual, whether it’s here at ICBC or, I could say, if there was a change coming in the House.
I know there’s a heightened awareness. You want to make sure everything is right. The position of fairness officer, as we’ve said, is a key part of ensuring that British Columbians have confidence that they will be treated fairly. Part of that is sending that message.
This is now going to be a Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council appointment, which means that cabinet has appointed this individual and that reports, while they were made public before, are now legally required to be made public. That’s what this is about. I think it’s basically that simple.
M. Morris: Listening earlier to questions that were asked by my colleague from Vancouver-Langara with respect to the numbers of complaints handled by the fairness commissioner…. I believe it was 44 — the number that was handled by the fairness commissioner previously, last year. With this new model of insurance being brought to bear against British Columbians, is the minister predicting that the numbers are going to significantly increase beyond 44 or be significantly greater than that?
With the complexities associated to them…. You just stated that British Columbians need to have the confidence that this position is going to look after their concerns around fairness with this new model coming up. Does the minister predict there might be problems with that? Does the minister predict that there are going to be substantially more files for the fairness commissioner to handle as the result of these new changes to the legislation or to the insurance model?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. No, I’m not saying that I’m expecting an increase in the number of complaints or the number of times the fairness officer has to deal with them compared to the way the current system operates. What I’m saying is that there is a significant change coming on the first of May, and we want to make sure that everything runs and goes as smoothly as possible and that the fairness officer will have a job to do. We want British Columbians to know that we take this very seriously.
I can tell you that prior to May 1 and prior to that change, there has been significant work taking place, in terms of ICBC, as they move to the enhanced care model, to ensure that staff are aware of the policies and procedures and that they are trained in those policies and procedures, because there’s a significant interest for ICBC to ensure that everything moves and goes smoothly.
What I know is the corporation is working as hard as it can. Its employees and staff are working as hard as they can. We as government are working as hard as we can to ensure that May 1, the implementation goes the way that it is intended. A key component of that implementation, obviously, is the fairness commissioner’s position. We want British Columbians to know that that position is there.
M. Lee: I just wanted to follow on from the member for Prince George–Mackenzie in that line of inquiry. Of course we recognize the significant change that is going to be happening on May 1. This is the reason why we’re spending a considerable amount of time, in fits and starts, in committee stage on this bill.
Put another way, in the course of a year, 100,000 British Columbians are, unfortunately, regrettably, involved or injured in car crashes, every year. With this change, this will mean that…. Usually, typically, in any given year, there are about 40,000 to 50,000 disputes. Under the former system, before no-fault, if they had to go forward, they would be handled potentially by a lawyer or in the courts with ICBC.
To put this in perspective, of the 411 complaints that have been raised in any given year, at least in 2019-2020, that’s in the context of knowing that there has been another avenue to pursue disputes with ICBC, through the courts. That is now being cut off.
I will get back to the CRT discussion that we had at the last committee stage, but just to put this in perspective, with 40,000 or 50,000 potential disputes with ICBC previously being handled by the courts, what is the assessment that ICBC has done as to the potential number of disputes or complaints that the fairness officer will need to handle?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I’ll make a couple of points.
First, about 20,000 claims a year are filed in the Supreme Court of B.C. involving auto accidents. But only about 100 go to trial. The rest are settled out of court. While the trial process is no longer part of enhanced care, the reality is that the CRT process is still very much there. They are involved in terms of the determination of benefits.
M. Lee: I know that in the course of many debates and opportunities to discuss bills of reform to ICBC that the Attorney General has brought forward to this House, I’ve had numerous opportunities to go through the numbers — the number of disputes, the impact, the legal costs and all of that.
I don’t think we need to retread that discussion here, but I do think the points noted, at least acknowledged by the minister, that the quantum, the volume of disputes that, potentially, a fairness commissioner is facing, is certainly higher than 411. It could be in the thousands. It could be somewhere between thousands and 20,000 or even more, because, of course, how many actually get filed in the courts is not indicative of how many disputes there are. As I mentioned, the numbers that I refer to are 40,000 to 50,000 different disputes.
Let’s turn to the CRT. That was a point I wanted to come back to, because I know that the minister, in our last committee session, referred to the CRT as a jurisdiction three times in response to points that I made. The point that I’ve made is that most recently, Chief Justice Hinkson has ruled that the power that’s been granted to the CRT to decide accident claims was unconstitutional, because historically, the power to decide personal injury claims and their value belonged exclusively with the superior courts. So this is a jurisdictional concern.
I think it’s important to note, at least for the record, in this House, the nature of that decision so we have a clear understanding of that decision. The effect of the decision is to recognize that personal injury claims are exclusively within the domain of the superior courts. That means that jurisdiction over personal injury claims cannot simply be handed to the government’s online tribunal, whether in whole or in part.
Now, the minister has said that the CRT decision will not affect the ability to decide no-fault decisions or benefit decisions. That’s not how I read this decision. I appreciate that the Attorney General has indicated that the government intends to appeal the decision. But from my perspective, given the fact that the chief justice has ruled that there is uncertain ground constitutionally on which the CRT operates, in terms of its jurisdiction, we are now looking at a bill for which there could be even greater weight that British Columbians need to place on the fairness officer.
If it turns out that the government loses that appeal, and it turns out that the CRT does not have the jurisdiction, which the chief justice is saying…. If the Court of Appeal of British Columbia agrees with the chief justice, that means the CRT continues to be operating in an unconstitutional manner and they will not be a forum for benefit disputes. British Columbians will be further cut off from their ability to raise disputes with ICBC about their benefit determinations, which is the very point I was making previously in committee.
I know that we have lots of concerns about this fairness officer in the current context, recognizing that there’s a new system, of course, that’s being implemented on May 1 and that we are still debating, in this House, the powers of that fairness officer. To the minister: if the appeal of that decision, brought by the government and the Attorney General, is not successful, will the government be coming back to this House to amend this act, to enable further powers to be provided to the fairness officer?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I understand the point that the member is attempting to make, but I’d make these observations.
First, in terms of the case itself, in terms of appeal, I’m not going to comment on that. Those appeal questions are more appropriately directed to the Attorney General anyway.
The fact is that the court did make a determination, under section 133(1) of the act, where the issue was under “the determination of whether an injury is a minor injury…” and the ability to hear claims for liability, personal injury and property damage of up to $50,000. That will not have an impact on the CRT decision in terms of their ability to determine benefits. And that particular point was in fact conceded by the plaintiffs themselves. They did not disagree with that. So the ability for the CRT, the civil resolution tribunal, to determine benefits is not what is in dispute.
Having said that, I turn to the second part of the question that the member raises. The fairness officer’s position is to deal with process and procedures. It is not about the determination of benefits. So, no, I’m not planning, and government will not be planning, on coming back to amend the legislation to give powers in that area.
M. Lee: I appreciate the response from the minister about this point. I understand, of course, that we’re in the midst of the government bringing forward an appeal of the decision.
The decision itself, though, I would still state, does cause and raise question about whether there’s uncertain constitutional ground for the CRT to be operating, in determining or deciding any legal issues relating to a motor vehicle accident. So I just note this: there is that possibility that the CRT’s jurisdiction may well be further called into question.
I appreciate that given the limitations around the fairness officer under section 57 of this bill…. That’s the reason why my colleague the member for Prince George–Mackenzie and myself are spending this time pressing on the limitation around that jurisdiction. If it turns out that the government’s position is incorrect, and the courts further find that the CRT’s jurisdiction is entirely in question, then yes, this is the concern under this bill. The fairness officer has no ability to address determination of the amount or fault determination. There is no other venue.
To come back to the minister’s point about the CRT. I know that, again, in terms of the significant amount of debate that we’ve had in this House relating to the CRT jurisdiction, including in estimates — it’s been raised by myself — there’s a significant win record for ICBC in front of the CRT. If we look at a similar…. If we look over at Manitoba, which I know this government looks at by way of example for the new no-fault regime, they have the Automobile Injury Compensation Appeal Commission. In 2019, there were 31 hearings. Of those 31, the injured party won on only four occasions. That’s a win rate of 13 percent for accident victims.
ICBC wins 87 percent of the time, or the equivalent in Manitoba. That’s a very similar win rate in front of the CRT currently in B.C. More importantly, when we look at the CRT jurisdiction…. Given the weight that this government is placing on the CRT and not giving the ability to the fairness officer as a result, I think it’s important that we continue to consider both the challenge constitutionally with this jurisdiction, the potential bias that the CRT is operating under, under ICBC jurisdiction, and thirdly, the competency.
The competency point would be this. There was a recent decision, Devendra v. British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal, 2021. That is a decision where the courts held that the tribunal, the CRT, “acted with a seemingly honest, but mistaken understanding of civil procedure and insurance legislation in concluding the plaintiff’s liability.” Including other aspects, the tribunal failed to realize that the plaintiff’s claim against ICBC was not based in tort. The CRT, even recently, and by its track record, has been found to be lacking in competency. That’s the result of this decision.
