Orders of the Day

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

[1:10 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 12 — INSURANCE (VEHICLE)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

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

The committee met at 1:12 p.m.

On clause 1.

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

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

I’m joined by Nina Bindra and Anne Foy, both very capable, to assist. I look forward to the discussion.

M. Morris: This question pertains to this clause and all the subsequent clauses in this particular bill. Can the minister confirm that this bill conforms with section 3 of the Declaration Act, and what steps were taken to consult with First Nations across the province?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This particular bill is composed of amendments. The original bill, which these amendments amend, was consulted on with First Nations.

In this particular case, it’s been determined that these amendments are not expected to affect Indigenous people any differently than other members of society. So article 19 is not unrelated, nor are there any other related articles. The bill that you see here before you today is the bill you see here before you. It’s not impacted by article 3, which you were just referring to.

M. Morris: How many First Nations communities operate in rural parts of the province, without the same access to medical facilities, to the resources that a lot of people need to help them navigate through the various systems here?

[1:15 p.m.]

I’m just wondering if there has been any consultation with First Nations to identify any deficiencies in this particular bill, even though it amends the existing act, to see whether there were any questions that they might have had with the contents of this bill.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The original Bill 11 — there were consultations around that, and there were no concerns raised about that bill. These amendments just clarify certain sections of that legislation.

M. Morris: We’ll be getting into the meat and potatoes of some of the contents of this bill, which are unique. They do address some other concerns here. I’ll leave that for now but will probably touch on this later on in the discussion.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

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

One of the questions I ask with respect to clause 2, under 14.1(2): have there been any agreements entered into by ICBC with the government on any issues that relate to this no-fault insurance bill?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There is one pre-existing agreement that has been modified over time, first in 1988 and then in 1994. But there are no other agreements under this section.

M. Lee: I wanted to just follow on from the member for Prince George–Mackenzie’s line of questioning. When I look at, in clause 2, the definition of agreement…. Of course, this whole provision takes us back to 1973, and 1973, of course, is the genesis of ICBC, the whole formation, under that previous NDP government, of ICBC itself.

So the fact that this whole provision takes this whole Legislative Assembly back, what, 48 years, almost half a century, to the beginning of ICBC…. I would just like to ask: what was the arrangement back in 1973 that this provision is changing now?

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

M. Lee: Okay. In terms of what the arrangement was…. As I determined, you have an agreement in 1988, which is referred to in the definition. What was the purpose of the 1988 agreement?

[1:20 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: The agreement set out the terms on which ICBC reimburses the province for costs of certain health-related services incurred by the province as a result of vehicle accidents.

M. Lee: Did that understanding and agreement exist between 1973 and 1988?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There may have been informal agreements. I don’t know. In 1973, I was 14. What I’m telling you is that it was formalized, though…. A formalized agreement was started in 1988 and then subsequently updated again in 1994. That’s the earliest information that we have.

M. Lee: I understand, Mr. Chair, the response of the minister. To clarify, then, what’s the purpose of referring the retroactive nature of this provision back to 1973?

Hon. M. Farnworth: What this provision does is validate everything…. As I said, the earliest agreements are from 1988. As I also said, there may have been informal arrangements before 1988, from 1973 to ’88. This section validates 1988 and subsequent, but it also validates pre-1988 as well, going back to 1973.

M. Lee: There was a briefing arranged after the member for Prince George–Mackenzie spoke to this amendment bill on second reading. It would have been helpful to have it before we went to second reading.

In any event, on the briefing that we had — when asked the question, “What is the value of the payments under this arrangement?” — this government is telling us: “Well, we’re not clear. We’re not clear what happened between 1973 and 1988. We’re not sure whether there was an agreement or an understanding. It was informal; it wasn’t written.”

Certainly, that’s the point of this, though. You’re asking this Legislative Assembly to take this all the way back 48 years to 1973, and this government can’t stand here in this chamber to tell us what the arrangement was. There’s a real lack of clarity here in terms of what this government is presenting. The dollar figure that was raised on that briefing — which I’d like the minister to confirm — is that the estimated value of the transfers is $34 million a year. Is that correct?

[1:25 p.m.]