To the minister. Again, does the minister have any concerns with the reliance on the CRT, given the questions around its constitutionality, the bias, the competency, and not putting further authority and jurisdiction within the fairness officer to deal with and to give the peace of mind that the Attorney General has referred to for British Columbians?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. Look, I’d make this point. The civil resolution tribunals have been around since 2016. They had the additions to their responsibilities in terms of accidents in 2019. I have every confidence in their ability to do their job and to do their role properly.
In terms of ICBC itself, the change on May 1 is to enhanced care. It is about making sure that you get the care you need. It is moving away from that adversarial tort system. That will be the culture and the ethos of the new system that ICBC has to deal with and is implementing.
I fully expect the civil resolution tribunals will do their job in the way that it is intended for them to do their job — fairly and properly. The fairness commissioner has their job to do. This new system is going to work.
M. Lee: I appreciate the response from the minister.
There’s a lot of expectation that British Columbians have relying on this government, in terms of the fundamental changes happening on May 1. Despite the warning signs, the challenges, the losses in the courts…. I think that there are some serious questions, of course, and concerns as we look at how this government is implementing this no-fault regime. We’ll see, in terms of how the fairness officer is able to provide any peace of mind to British Columbians.
Just let me turn to that for one more run of questions here. In terms of this new officer, we’ve talked at length in terms of the ability of the fairness office to only look at policies and procedures, and not on the outcome. That, in effect, is saying that when an individual has a dispute with ICBC….
I would say that when the minister gave this example of, “Well, for the sake of argument, if someone was looking for a benefit of, say, $500 in value, can the fairness commissioner say that should be $800?” The answer would be no. The fairness commissioner cannot do that, or the officer cannot do that. That is, by virtue of section 57, the case.
But isn’t that the nature of the dispute? Isn’t that the reason why an individual would find that the way they’re being treated by ICBC under this new no-fault regime is unfair? Isn’t it because of the way that their benefit determination has come out; the way that it’s been calculated, assessed; the process and the policies that have been applied for that purpose? And the same thing for the fault determination.
Aren’t these the very fundamental questions that any individual would have with ICBC, the very fundamental disputes that they would have? In the absence of the ability of the fairness officer to address that, we’re left with a very challenged ability and very limited ability for the fairness officer to actually deliver any element of fairness to that individual. And again, the CRT was certainly a creation of the former B.C. Liberal government for certain kinds of disputes — strata disputes, societal-type disputes — and not for the complex nature of minor injury claims. With the no-fault regime, it’s placing greater burden on the CRT — a burden that’s questionable.
But we’ve just had that exchange. So to the minister, does the minister not see that under Bill 5, British Columbians would have greater confidence and trust in ICBC if that fairness officer actually had the ability to not be so restrained — no decision-making power, only policies and procedures, but nothing to do with the amount or the fault determination? If that fairness officer was so not restrained in that manner.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from my colleague across the way. I’ll make the point again, because I’ve made it a number of times, and that is: we believe that this system is the right system and the right approach, with the fairness officer looking at policies and procedures to ensure that individuals were treated fairly and also having the ability, in terms of making recommendations to the board….
Those recommendations are made public. That will give a significant level of confidence to people that they are being treated fairly and to the public that ICBC is doing what it’s supposed to be doing. The civil resolution tribunal system works in Saskatchewan. It works in Manitoba. It works in Quebec, and it will work here.
I’d also point out that when accident claims were added to the civil resolution tribunal, it was done through…. I think it was Bill 22 in 2018. That passed with the unanimous support of this House.
I understand the points that the member is making, but I would also say this: the CRT process is a process that has been proven to work. It will work. The fairness commissioner dealing with those policies and dealing with those procedures, I think, is an important step in ensuring that people have confidence that ICBC is doing the things in the correct manner and in the correct way.
As I said, again, we are moving from that adversarial, tort-based system. As of May 1, it becomes a care-based system. The corporation, ICBC, has been putting in significant amount of work in ensuring that its policies and procedures reflect that and that the training of staff and the implementation of enhanced care is understood by everybody in the organization.
M. Lee: I just want to make a quick comment in response. Then I believe my colleague, the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, has an amendment that he would like to table.
Just so we’re clear, though, in terms of the CRT jurisdiction…. This is a government, of course, that, despite assurances to brain injury and concussion associations all over the province, after this bill was passed extended the definition of a minor injury to include brain injuries and concussions — extended the jurisdiction of that definition despite the assurances by the Attorney General to those stakeholders that that wouldn’t occur. He broke his word. He broke his promise.
We’re talking about a CRT jurisdiction that is now being extended under no-fault, which was not in place at the time that Bill 22 was considered. So I would just want to note, for the record, that this has been a moving target with this government. So for the very concerns that we’ve been raising in this House on this bill, they’re in the context of this bill.
With that, I’ll just turn that over to my colleague.
M. Morris: I’ve got a couple of amendments on the order paper under my name. We’ll deal with one first, dealing under clause 2 section 55.
If the vanguard of this bill is truly transparency of the fairness officer, and if the intent of this bill is to create an independent overseer of ICBC fairness, what we’re suggesting under this amendment under section 55 is to delete subsection (3) of this particular section.
The Chair: Just for the information of members, the amendment being proposed is on the order paper, with the full text available there. We’ll just take a moment for members to be able to read the proposed amendment so that they understand what we’re discussing here, Member. Thank you.
Just for clarity, Member for Prince George–Mackenzie, if you could move the amendment. I’m not sure if I heard completely that it was moved. I heard it discussed. Just for the record, if you want to move it officially, that would help.
M. Morris: Thanks for the reminder, Chair. I’d like to move the amendment that’s under my name on the order paper for today on clause 2, dealing with section 55 of the bill.
[SECTION 2, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:
55 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may appoint a fairness officer.
(2) The fairness officer is to be appointed for a term of 3 years and may be reappointed for additional 3-year terms.
(3) Subject to subsection (2), the board may, subject to the
approval of the minister, set the terms and conditions of the
fairness officer’s appointment, including remuneration.
(4)(3) The fairness officer may retain
staff necessary to assist the fairness officer in the carrying out of
the fairness officer’s powers and duties.
(5)(4) All necessary expenses required
for the fairness officer and the fairness officer’s staff must be paid
by the corporation in accordance with a budgeting process prescribed by
regulation.]
On the amendment.
The Chair: If the member would like to speak on the amendment further, of course that’s appropriate. If he feels he’s said enough, that’s okay too. Just for clarity, if the member had any more he’d like to say, he’s welcome.
M. Morris: Thank you for that, Chair. Pretty much, we’ve discussed this at length. We feel that if the intent of government, with respect to this bill, is to make this a truly transparent process, then we feel that this is a fairly significant amendment that should be considered by the minister.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll make a couple of points. I mean, at initial glance, I suppose I could make the argument that by removing the remuneration out of ICBC and thereby moving it to the minister’s office, that would be an impost to my office. That would not be in order.
More appropriately, at this point in our debate, I’ll just make this comment. We believe that the method of determining the terms and conditions, with the approval of the minister, is the right approach to take — in particular, because of the ability for there to be a dispute resolution, if that is the case, that involves the minister.
I think the current section is appropriate as it stands. I would thank my colleague for his amendment, but would respectfully, at this point, say that I will not be in favour of the amendment and would say that we would be voting against that amendment.
M. Lee: I just wanted to join to support the amendment proposed by the member for Prince George–Mackenzie. I would support this amendment for the very reasons that the minister has commented on in response.
The concern is, of course, that there is an undue influence by the ICBC board over the fairness officer. This amendment would at least address part of that concern by removing the manner in which the terms and conditions and the remuneration would be set by the board. The fact that if there’s a dispute between the fairness officer and the board, that the minister can intervene is secondary. That would suggest, the way the minister has just framed it, that the minister and the government want to have the board overseeing the remuneration and the terms and conditions of the appointment of the fairness office.
That’s the concern, that ICBC, which is running this entire show for no-fault, has no form of any independent review. Certainly, it’s not by the fairness officer, despite what the minister has said relating to transparency.
I appreciate that the minister did make some adjustments to the bill already to ensure that the report of the fairness officer is tabled in this House, as opposed to on a website. I appreciate that. But we’re not just interested in transparency. We are very focused on ensuring that there’s not undue influence by the board of ICBC on the fairness officer. That’s the reason why I would urge other members of this House to vote in favour of this amendment.
The Chair: Seeing no further speakers on the amendment, does the mover of the amendment have anything else he’d like to state at this point before we go to the vote? Member for Prince George–Mackenzie? No. All right.
Amendment negatived on division.
M. Morris: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. My audio went off here for about the last four or five minutes here. I haven’t been able to hear anything. I sort of missed where we are in the process.
The Chair: Okay. The proposed amendment did not pass, but it was noted on division. Now we’re back to the amended clause 2 for further discussion. I believe you may have another amendment you wanted to move. Member, please proceed.
M. Morris: Yes, I do. Thank you.
Again, I move the second amendment that I have under clause 2, regarding section 57, with respect to the duties of the fairness officer.
[SECTION 2, by deleting the text shown as struck out:
57
(1) The fairness officer may not comment on or make
recommendations respecting
(a) an amount payable by the corporation, or
(b) the extent, as determined by the corporation, that a person
is responsible for an accident.
(2) Section 56 does not authorize the fairness
officer to investigate a fairness complaint in respect of any of the
following:
(a) a matter that is the subject of a proceeding or a decision of a court or tribunal, as defined in section 1 of the Judicial Review and Procedure Act;
(b) a matter that is or was the subject of arbitration or an arbitral award;
(c) a prescribed matter.]
The Chair: Thank you, Members. Just again for your information, on the order paper is the proposed amendment moved by the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, the removal of subsection (1) under clause 2, 57. Any discussion, Members?
We’ll just take a moment so members have a chance to assess whether or not they want to engage in this discussion.
On the amendment.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the amendment put forward by my colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie, but again, we would not be in favour of this amendment. I think it would cause significant problems, not the least of which…. It would create an overlap between the fairness officer and the CRT, which I think has the potential to create significant conflict.
That is not what the position of the fairness officer is there for. We believe that the current structure of the fairness officer is the appropriate way to go. For those reasons, we will not support the amendment.
M. Lee: I again would support this amendment proposed by the member for Prince George–Mackenzie for the reasons that we’ve been talking about here at committee stage. Right now, despite the powers and duties set out in section 56 of the fairness officer and the public communication by this government to British Columbians over the last year….
They have advertised that the fairness officer would take care of British Columbians, would give them peace of mind. As we’ve heard at this committee stage, that is not the case because of this significant restriction on the jurisdiction of the fairness officer. That’s the reason why the member for Prince George–Mackenzie has put forward this amendment to strike those limitations.
I would just note that what is not struck is the rest of section 57, which does say that there is a further limitation that exists, that remains — that the powers and duties of the fairness officer under section 56 do not authorize the fairness officer to investigate a fairness complaint in respect of a matter that is subject to a proceeding of a tribunal or any other prescribed matter, sub (c).
The government has the ability to ensure jurisdictionally if there is a concern relating to the overlap, as the minister just stated, between the fairness officer and the CRT, which I have challenged in debate on this bill. The government can address that. In fact, this section already does.
If there’s some further gap that’s not addressed in this section, it can be done by regulation in the prescribed matter. I think that this amendment is fully appropriate and doesn’t have the sort of challenge that the minister is speaking to.
I would ask if the minister could address my comment on that.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll make the following couple of points. I think what’s important is that difference in (1) and (2), and (2) is important because it means the fairness commissioner does not investigate the matter that has been brought to the civil resolution tribunal, whereas (1) is about being able to investigate or being able to assess and look into the complaints around process and procedure.
It comes back to what we believe is the most appropriate function of the fairness officer, and that is that they are not a determinator of benefits but, rather, ensuring that proper procedure and process have been followed. That is how we view the role, and that’s why those two sections are the way they are. Again, by doing that, you significantly and substantially change that role, and that’s something that we’re not prepared to support.
M. Lee: I appreciate the response. I think we are getting now to the so-called nub of the issue here.
[N. Letnick in the chair.]
If I go back to section 56, subsection 56(1) says: “The fairness officer, on a fairness complaint or on the fairness officer’s own initiative,” may investigate a decision, an act done, a procedure — so a decision by the corporation, with respect to a corporation process that aggrieves a person. If you just stop there, and then you flip to subsection 57(2) under Bill 5, the restriction is: “Well, okay. You can do that, fairness officer. But you can’t do that where the matter is the subject of a proceeding with a tribunal.” That’s the point that I would expect both the minister and myself acknowledge and agree. That’s the limitation that’s already built into this bill.
This amendment proposed by the member for Prince George–Mackenzie does not change that at all. That still is the restriction on the way that the powers and duties of the fairness officer can be utilized under subsection 56(1). The concern is this. When you look at the lead-in language to the restriction that the member for Prince George–Mackenzie is proposing an amendment to remove, it only says this: “The fairness officer may not comment….”
Can’t even make a comment. That is effectively silencing the fairness officer, the very person that’s charged by this government to ensure the fairness at ICBC. We are silencing that fairness officer. That fairness officer cannot even make a comment. This is not necessary. This is overkill. This restriction completely limits the fairness officer for the reasons that the minister has given twice in response to this proposed amendment. It’s already dealt with. It’s already dealt with by subsection 57(2).
This subsection, 57(1), needs to be removed from this bill because it is overkill. It will silence the fairness officer in his or her ability to address the fairness, even when we’re talking about just the process for procedure. Of course, it goes further by saying the fairness officer cannot make recommendations. This is not about overturning a decision by ICBC, an assessment of amount or responsibility. This is talking about making a comment, first, or making a recommendation to the board.
Again, in response to the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, the minister had repeatedly said the fairness officer does not have decision-making abilities. That’s the reason why the fairness officer needs to turn to the board, who, with the defeat of the amendment, is still under the thumb of the ICBC board.
Again, I would urge members of this House…. If they believe, as they did in their second reading speeches, that the fairness officer will bring fairness to ICBC, they’re wrong. Not with this bill. Not with this current formulation. I would wholeheartedly support this amendment and urge members of the House to do the same.
The Chair: Seeing no further…. I understand the Leader of the Third Party wishes to speak.
Please go ahead.
S. Furstenau: I’m speaking in favour of this amendment. I’ve listened with interest to the debate over the past several days on this. I concur with the member just speaking about the expectation that people are going to have with just the title that comes with this officer’s position and role — the fairness officer. I heard the minister speak to how the fairness officer won’t be able to speak to [audio interrupted] events but will be able to speak to the measure of fairness of the process.
Yet I would think that for most people, the experience of a measure of fairness is really quantified by the outcome of that process, by the benefits, for the support, by the remuneration that they receive as a result of the experience that they’ve been in.
This is a time when ICBC is going to be in significant transition. I would hope and expect that what government is wanting to achieve through this transition time is actually a building of public trust in this new system, a building of public expectation that this system is going to be, as the government has made the case for and made many promises about, more fair — that it’s going to support people better.
However, when we are in this period of transition from one system to another, I think we can all expect to see that there will be bumps along the road of that transition. The expectation that people have, as was just pointed out by the speeches from the members on the government side, is: “Oh, it’s okay. There will be a fairness officer, so if I’m upset with how things have turned out, I can go to the fairness officer.” I think that people will be quite surprised to find out that the fairness officer will look specifically and only at process and procedure, but not even be able to comment, really, on what is the measure of fairness for most people, which is the outcome.
This amendment provides that capacity for the fairness officer to actually speak to what I would think the vast majority of people are going to use to measure what they consider to be fair in this process.
I also look to — and I spoke to this a little bit in my second reading speech…. We have a lot of oversight bodies now in British Columbia, looking at various government and Crown organizations, Crown corporations. What we’ve seen…. I’ll look to the example of the Representative for Children and Youth. I think there are over 100 reports now from that representative.
Yes, there are some outcomes that come from that report. But fundamentally, the ministry operates without the representative being able to speak to outcomes but to the process.
We have the B.C. Utilities Commission, which was actually rebuffed by B.C. Hydro when it presented specific questions about Site C. It took months for B.C. Hydro to respond to their own oversight body and their own regulator about very specific questions about the largest infrastructure project in B.C. We had the gaming policy and enforcement act, the oversight body for B.C. Lottery Corporation.
We are going to hear about, I’m sure, a lot of this in coming months when we get the money-laundering inquiry, but we know that there were some major problems happening in casinos in British Columbia. I think that one of the challenges that I have here is that we are layering — in a way, kind of barnacling — on top of these organizations and Crown corporations that aren’t functioning particularly effectively, from the evidence, in these oversight roles. But they’re not particularly empowered.
This will be yet another agency…. The fairness officer and the fairness officer’s office are what…. The private land forestry oversight body — I famously heard from their president a few years ago: “We are a dog on a short leash with a loud bark but no bite.”
We have in British Columbia, I would say, a growing problem of the perception, based in a lot of evidence and a lot of reality, that rules aren’t followed in this province, that there is a lack of compliance and enforcement on a lot of fronts. I worry that if we have yet another agent who can’t really speak to outcomes, who can’t weigh in on what people’s experiences of fairness are as measured by the outcome, people are going to throw their hands up and say: “Well, how does this help me?” So I worry about the larger issue here of trust in our institutions, of trust in the bodies that are supposed to be serving the people in this province.
I think that this amendment provides, if we just look at it, through this transition period…. Ideally, the outcome here is that ICBC becomes what the government has been promising it will become, which is committed to the safety and well-being and health and recovery of people after they’ve experienced an accident. However, as we go through this transition period, it does seem like it would be valuable to provide this fairness officer with the kind of capacity to speak to the outcomes of these processes and not just the process itself.