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

I also want to make this point. This legislation was tabled on June 16. If the member wishes to make a comment about briefings, the legislation was tabled in the House on June 16. So he has had plenty of time to request or ask for a briefing. I just want to put that on the record.

M. Lee: I appreciate that we had the briefing before we got to this committee stage, but obviously, there are more questions to be answered and addressed.

So $34 million times 48 is $1.632 billion. Do we know what the amount was that was paid out under this transfer arrangement between 1973 and 1988? Does this government have an understanding as to how much occurred in that period? Is it safe to assume, in the absence of clarity, that it was $34 million between 1973 and 1988? Is that correct?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Well, the $34 million is current. That’s what we estimate that is paid. But if you want to go back to 1988, 1973, then the member, instead of just saying 48 years times 34, should understand that there has been…. It’s called inflation since that time, and the amounts paid back then would have been significantly lower, also varying from year to year based on the accident rate.

You asked about the $34 million. That is the approximate, at this point. But back then, obviously, the value of a dollar was…. Inflation was significantly…. The value of a dollar over time has inflated, so the costs would be — have been — significantly lower than they are right now, in straight dollar terms.

M. Lee: I appreciate the clarification. What is the estimated value of the total amount paid under this arrangement since 1973 to 2021?

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

M. Lee: Has there been any previous consideration of this arrangement between 1973 and 1988, in terms of documenting the arrangement by way of an agreement?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We’re not aware of any formal agreements. As I said earlier, what our understanding is, is that the 1988 agreement formalized whatever arrangements were in place at that time.

M. Lee: For 15 years, ICBC operated under having been formulated by the NDP back in 1973, and there was no operative document that documented the arrangement. There was a complete lack of transparency, then, not only to this Legislative Assembly….

What we’re hearing from the government today — apart from “this is a generation ago;” I appreciate that — is there was no formal agreement between the Ministry of Health…. The parties to the 1980 agreement are stated to be the government of British Columbia, the Medical Services Commission and the B.C. Medical Association. That, at least, was in the amendment agreement in 1993.

[1:30 p.m.]

If we look at the agreement on its face, back in 1988, it was between the Minister of Health and the Insurance Corp. of B.C. So at the time, for 15 years, there was this arrangement that was put in place. What was the basis, back in 1973, for this arrangement, then?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think what’s important to remember is that the amendments before us are to make it very clear that the payments that were made were, in fact, legal and done in the right way. ICBC has the authority to enter into agreements.

The member is asking questions about 1973, ’88. He’s going all NDP. I’d remind the member that the codifying of the agreements took place in ’88, took place under the Social Credit, subsequently updated in 1994, during the term of the B.C. NDP. It has been in place since that time under Social Credit from 1988 through to 1991, under the NDP through 1996, under the B.C. Liberals through 2001 to 2013. The agreements, the amendments, are designed to ensure that the payments that took place under governments of every single stripe are validated from 1973 to the present day.

M. Lee: Hence the reason why I’m going back to 1973. That’s what we’re being asked to review here in this House. The starting date of this wholly unusual retroactive nature, to go back 48 years…. It started under the NDP government. ICBC is their creation. This arrangement is their creation. I’m trying to understand: what was the basis of that arrangement?

I hear the minister say to me that that arrangement may or may not have existed. It may or may not have happened. We’re not really sure. Where did it start, then? Why are we going back to 1973?

Clearly, in 1988, there was a decision that there needed to be a way to document the arrangement. I’m just trying to trace back to the origin to understand the nature of this arrangement in the first place. We’re being asked in this House to confirm an arrangement that was first entered into, as far as I can determine…. On the face of the presentation of the legislation we’re being asked to vote on in this House, it’s 1973. It’s not 1988. This minister can talk about subsequent governments, but this started in 1973. Again, what is the basis of the arrangement that we’re being asked to approve that started in 1973?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This is about health payments made to people, motor vehicle accidents, and ensuring, without any doubt, against anyone who may decide that they wanted to litigate, that those payments were made lawfully, which they were. These amendments explicitly ensure that that has taken place. That’s what it’s about.

[1:35 p.m.]