That is why I will be voting in favour of this amendment.
The Chair: Are there any further speakers?
Prince George–Mackenzie, would you like to close debate, since it’s your amendment?
M. Morris: I agree much with the comments from the Leader of the Third Party. There’s no difference. Without these amendments, there’s no difference between the fairness officer and the current fairness commissioner’s position that we have here. It’s an elaborate process to go through, to have cabinet pick the fairness officer through an order-in-council. It’s an extremely elaborate process to put cabinet through to end up with the same position and the same duties and responsibilities that the current fairness commissioner has. So we will be voting in favour of this amendment.
The Chair: Members, you have received the amendment ahead of time. We’re about to cast a vote.
Division has been called. Pursuant to the sessional order adopted on March 1, 2021, this division will be deferred until 30 minutes prior to the end of the day.
Clause 3 approved.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 3:51 p.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
The Committee of Supply, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee on Bill 10, budget supply act.
I also say I’d give a ten-minute recess while staff and the minister get here.
Mr. Speaker: The House will be in recess for ten minutes.
The House recessed from 3:53 p.m. to 4:03 p.m.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 10 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2021
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 10; N. Letnick in the chair.
The committee met at 4:03 p.m.
On clause 2 (continued).
A. Olsen: Yesterday I was asking the minister and talking about the process and the protocols of the Legislature. I had a few conversations over the last couple of days. I’m just wanting to ask the minister a few questions around the discipline that needs to be demonstrated by this House at a time when we’re asking British Columbians to follow public health orders in a way that, certainly not in my generation and probably for a few generations, we haven’t asked.
I’m just wondering if the minister can comment on the appearance of a lack of discipline in this. We’ve got these processes, and they need to change, so we just change them. I think, in the context of the last number of months, we’re asking the people of British Columbia to be disciplined in their actions, yet what’s coming out from here and from the government is a very obvious lack of following the due process or the processes that have been established and not demonstrating the discipline that we’re expecting of British Columbians.
I just would like to hear the minister’s responses to that.
The Chair: Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, I understand you have a point of order.
Hon. N. Simons: Mr. Speaker, there is clearly something happening in the chamber that we’re not aware of, by the question. I would ask if the member for Saanich North and the Islands could explain.
The Chair: I’m afraid I don’t understand your point of order. Did you get cut off?
Hon. N. Simons: It’s very possible.
Could the Chair advise the House what is occurring right now?
The Chair: I’d be happy to. We are in committee stage of Bill 10, clause 2. We have a question from the opposition, and the minister is now consulting with her staff before answering it. Thank you.
Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the minister clarifying what was happening here in the House.
I think I understand the question. I may not get it…. The response may not match the question, because I was trying to decipher it, much like my colleague coming over Zoom. If I understand the question, the member was asking about what the process is that we went through and understanding what the discipline was, and has been, in order to come to this conclusion about the supply bill.
I want to assure the member that there was a very specific process that was used in terms of understanding that we were going to need supply to carry us through until we could bring in this budget, the next budget, for debate. The best estimate that had already, as someone might characterize it, been kicked in the tires — the blue book that got debated in this House — was a good starting place to take a look at how we would base this supply bill.
Looking at that, taking a look at the number of months we would need supply, to carry us through till the end of June…. Again, would this sum meet all of the needs of ongoing programs? That was also taken under consideration. That was how we determined what would be in the supply bill.
A. Olsen: Thank you, Minister. The point towards discipline is along the lines of…. It would have been, probably, better if it had been packaged with the series of questions that I asked yesterday. Perhaps that’s part of why there is a bit of confusion on this. I asked questions around the process of a throne speech, then a budget, then a supply act and then the budget estimates. That’s normally the process that is undertaken.
A government that follows that process — that follows, necessarily, one step after another — is demonstrating a discipline that the public service then understands; that then business leaders understand when they’re making decisions about investments in this province; that individuals can understand, whether they be individuals that are relying on government services, leaders of non-profit organizations that are requiring budgets to be in line, whether it be school board trustees who are making decisions about their budgets.
When I was speaking to discipline, I was speaking to the demonstration of discipline from this House. When you have a number of changes to that process, it then, I think, sends a message. We hazard the situation where we could be sending a message that the discipline that we’re asking of British Columbians, to follow a process to follow the recommendations — which I agree with, and I’ve been very supportive of….
They need to see that from their institutions. They need to see that from their governing institutions. That’s what instils a level of confidence in the public, that all those other requirements we have of them, they’re following and they’re prepared to follow, because they see their government leading in that.
That was the context on discipline. I’m sorry, to the Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, for confusing him. I’ll just leave it there.
To the minister, it would have been better if it was packaged with it. But there have been a few conversations just around this, around the message that it’s sending.
I’m just going to switch gears here a little bit to the timeline for estimates. My colleague from Cowichan Valley raised the number of weeks that we’ve had debating estimates. In 2018, we counted ten weeks, with a budget coming in on February 20. In 2019, the budget coming in on February 19, we had nine weeks of debate. In 2020 — of course, a very odd year — the budget coming in on February 18, we didn’t finish debating estimates until August — early August, I think it was, or late July. However, there were only eight weeks.
It looks like that number is going to be less again this year. I’m just wondering if the minister can outline for us, on the record, when estimates is going to start, when it’s going to end and the amount of time that the minister expects for us to be debating the estimates, which is the next stage after a budget comes in.
Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, I want to just provide comment on my friend across the way, who was talking about discipline and orderly fashion and traditionally what happens and how that creates a frame for others. I completely agree with the member. However, the pandemic has created a rather untidy experience for all of us. As a result, it’s certainly created some challenges to put together in an orderly fashion, as the member describes.
If I’d had my druthers, there wouldn’t have been a pandemic, and things would have proceeded as normal. However, given that, given how much the pandemic has turned things upside down, I want to say how impressed I am at how well we have been collectively able to right ourselves in a time when it’s been very difficult to keep things right.
While I know it’s frustrating and unusual, the fact that we’re able to get as much done as we are able to do I think speaks to our collective tenacity and our commitment to right this ship as it gets pushed around.
The member then asked some queries about the budget coming April 20, wanting to get some clarity about estimates debates and what’s been allocated for that. Typically, it is the House Leaders that have a conversation that determines how much time is going to be allocated for each of the ministry estimates. I don’t know if the member is the House Leader, but I know that that’s a conversation that is going to be happening, I imagine, over the break weeks — or not. I’d have to check with House Leaders about when they have those conversations.
They know what’s coming. They know the dates. It’s really up to them to make those determinations around how much time is going to be allocated. I do remember, from my time in opposition, the negotiations that happen around how much time. I can only imagine what it’s like for a Third Party around how to negotiate that. I have confidence that the House Leaders will do what they need to do to make sure that there is robust opportunity for that discussion on estimates.
A. Olsen: It seems to me that with the budget coming in…. I recognize that this was a debate that happened earlier in this session with another bill. However, I think the point does need to be highlighted that with the budget coming in on April 20, the budget estimates aren’t likely to start until, let’s just say, right away in May. Even if it’s right away in May, after that normal process of the first week or so, it looks like we’re only going to have a matter of five or six weeks to be able to do budget estimates in this.
We’ve got this situation right now where we’ve got…. The process of bringing this budget in has been slightly disjointed, or it’s a different process. Then we’ve got a scenario where we’ve got another week off in May and then four weeks, so it’s about six weeks. If that’s all we do…. I’m sure that there’s going to be other legislation. I’m thinking that there’s other legislation coming in. We have a situation where we’ve got ten weeks in 2018, nine weeks in 2019, eight weeks in 2020 and six or seven weeks of budget estimates debate in 2021. As well, we are supposed to be putting these two processes together.
Does the Finance Minister see, in the future, an opportunity for us to return back to a scenario where we’re not rushing through a budget? The real challenge that this has on an opposition party is that we’re not negotiating with the government for space in budget estimates. We’re negotiating with our colleagues in the official opposition for that space. If the official opposition doesn’t have a lot of space to do it, then…. They’ve got questions that they’re asking as well.
This government has manufactured a situation where we are now rushing through a budget estimates process that in previous years, rightly took many more weeks than we’re going to have in 2021. That very same pandemic that you raised has us spending an enormous amount of money on behalf of British Columbians to support them through this. At the same time, we have less weeks to debate this, the budget estimates piece.
Are we seeing a situation where budget estimates are being pushed into a smaller period of time every year and that we’re not going to have the ability to actually get into that and have enough time, in light of the fact that there’s going to be a bunch of other stuff going on — committees as well as debate for other bills, potentially, all within about six weeks, with a break week in the middle of it?
Hon. S. Robinson: I think it’s important, when you take a look…. I don’t doubt the member’s tallying of number of weeks. But there is another formula, I believe, that is probably more accurate in terms of reflecting amount of time for debating estimates, given that we can have one, two or three Houses running at the same time. So it’s not an accurate reflection. The number of weeks is not the accurate reflection on the amount of time that is given to budget estimates. You can run two or three Houses.