Now, I understand the member wants to go back to 1973. In 1973, ICBC was created, and it’s served this province well for 48 years to date, despite efforts sometimes by others who wanted to get rid of it.

That being said, it’s here, and we are ensuring that there’s no doubt that those payments, with these amendments, were lawfully made. The procedures — whether from ’88, when they were formally codified, and updated in 1994 — have been in place for all that time and are perfectly legitimate and legal. That’s what this is about.

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

Hon. M. Farnworth: In fact, yes, they were, hon. Member. In fact, the contents of the 1988 agreement, including its 1994 modification, were disclosed publicly — for example, in 1995, in Hansard.

M. Lee: In the arrangement in 1988, were there any changes in that agreement that were different from what the arrangement was that ICBC was operating under between 1973 and 1988?

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

M. Lee: Can the minister summarize for this House the differences between, and the purpose for, the 1994 agreement versus 1988?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Prior to 1994, ICBC only reimbursed for costs of injuries caused by ICBC insureds. In 1994, ICBC also started reimbursing for costs of injuries sustained by ICBC insureds, regardless of who or what caused them.

M. Lee: In response to a question I had a few questions ago, the minister talked about the transition of successive governments in this House. Of course, as I’ve said from the outset, this arrangement is an NDP creation in the first place. It was documented, as it turns out, for the first time in 1988. I didn’t hear, though….

Let me just rewind the tape here. Was the agreement of 1988 also tabled in this House, and was the Legislative Assembly aware of that agreement?

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

M. Lee: So for 21 years, this Legislative Assembly wasn’t aware of this arrangement that was transferring dollars back from ICBC to the Ministry of Health. We have a verbal agreement, some understanding between 1973 that the NDP created, for 15 years. Then they entered into an agreement that documented the arrangement, and that wasn’t even brought to this House.

[1:40 p.m.]

Then you fast-forward to 1994. That’s when the NDP government came back. They expanded the scope of the arrangement. They made it so that regardless of whether you’re at fault, your benefits effectively would be lowered because your physician costs would be paid back to the Ministry of Health.

Again, to the minister, what was the basis and the purpose of expanding the scope of this arrangement under that 1994 agreement?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The 1994 agreement, again, expanded on the concept, which is good public policy, that those who cause the accidents and those who are responsible for the injuries should in fact bear more of the costs. At the same time, it also expanded the range of costs that would be reimbursed and that were eligible for reimbursement. That’s why the changes were made or the update was made at that point in time.

M. Lee: To be clear, we’re talking about expanding the amount of payments that would be made both for those who are not at fault — this is back in 1984, and the NDP were already talking about no-fault — but at the prejudice of the claimants, because it would reduce the amount of payment that they would receive for their part 7 benefits. They have to pay out, off the top, the physician fees, which in today’s dollars could amount to about $33,000 to $35,000 out of maybe $150,000 before this government increased it to $300,000.

The point is that when you look at the history of what we’re being presented — an unwritten agreement between 1973 and 1988, unclear about whether it was operating or not and unclear about what was being transferred or not — this Legislative Assembly has had only two opportunities, as far as I can see, to consider this matter. The second one is today.

[1:45 p.m.]

The first one was in 1995, under an NDP government — an NDP government that was looking at an agreement that was expanding the scope of this arrangement — this arrangement that had, between 1973 and 1988, been unwritten. It was written in 1988 but was not brought to this Legislative Assembly.

The only time that this Legislative Assembly has looked at this arrangement is twice — both times under the NDP. Coincidently, they were the ones who started it. I think it’s very material to be talking about what happened in 1973. The government doesn’t seem to have all the answers here. We’re operating under a guise of some lack of clarity, to say the least.

When the government brought forward that agreement to the Legislative Assembly, what was the nature of the approval, if any?

Hon. M. Farnworth: ICBC is authorized to enter into agreements. There was no requirement for the Legislature to approve or to legislate an update to the agreement. And I’d just like to point out that the member seems now to have a problem with this. He’s going: “Oh, it’s the NDP in ’73 and only ever been discussed twice — once in 1995 — by the NDP and the other now by the NDP.” That’s fair enough.