I know that it would be very hard for the Third Party, given their numbers. But in my experience in this place, I reflect back to…. I believe it was 2013. I believe we were here in July, and we had four weeks to do budget estimates in that election year. If I recall, there were three Houses. One of them was really small and really hot, if I recall, because it was July. I think there are ways that we try to do our due diligence and do debate, but the number of weeks doesn’t actually reflect the number of hours that are available for debate.
Again, it’s really up to the House Leaders to negotiate the number of Houses that are going to be running and the amount of time that is going to be devoted to estimates. I take the member’s comments seriously around the importance of doing that. I’m sure the House Leaders will have the opportunity to sort out exactly how to do it, given the time that has been designated for us to be sitting.
The member’s always welcome to encourage House Leaders to sit well into July, if the member is so inclined. But I do suspect that there might be more than one House, for example, running in order to do justice to the budget.
A. Olsen: Well, I don’t mind sitting for as long as it takes for us to be able to go through this process. That’s why we got elected. That’s the job that we’ve been given. I mean, it’s not ideal. My kids are going to be less than thrilled with that. However, I think it’s important for us to take the time that’s necessary.
I’ll just leave it at this. I think what needs to be acknowledged in this debate is that the further we pushed the budget — the bill that happened back in December — the further we pushed it into this year, the framing which is happening with this bill here…. We are now in a situation where we are scrambling to do work that we should be doing in a thoughtful way, with the amount of time necessary to be able do it.
Not just on the Third Party. I care less about what the impacts are on the Third Party. That’s our business. I care about the operation of this Legislature, the ability of our legislative staff to be able to administrate it and for us to be able to ask the questions. That was the spirit of my response.
Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s query, but I want to assure him that we are committed to making sure that there is sufficient time to ask the questions. It is the job of the opposition to ask questions of government, to make sure that British Columbians are getting value for money, that their needs are being met.
I have every confidence that the House leaders will do their job, which is to negotiate with each other to make sure that there is opportunity for everyone to get their questions asked and answered. When I was in opposition, I do recall having lots of opportunity to ask and running around this place to make sure that I got to the right room at the right time to ask my questions. I expect that that tradition will continue as the House Leaders do their negotiations.
M. Bernier: Thanks to my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands, as well, for his thoughtful questions on this, as we’re trying to really understand and really highlight, I guess — not only to the minister, but to government — some of the fundamental flaws that we find with this bill.
Government, again…. I know the minister doesn’t like to hear the phrase “blank cheque,” but without actually having an updated fiscal plan, an updated quarterly report so we know where government’s finances are, without having an actual ’21-22 budget in front of us, to be able to do the exact things that my colleague said — where we can actually start scrutinizing line by line, where we can ask the questions of the ministers, where we can look for the detail of where the money is being spent….
That is where we see the fundamental breakdown that’s in front of us, the issues and the challenges that government has created themselves. Now we have this bill in front of us, with section 2 asking for just over $12 billion with a “trust us.”
The minister, I know, has spoken — I would say, somewhat at length — on the fact that they’re referencing last year’s budget, last year’s 2021 fiscal plan, the one that we talked about yesterday that is 13 months old. I listened yesterday with great interest to the questions from my colleagues, to the answers from the minister around how they are saying they’re transparent and wanting three months worth of funding with, basically, a “trust us.”
I did ask the minister yesterday, as well, around other opportunities, about other ways to really look at this and see if there are other ways to look at bridge funding, which, at the time, she didn’t want to address. Now let me just say that a big part, the main part, of presenting a budget in this House, as we’ve talked about, is to really know what the plan is for the next 12 month, to know what the fiscal situation of the province is.
How much debt is going to be incurred? What are the revenues compared to the expenses? How large is the deficit going to be? We already know that under this government, we have a massive hole — a huge hole, a huge deficit. A lot of it…. I will give credit to everyone in this House, because we all voted in favour of some of that borrowing, some of that spending, because of the unique situation we’re in during this time of COVID.
I do think it’s also incumbent on us to really highlight the fact that three months, $12.3 billion — with very little transparency, with very little accountability around that — is problematic. I listened to the minister’s answers yesterday and she was unable to convince me that all will be fine. “Trust me. Just look at last year’s budget.” I didn’t get clear answers around COVID, COVID spending or what programs might be coming up in the next three months.
With that, I’m going to start the session off today with my opportunity to put an amendment forward. I will read this. I have made copies here, and I know the process. We’ll have to wait a few minutes because of the situation to ensure everybody sees this.
I move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill 10, intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 2021, to amend as follows:
[SECTION 2, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:
2 From and out of the consolidated revenue
fund there may be paid and applied in the manner and at the times the
government may determine the sum of $12 305 108 000
4,768,369,333 towards defraying the charges and expenses of the
public service of the Province for the fiscal year ending March 31,
2022., and being substantially 1/12 of the total
amount of the votes of the main Estimates for the fiscal year and
the supplementary Estimates for the previous fiscal
year.]
I’ll explain the reasoning and rationale of putting this amendment forward when I have the opportunity.
The Chair: Thank you, Member.
We’ll circulate the amendment to everyone in the House and also to all those participating remotely. We’ll take a moment for that.
The Committee of the Whole will go into recess for five minutes.
The committee recessed from 4:31 p.m. to 4:35 p.m.
[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]
The Chair: We have a proposed amendment on the floor.
The member for Peace River South, to speak to his amendment.
On the amendment.
M. Bernier: Thank you, Chair, and welcome to the chair, for the next little while at least.
I just want to not take a lot of time but kind of highlight the amendment that I’ve put forward, the rationale to it. Yesterday we asked some very specific questions around government needing three months’ worth of interim supply, when the minister herself said that, not to worry, we’re going to see a budget on April 20, which is only three, four weeks away. Now, I’m trying to do my due diligence on behalf of all of my colleagues and the people in the province here to recognize the situation that we’re in, in the province and meet the minister halfway.
The minister and government want three months, referencing a 13-month-old budget, as we have acknowledged, and the minister has said that. It’s all on the record, and we accept that that’s the case. But the process has always been, as we’ve also said, that a supply act for interim supply will come in after a budget, referencing that budget, so we get to see the priorities of this government, where they’re spending it. We can go through an estimates process, and we can actually debate. We can actually discuss those priorities. Yes, sometimes we’ll have similarities; sometimes we’ll differ on opinion. But we get that opportunity, at least, in this House.
The amendment I’ve put forward meets, in our opinion, all the issues that government needs. This will allow government to keep the lights on, as the minister, I believe, has said and make sure everybody continues to get paid, which I acknowledged yesterday would’ve happened anyway. That being said, we want to ensure that the people of British Columbia understand that while we’re waiting for this delayed budget, we also don’t want to see people put in any further stress or hardship for any reason.
The funds that I put forward here, the just over $4.7 billion, are not only 1/12 of last year’s estimates — the minister herself said that’s what we’re referencing — but I also allowed in here additional money as a percentage of the additional $8 billion that this House passed to ensure that for the next month, before we see the next budget and have an opportunity to get into debates on it, any COVID announcements that we have jointly approved in this House can continue to be funded.
There’s been no argument that those need to be funded. There’s been argument that it’s been taking too long. There’s been debate on criteria. But there’s been no debate at all about the fact that people in this province need help. They need assistance from government, and the amendment I put forward will bridge this government to be able to fulfil all of those announcements they’ve made.
It also allows the minister to present her new budget on April 20. It also allows the public, any stakeholders that might be out there that are interested, school districts, municipalities, people that are wondering what will be in the budget that will be affecting them…. And it will allow opposition an opportunity to see that budget, to bring us back to a situation like we’ve always had in the past, where a budget is tabled and this House is given the opportunity to scrutinize it, which is, in essence, one of the fundamental parts of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.
I implore — I ask — the minister to seriously consider this, because I really think this is about working together. This amendment is about trying to understand the situation that government is in but also allowing everybody else the opportunity to bring forward their questions with a presented budget in this House.
Again, I hear from the minister and the government constantly that they’re looking for opportunities to be able to work together — all three sides of the House. I believe this amendment does just that and hope the government will consider it.
Hon. S. Robinson: First off, the member, before he introduced this amendment to the bill, started off incorrectly saying that the budget is…. I believe he said the budget is late. It’s actually not late. The legislation says you have till April 30. It’s coming in on April 20. It’s ten days early. So it’s not coming in on April 30; it’s coming in on April 20.
The other thing is that the member suggests the government hasn’t been communicating how spending has been proceeding through COVID. That’s completely inaccurate. We have continued to report out on government finances throughout this pandemic, always within legislated time frames and even when it’s not a legislated requirement.
Last March we released our COVID-19 action plan. That was less than a week after B.C. declared a state of emergency because of the pandemic. We wanted to make sure that people and businesses could get help immediately. That’s about being transparent. That’s about presenting to the public what we’re doing to help them. On July 14, we released an economic and fiscal update so that we could provide a summary of COVID-19 spending and other measures to that point, along with three economic and fiscal scenarios for B.C., given the uncertainty of the time.
Again, the opposition had access to that information. The public had access to that information. We made sure that British Columbians knew how their government was making decisions to support them. Now, this report was not required by law. But we knew that it was important that people got an update, that they got a status update about how things were going fiscally here in the province in response to the pandemic.
Then we released and reported out on public accounts on August 31, another accountability measure. That detailed government’s 2019-20 audited results, and that’s a critical part of transparency and accountability. So yet again, here we were, three times since the pandemic — government reporting out to the public about how we were doing financially.
Then not much later than that, we released our first quarterly report. That was on September 9. Again, the legislated time frame, the deadline, was September 15. Again, we reported out early because it is important to keep British Columbians updated. Again, in that first quarterly report, we provided extensive details on the pandemic measures announced to date.
Then again, after Q1, we released the economic recovery plan with Stronger B.C. so that people would know that we were continuing to support them. We’re supporting businesses, supporting communities through the pandemic toward an economic recovery.
Then in December, we released the Fall 2020 Economic and Fiscal Update. It detailed over $10 billion in COVID-19 response and recovery measures that are supporting people, businesses and communities. Again, that’s part of being transparent.
For the member opposite to suggest that government hasn’t been telling British Columbians about how money is being spent to support them is not an accurate statement. We have done not just what’s legislated but beyond what’s legislated, because we know how important it is to people.
With that, I’ve had a chance to look at the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment, the member says, sort of gives us a month and then, you know, off we go to the races. But what the member needs to appreciate is that the money that we’re asking for in the bill without amendment is about money that is needed to carry us through till we pass the next budget. It’s going to be some time before that gets passed. We just heard how important it was to have the debate on those estimates, so there’s no way that we can support this amendment.
A. Olsen: Thank you to the member for tabling the amendment, and thank you to the Finance Minister for her response.
What’s important to acknowledge, in the context of the minister’s response…. I think what this amendment does in seeing it be the 1/12 to cover…. We heard so much in second reading from members of government that all we needed was to bide the time in the delay. A mere three to four weeks, just four to three or five weeks — it’s a very short period of time. We heard that over and over and over again.
I think what this amendment does…. I’d be very interested to hear the minister’s response, because the context of the comments that I’ve been making throughout this debate are very much in line with that process, which was: put a throne speech, put a budget, put a supply bill, do the estimates, pass the budget.
The opportunity that’s in front of the minister now is to respond to all of the comments that were made by members of the government, to look for a patch to take us through these three or four weeks and then start the process that I’ve been talking about through the committee stage of this, as we normally do.
Put a throne speech on the table. Bring your budget and put it on the table. Then bring a supply bill. I mean, I think what needs to be recognized here is that there will be a prorogation, it appears, and a throne speech coming, where we start fresh.
Let’s start fresh when we get back. Let’s kick-start the process that we’ve always had, albeit a few months later. We can do that process. We can get down to passing a supply bill that actually is part of the budget that we’re talking about. I’d like to hear the minister’s response to that, if it’s possible.
The way I see it is that this is an opportunity to achieve what the members of the government side were talking about in many of their speeches, as well as reflect, I think, the desire of us, the concerns that I’ve been raising, to get back to the process as we’ve normally experienced it.
The Chair: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson wants to speak on this proposed amendment.
P. Milobar: I will be brief. I just wanted to rise and speak to the amendment. The minister expressed concerns that our amendment, which provides for one month plus any COVID program support funding, would not be adequate, as the budget that has been delayed from mid-February to April 20 would not then have enough money apportioned out after April 30.
I want to assure the minister, as the official opposition House Leader, that the intention would be that there would be a regular supply bill that would come with the budget, as normal, and that this side of the House would guarantee that that would be a typical ten-minute debate for a supply bill, as the minister has referenced before.
There could be a supply bill in place to supplement the spending as we go through the regular estimates process, moving forward. This amendment is trying to recognize that the government has moved the implementation of a budget by two months — highly unusual, but this supply bill is highly unusual in the absence of a budget.
Trying to create the ability for government to still operate fully and still provide the full COVID support programs that are out there for the month of April would enable the minister, between April 20 and April 30, to table a supply bill attached to the budget presented. We would make sure that that passed very quickly so that there would be no doubt that in fact supply would continue on as we went into regular estimates, albeit everything is two to 2½ months later than a normal year.
The Chair: I don’t see any further speakers, but I understand that the Finance Minister wanted to respond. Then of course the mover of the amendment gets the right to wrap things up.
Hon. S. Robinson: I was listening to comments from our colleagues here in the House.
Well, first of all, I think that we need to recognize that it’s not a normal year. It’s an abnormal year, because of COVID. Tabling a supply act — as we have here, referring to last year’s budget — is based on a debated budget that was passed, where the tires did get kicked, and there was an opportunity to ask questions in estimates.
The member from Kamloops just commented with a guarantee that we’ll just bring in another supply. “We’ll support it in ten minutes. We’ll just support it.” Well, there are no guarantees in this House. Everyone gets to have a vote. It doesn’t necessarily….
Interjections.
Hon. S. Robinson: So I’m not sure…. Well, I did see an X up on the screen, so clearly people do get to have a say.
To suggest that we’ll pass it without even seeing it suggests, to me, that the members…. The member just said: “We haven’t seen the budget” — it’s coming April 20 — “but just put a supply bill on, and we’ll support it.” They’ll support the supply bill. I find that it’s not consistent, for sure.
We heard that there’s a desire, a strong desire, to make sure that there’s time to debate the estimates. That time is precious to all of us. Making sure that we get that robust debate is critical. Doing a second supply bill, as the members suggested — guaranteed — would happen swiftly in the House…. I mean, I had hoped that this would happen swiftly in the House, and it isn’t happening swiftly in the House.
Again, I believe the members of this House would rather debate the estimates and use that time for that. For that reason, I won’t be supporting the amendment.
The Chair: The member for Peace River South closes debate on the proposed amendment.
M. Bernier: How much time do I get? Fifteen minutes — wow. Okay, that’s good, because listening to the response I just heard from the minister — which had really nothing to do with the amendment or what we’ve been trying to accomplish here — really baffles me.
Look, Mr. Chair, we were coming to the House today in good faith to try to actually help government move forward with their agenda to make sure people are being helped in the province and to also give them a solution out of the fact that they have not presented or tabled a budget for us to debate. Now, the minister herself even just said they haven’t seen the budget yet. You’re right; we haven’t. It truly is a blank cheque that this government wants. They’re asking for $12.3 billion based on old numbers, old estimates, pre-COVID, no detail: “Trust us.”
The reason why we put this amendment forward today was actually because it was a work-through to help government fix the mistakes that they’ve made. Yes, we’re actually trying to help government fix their mistakes.
As we’ve all said, the process has always been: a budget presented in this House, a supply act afterwards. Since 1974, that is the way it has always been, so that this House can reference a tabled budget that’s relevant to what’s going on at that time — not a budget that’s 13 months old, where the Premier said it wasn’t worth the paper it was written on, where most government officials have had to say, “Those numbers no longer work,” and have had to come back and ask for more money.
This amendment was actually to help government. I’m so surprised that they’re not taking that offer, after they stood up in the House, sanctimoniously telling everybody about how we need to be working together for the people of the province of British Columbia. This amendment does that. Instead, it sounds like the minister and government want to continue hiding from transparency and accountability by asking for $13.4 billion in this section, with truly no plan of where that money is going. Now, the minister can say, “Don’t worry; we’ve referenced last year’s budget,” but then she follows it up by saying: “Everything has changed in the last year. We’re in the middle of a pandemic.”
Well, you can’t have it both ways. Which one is it? Is the budget, pre-pandemic, so perfect that we’re referencing it now? Meanwhile, the government has had to come back and ask for another $8 billion because, they say: “Our budget was wrong, and we need more money.” They can’t have it both ways, which is why we put this amendment forward to help government bridge to the point where the public, this House and, frankly, even every minister and MLA backbencher on that side would get a chance to see the budget. I know the process; they haven’t seen it either.
They’re standing up in the House, talking about all these great things that are going to happen, and they have no clue. They haven’t seen the budget. The minister, I know, can’t contradict me on that statement. So it is unfortunate that they’re not willing to meet us — not even halfway. Actually, we didn’t have to do this. We could just have not done anything. We’ve made our point: that government is not doing their job. But we’re trying to help government because of the situation we find ourselves in, in the province right now, on behalf of the people of the province.
With that, Mr. Chair, it’s very disappointing to hear that the minister won’t be supporting this. It’ll be interesting to see if her colleagues — since it sounds like there’s a free vote that the minister just announced — will take that same position: that we’re not going to work together.