He seems to have a real problem with that. I really have to ask the question: what was he doing for 16 years when he sat on this side of the House? Was it a problem then? Were the issues that we’re dealing with, the policy that’s in place — was it a problem then, for the 16 years you sat on this side? Was it a problem for Social Credit when they sat on this side? Clearly not.

The point is this. This legislation is about ensuring that payments that are made under a policy that was in place through successive governments…. It’s that absolute clarity that they were made in a valid way. That’s what’s happening.

M. Lee: The minister, with a smattering of applause, can talk about what it’s been like to be in this House. He’s been in this House a lot longer than I have, of course. But let me just say this. We’re talking about an arrangement again that was created by the NDP, that was changed in 1995, finally documented and now is being legalized 48 years later in a retroactive nature going all the way back to 1973.

As far as I can see, this Legislative Assembly…. It’s only been brought to the attention of the Legislative Assembly maybe incidentally in 1995. It wasn’t an approval, as the minister just said, but now we’re being asked to approve this arrangement — this arrangement which started under the NDP in 1973. Why now?

Hon. M. Farnworth: As I said, there is the potential of a class action lawsuit, and we want to make sure that we’re protecting the interests of British Columbians on the method of payments that were made under successive governments, regardless of political stripe.

[1:50 p.m.]

Yes, I have been in the House a long time. As I pointed out a few minutes ago, for 16 years the opposition sat on this side. There were one, two, three, four, five B.C. Liberal ministers in charge of ICBC, under which this policy and arrangement operated, the way in which payments were made were operated. It was fine then, it’s fine now, and it was fine before then. It was done on good, sound public policy, and similar actions such as what we’ve been dealing with here today have been instituted in other provinces that have public auto insurance, such as Manitoba and Saskatchewan and, to a certain extent — because they have a different system — in the province of Quebec.

Again, I just put it on the table. That’s what this legislation is about. It’s nothing nefarious. It’s not taking anything away. It’s just validating that what was done, was done correctly and in the basis of good, sound public policy.

M. Lee: I will say…. You know, when I talk about this Legislative Assembly, I’m talking about all members in this House, of course. So if, as a member of this Legislative Assembly, I’m standing here talking about a bill that’s being presented, and I’m thinking about those who have preceded me on this floor….

I’m not sure that anybody had this opportunity to review the nature of this arrangement. That’s what we’re being asked to do today. The fact that the NDP created it, then they modified it, and now they’re trying to fix it. Those are just the facts. The fact that there were successive governments in between…. This Legislative Assembly never saw it. Never saw it in 1995. It’s seeing it today. So this government has a responsibility for what it’s doing right now, and it’s accepting the responsibility to address it.

So let me ask the minister. When we talk about the references in this arrangement, the Insurance (Vehicle) Regulation, section 88(4.1)(6), says: “The corporation” — meaning ICBC — “is not liable for any expenses paid or payable to or recoverable by the insured” — again, we’re talking about part 7, benefit recipients — “under a medical, surgical, dental or hospital plan or law, or paid or payable by another insurer, except expenses referred to” below. And it states it out.

To the minister, there are a number of applicable legislative instruments here. This is one. At least, it has been one. So to the minister: how is it that this arrangement has been operating contrary to what’s set out in that regulation?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll make this point. It’s the province that pays the health care costs. That’s the arrangement with ICBC. They pay the health care costs first, and then ICBC will reimburse for some of those costs. That’s how it works.

[1:55 p.m.]

I’d also make this other point, because the member does sort of seem to want to say: “Well, it’s the NDP that brought this up and the NDP brought this up” and “Oh, 1995 was the first time in opposition.” I’ll remind him that there is at least…. Well, there is one member on the opposition who was here in 1995 and would have been here when this was raised and subsequently became the minister responsible for ICBC, just as other members of this House have been responsible for ICBC. So to somehow suggest that “oh, this is the first opportunity that the House….” Government, which is responsible for ICBC, has a cabinet and has a minister in charge.

There is nothing nefarious and there is nothing secret about this. This is — as I keep saying and will continue to say — based on good, sound public policy, and we are ensuring that the interests of the public here are protected and that that makes it crystal-clear in any litigation that payments were made properly and in a legal way.