The Chair: Seeing no further speakers, I will now be calling the vote. It’s an amendment moved by the member for Peace River South.
Division has been called. Of course, pursuant to the sessional orders, the division will be held at six o’clock tonight. Oh, at 6:30; it’s Wednesday. Happy Wednesday, everybody.
On clause 3.
M. Bernier: As we move into section 3, we’re in a similar situation here, where now government is asking for just over — what is it? — $365 million, approximately, for capital, it looks like.
Now, I know the minister was just at a meeting prior to this — where, I’m going to assume, they were probably discussing similar spending authorities or decisions. I’m going to also assume — because of this very incredible, respectful dialogue we’ve had over the last few days — that my Taylor Bridge and my announced hospital are probably part of the funding decisions that the minister is looking at right now, and I appreciate her looking at those. I just had to make sure I got that on the record.
When we talk now about the $365 million, we’re back in the same situation, where I’m going to have to ask some questions of the minister on this section, because the minister, I assume, is going to say again that they’re referencing last year’s pot of money and last year’s capital plan. Are we to assume that nothing has been done since last year, that nothing has been built and that no money has been spent? Or are we actually just referencing the dollar amount? If that’s the case, where do they plan on spending that money?
Hon. S. Robinson: It is customary in this request that the appropriations that are asked for…. It’s not the quarter that you see with operating, but it’s a third. These transactions for capital…. Because of the nature of capital expenditures as…. The technical term that I have heard from staff is that they’re lumpier, meaning that they tend to not be the same every single month. They come in fits and starts, starts and stops, then, of course, making them lumpier, which, as I understand, is the technical term. These transactions are listed in the estimates as schedules C and D. It is how estimates for capital are done, based on this formula, and it will carry us through what we need until the end of June.
M. Bernier: Well, the minister didn’t quite answer my question. It’s interesting that in light of the fact that the last amendment put on the floor, which failed here in the House at the time…. It was all about the minister saying we need the three months. So the minister has given a good technical explanation, I guess, of the historical aspect of one-third but did not answer the point of: for what? For the operational, the minister referenced the book of where operation dollars are going. Now the minister says to look at schedule C, and I believe she said D — C and D. The minister just agreed.
Does that mean, though, that those same appropriations of dollars of capital, being from a 13-month-old document…? Is that how they’re determining how to spread the money around again? I think, back to the point, what we’ve been saying through a lot of this debate is that we don’t know.
Typically when a budget has been presented, there’s also a capital plan that’s talked about after a throne speech of what government’s plans are. I’m not sure if that’s attached in here somewhere. You know, $350 million for a capital plan for the next four months….
I’m just curious if the minister, then, can tell us: have they already made the announcements? Do we know what’s being presented? Where is that money going?
Hon. S. Robinson: The member asks questions about capital expenditures and how it’s defined and what we’re asking for here in this supply bill. With interim supply, it is about the items that are being built, the capital projects that are being built that are listed in the estimates book. Those projects are underway. We need to keep making sure that we can pay the contractors, pay for the supplies, make sure that those projects continue. That’s what we’re asking for here.
M. Bernier: Is the minister telling this House that there will be no new capital announcements outside of this book, or spending, for the next, I guess that would be three or four months? I’m sure there are a lot of people who would be interested to hear that they don’t plan on doing anything new.
Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I want to remind the member that when we present our budget, which is one day closer than it was yesterday, that there will certainly…. Just as with any budget, government’s intentions around capital will be certainly part of that budget. That will signal government’s intent with the new budget, and the member will then see, at that point, where spending will happen and will have an opportunity to debate that with the new budget.
M. Bernier: Yeah, we are one day closer but still two months later than we normally have been in previous years. We’ve already…. The minister wants to keep saying it’s not late. Again, when you change the goalposts, move them around to suit you, then it’s easy to say you’re not late. You just change the end date and say, “I’ve now met it,” which is what’s happened in this situation.
But I’m a little concerned now by that answer again from the minister. She wouldn’t accept the amendment earlier for the one month. She’s also said that this money is to carry us over through for four months. “Don’t worry. You’re going to see a budget.” But the minister, in her own words, if I understand her correctly, earlier, when we were discussing the last amendment…. They needed the money to bridge those three months. Now this time, the capital is to bridge for the four months.
Even though the minister is acknowledging we might see a budget on April 20, in the minister’s own words, the reason why we wanted interim supply is because that budget’s not going to be finished going through all the scrutiny in the estimates — which this House does — and voted on until sometime mid-late June. Using the minister’s own concept and words that she said in this House, that would lead one to believe, then, that there is no new funding, no new announcements and nothing taking place until that new budget is passed, which means that for the next four months, nobody knows what’s going to be approved in the province.
That’s pretty well what the minister said. We have to wait now until the end of June till a budget is passed, which is why we had to have this interim supply to continue. That was the minister’s argument for not accepting the amendment. Does that mean that using the minister’s words, there will be no future capital announcements — nothing else is happening outside of what’s already in the book from 13 months ago — until at least the end of June, when a budget has been passed?
Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, I want to correct the member. It’s three months, not four months. He keeps going to four months. He keeps stretching it, and it’s three months — what this is about.
But also, the member is sort of talking out of both sides of his mouth. No, actually. I take that back. That’s not accurate, because the two members…. The member from Kamloops was saying something different than what I’m hearing. So they’re not on the same page, because what I’m hearing from this member is, “We need to scrutinize,” which is true. That is the opportunity that opposition gets.
But I also heard: “Well, just bring in the budget and the supply bill, and we’ll pass the supply bill.” But there won’t be any scrutiny, because they’ll pass the supply bill. “Just don’t worry about it. We want to see the budget. Bring in a supply bill simultaneously. We’ll take ten minutes. We’ll pass the supply bill, and you’ll be okay.” Again, I’m wondering: which is it?
What we have before us is a bill that says we have taken the estimates book, using those appropriations. We’ve taken a look at what the capital spend is. This is what we need to carry us through until we can pass the next budget.
I know that the members opposite are still cranky about the fact that there was legislation changed — I believe it was last summer — to move the budget date to March. Given COVID, it’s just not sufficient in terms of staff timing — staff time and energy — to put together these estimate books within a timely frame. Legislation was changed to April 30. Really, when we talked with staff about a realistic time frame that they needed — it’s still a lot of work — April 20 is the date that made sense so that we were able to do the due diligence on this side to get the estimates binders together.
With that, I appreciate the frustration, for sure, on the other side. I guess that the mixed message that I’m hearing around the importance of scrutiny…. I’m not disputing that. There will be opportunity once the budget is tabled here in this House on April 20. There will be lots of opportunity to scrutinize that budget, to ask questions, to go through line by line — absolutely. I look forward to that.
But to say on the one hand, “We need to do scrutiny. We’re not comfortable,” but then on the other hand say, “Well, bring in your budget with the supply bill simultaneously. We’ll take ten minutes to pass the supply bill,” suggests something different.
Again, every year a supply bill is brought in, saying: “We need to carry through. We need to pay these people. We need to continue paying for projects that are started. We need to make sure that these lumpy sums get out the door as we continue our capital projects.” That’s what this clause is asking for here in this bill.
M. Bernier: If this makes the minister sleep better tonight, nobody on this side is cranky. In fact, it’s quite interesting that the minister is now using the Premier’s playbook of: “If you don’t agree with us, let’s just insult them.” It is unfortunate, because one minute they say: “You have your right to do your job. You have a right to ask these questions. You have a right to scrutinize and debate the bill that’s on the floor. But now that you’ve done it, you’re cranky for doing so.” That’s quite unfortunate that the minister had to digress to that.
I will say this. I also find it very interesting…. When my colleague, our House Leader, talked about bringing in a supply bill right after the budget…. Truly, the minister must understand the difference between a supply bill and estimates on a budget. Completely contrary, completely different things as far as what happens in this House and scrutinizing government.
To use the minister’s own words and analogy of saying: “Oh, you know, we’ll just put a supply bill here, and we’ll pass it in five, ten minutes….” We know, even though the minister didn’t acknowledge it in her comments, after a supply bill is passed, a continuation of funds for government. And then you start going through the estimate process of how that money is taking place, which has happened every single year since this process started.
I do find it interesting that the minister would sit there and say: “Oh, you obviously…. Ten minutes. You don’t care. You’re just going to watch it go through.” I challenge the minister, because I remember my time in government on that side of the House when supply bills came forward and the minister was over here with the now Premier and her colleagues, and supply bills being presented in this House would get no debate at all. Five, ten minutes debate from the then NDP opposition. Why? Because they wanted to spend their time, rightfully so, in debating the estimates, not the supply bill.
I don’t remember any time, in my time here of this House, where the NDP spent time on a supply bill. They didn’t have to, because it was referencing a budget that was right there on their desk in front of them, and they were ready to start doing their work in estimates.
For the minister to sit there and say that it was disingenuous on our part to say we won’t debate it because she’s saying that that means we don’t care about the budget…. Does that mean that for the 16 years — yes, I’m going to use it — that we were in government, where the NDP never challenged a supply bill that I can remember, never went to scrutiny and debate because they were worried about the estimates…? Does that mean they didn’t care about the budget? Does that mean the entire time the minister sat over on this side of the House, she never cared about any of the budgets?
I know that’s not true. I’m not trying to digress to that point, because I know that’s not true. I know the minister cared, I know her colleagues cared, and they wanted to spend time and do their jobs debating the estimates, debating the budget.
That’s our job now. I accept that. What I do find interesting is how quickly government forgets the role of opposition sometimes. I know the minister appreciates that. She spent time over here as well.
Interjection.
M. Bernier: The minister just announced to the House that she doesn’t plan on running in the next election because she never wants to be in opposition again. I appreciate the minister coming out with that announcement already.
Interjection.
M. Bernier: The minister corrected me. That wasn’t actually an announcement. That was just me. When the minister said she wasn’t going to be in opposition, I just assumed that’s what she meant.
Maybe my question, then, to the minister after…. I think I made my point. I don’t think the minister maybe completely intended how I and maybe this side of the House took her comments, but I think it is important. The minister has acknowledged, and we accept the fact, that we have a job to do, but that job is based on information. That job is based on facts. That’s why we’re challenging government right now. They haven’t done, in my opinion, their due diligence of presenting that.
Maybe I’ll just ask one more question on section 3. I’ll maybe encompass a few of my ideas into this. It’s going to be very specific. I’m pretty sure I know what the answer will be from the minister. I look at the dollar amounts she’s put forward. It’s going to be interesting to see how that matches up to the budget that’s going to be presented in just three weeks.
Is the minister able to tell this House, then, since she’s referencing an old budget and wants us to trust her and see what we’re going to do over the next 12 months, if this $365 million that’s one-third of last year is also going to be the same number that’s going to be one-third of next year’s budget?
Hon. S. Robinson: I do want to apologize to the members if “cranky” was heard in a way that suggested any insult. It wasn’t my intention to be insulting. It was me trying to describe the edges that I was feeling, and if cranky wasn’t accurate, then I’ll just say it’s edgy, if that’s a more helpful term. I don’t know. It feels a little bit like there’s…. I don’t know how to describe it. Sharp. The comments are sharp, I suppose. I can appreciate that.
We’ve spent now — is it really only two days, three days? — a long time here in this chamber, and we’re only on clause 3. It’s been a lot of back and forth. I do appreciate the member’s questions and the respect that he has shown in the process.
It has been an incredibly unusual time for us, for all of us. Putting together pandemic responses, coming back again and again…. The previous Finance Minister, Carole James, did an excellent job of communicating to British Columbians about the pandemic spending, did regular updates. When I was given the privilege of being Finance Minister, I came out very early in my mandate providing an update to British Columbians. It wasn’t required, but we did it anyway because we know how important it is.
I do appreciate the member’s questions in terms of understanding government’s priorities. But as I said time and time again in this House over the last, certainly, number of days, this has been unusual because we are in a pandemic. Making sure that we can deliver a budget that considers the challenges that British Columbians have been living under, it’s important that we get the budget right. That’s why we did ask this House to extend it for a month.
[N. Letnick in the chair.]
I know it has created other challenges. The member for Saanich North and the Islands did, I think, a fine job of describing what I’ll call a logical process that flows one from the other. I agree. I think that is ideal. But the pandemic has made things less than ideal.
I know that the member across the way wants to understand where things are going, and that will be as part of the budget, in relation to his question.
Mr. Speaker, welcome to the chair. I’m wondering if we can take a five-minute recess. I know you just got here, but I have been talking and doing this sort of work since question period without a break, and would really…. Ten minutes would be awesome.
The Chair: We will take a ten-minute recess.
The committee recessed from 5:30 p.m. to 5:45 p.m.
[N. Letnick in the chair.]
Clause 3 approved.
On clause 4.
M. Bernier: Just a quick question to start on clause 4 here. In clause 3, the minister was acknowledging it’s one-third the dollar amount that was requested. I’m wondering if the minister can correct me if I’m wrong, because I don’t have the luxury of having a whole bunch of amazing staff people in my ear giving me briefings. I do miss those days — briefings and having all the information.
When I looked at this, it looked like this was closer to one-half the dollar amount that’s being requested here — $722 million for the consolidated revenue — in this section. I’m wondering if the minister can correct me if I’m wrong and explain, if I’m wrong, why. What is the dollar amount?
Hon. S. Robinson: The member is correct. It is half. The wise people speaking to me in my ear remind me that the reason for half the payment is because these payments are not evenly distributed throughout the year, like you might see for operating. Specifically, these are revenues that government collects on behalf of other organizations.
Clauses 4 and 5 approved.
The Chair: We can’t pass the title because we have to wait for the divisions.
Minister, do you have something to offer?
Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:49 p.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
The Committee of the Whole, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. S. Robinson: I now ask the House for a five-minute recess.
Mr. Speaker: The House will be recessed for five minutes.
The House recessed from 5:52 p.m. to 6:29 p.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee on Bill 5.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 5 — INSURANCE CORPORATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 2021
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 5; N. Letnick in the chair.
The committee met at 6:29 p.m.
The Chair: Members, the committee will proceed with a deferred division on the question of whether the amendment proposed by the member for Prince George–Mackenzie to clause 2 of Bill 5, Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2021, shall pass.
I’d like to remind members there will be two deferred divisions taking place this evening.
Pursuant to sessional order regulating hybrid proceedings of the House, the committee stands recessed until 6:40 p.m.
The committee recessed from 6:30 p.m. to 6:40 p.m.
[N. Letnick in the chair.]
The Chair: Members, I call the committee back to order.
We will now wait five minutes.
Members, the committee will proceed with a deferred division on the question of whether the amendment proposed by the member for Prince George–Mackenzie to clause 2 of Bill 5, Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2021, shall pass.
Amendment negatived on the following division:
YEAS — 28 | ||
Ashton | Banman | Bernier |
Bond | Cadieux | Clovechok |
Davies | de Jong | Doerkson |
Furstenau | Halford | Kirkpatrick |
Kyllo | Lee | Merrifield |
Milobar | Morris | Oakes |
Olsen | Paton | Rustad |
Shypitka | Stewart | Stone |
Sturdy | Tegart | Wat |
| Wilkinson |
|
NAYS — 54 | ||
Alexis | Anderson | Bailey |
Bains | Beare | Begg |
Brar | Chandra Herbert | Chant |
Chen | Chow | Conroy |
Coulter | Cullen | Dean |
D’Eith | Dix | Donnelly |
Dykeman | Eby | Elmore |
Farnworth | Fleming | Glumac |
Greene | Heyman | Horgan |
Kahlon | Kang | Leonard |
Ma | Malcolmson | Mark |
Mercier | Osborne | Paddon |
Popham | Ralston | Rankin |
Rice | Robinson | Routledge |
Routley | Russell | Sandhu |
Sharma | Simons | Sims |
A. Singh | R. Singh | Starchuk |
Walker | Whiteside | Yao |
Clause 2 as amended approved.
Title approved.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 6:55 p.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Reporting of Bills
BILL 5 — INSURANCE CORPORATION
AMENDMENT ACT,
2021
Bill 5, Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2021, reported complete with amendment, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee on Bill 10.
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 10 — SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2021
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 10; N. Letnick in the chair.
The committee met at 6:56 p.m.
The Chair: Members, we’ll now proceed forthwith to the deferred division on the question of whether the amendment proposed by the member for Peace River South on clause 2 of Bill 10, Supply Act (No. 1), 2021, shall pass.
Amendment negatived on the following division:
YEAS — 26 | ||
Ashton | Banman | Bernier |
Bond | Cadieux | Clovechok |
Davies | de Jong | Doerkson |
Halford | Kirkpatrick | Kyllo |
Lee | Merrifield | Milobar |
Morris | Oakes | Paton |
Rustad | Shypitka | Stewart |
Stone | Sturdy | Tegart |
Wat |
| Wilkinson |
NAYS — 56 | ||
Alexis | Anderson | Bailey |
Bains | Beare | Begg |
Brar | Chandra Herbert | Chant |
Chen | Chow | Conroy |
Coulter | Cullen | Dean |
D’Eith | Dix | Donnelly |
Dykeman | Eby | Elmore |
Farnworth | Fleming | Furstenau |
Glumac | Greene | Heyman |
Horgan | Kahlon | Kang |
Leonard | Ma | Malcolmson |
Mark | Mercier | Olsen |
Osborne | Paddon | Popham |
Ralston | Rankin | Rice |
Robinson | Routledge | Routley |
Russell | Sandhu | Sharma |
Simons | Sims | A. Singh |
R. Singh | Starchuk | Walker |
Whiteside |
| Yao |
Hon. S. Robinson: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 7:05 p.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
The Committee of the Whole, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.
The House adjourned at 7:06 p.m.