M. Lee: All I’m saying, of course, is that in the absence of any specific approval required by this Legislative Assembly under any applicable legislation, there wasn’t that opportunity. The minister can talk about subsequent members of successive governments and the roles that they might play, but I’m just talking about members of this House being asked to approve legislation which, given the nature of $34 million a year — what some might consider to be an additional tax of some nature — should be brought to this House.

Coming back to the specific section of the insurance regulation. As the minister just indicated, the province pays those health care costs. ICBC is asking to reimburse the Ministry of Health for those costs. ICBC is effectively taking from the entitlement or the payout or the coverage the dollar amount, the benefits, available to a person — an insured person, a British Columbian — those costs. That’s where the money is coming from. It’s coming out of the pockets of those injured British Columbians. This particular regulation says, in effect, that ICBC is not required to pay for the costs of those medical expenses.

So how is it that we have this arrangement that is doing that? That is my question to the minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: These payments are not intended to — nor do they — take away from people’s benefits. In accordance with how medical costs are covered in the province, the province is the first payer, is the payer. ICBC, as I said a moment ago, subsequently reimburses for some of those costs.

M. Lee: Well, I mean, I think that we’re talking about the route through which these payments are occurring, but effectively, the arrangement is that ICBC is transferring these costs to the Ministry of Health. Is that not correct?

[2:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: We are a single-payer health insurance system. The province is the payer of those health costs, and, just as in many other jurisdictions, in this case, ICBC, the public insurer, reimburses the province for some of those incurred costs.

M. Lee: When we look at the parties to this master agreement again, it’s between the province, through the Ministry of Health, and ICBC. That’s the channel through which these payments are being made.

Effectively, the reading of the regulation would suggest that ICBC should not be paying to MSP the cost of physician visits arising from motor vehicle accidents or injuries, since those medical expenses have already been paid or are payable by MSP. So again, a strict reading of the regulation itself would suggest that is what is occurring here.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Again, how is it that this arrangement that we’re being asked to bless, in effect, complies with what is set out in the regulation?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll make the following comment in response to that question. In essence, that is the subject of any litigation. This legislation, as I repeatedly said, now ensures that payments are validated and were made in a completely legal way — so there should be no issue in that regard — and that the policy and the arrangement, in terms of the province being the payer and ICBC reimburses some of those costs, is good for both the province and for the insurance ratepayer.

M. Lee: I think that we…. In asking this question three times and getting a response the same way three times without the minister coming out and saying it, although he just referred to it, I can understand the minister’s response. Meaning, I understand the words he’s saying. It doesn’t address the specific question I’m asking, in terms of the concern, but it does give the government’s position. That position, of course, is the same position that they’re taking….

Well, let me ask you this. Is that the position of the government in response to any claim, class action or otherwise, through litigation?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: The regulation does not prohibit ICBC from reimbursing health care costs. The arrangements that have been in place through successive governments, under which payments have been made — and in which, by the province in terms of covering health care costs by ICBC in reimbursing for some of those health care costs — were, certainly, formalized in ’88. Informal arrangements prior to ’88, or what existed, have served this province as good public policy through successive governments. This legislation ensures that that is the case.

M. Lee: I think what I’ll do is just move over to another question related to clause 2.

There are other considerations about this arrangement. For example, under the Canada Health Act, it sets out the funding that the province of B.C. would be receiving for insured health services. Specifically, under section 2 of the Canada Health Act, it has an exception. That exception is for services. It doesn’t include any health services that “relates to workers or workmen’s compensation.” That’s the wording in the act.

There isn’t a similar carve out for these kinds of insured health care services, for motor vehicle accidents. In order to receive the transfers from the federal government, there are certain principles that the province needs to follow.

To the minister, does the province currently receive…? Is it the minister’s view — would he agree — that currently, under transfers under the Canada Health Act, that the province does receive funding for insured health care services for those people who are injured in motor vehicle accidents?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The province does receive Health Canada health transfers for health care for British Columbians. It does not specify where those transfers are to be spent, unless it was for a specific area, such as equipment.

I remember once, when I was Minister of Health, we did some transfers to buy MRIs and things like that, but the federal government does transfer money to the provinces — Health Canada transfers — but they are for health care. Then the province — who is responsible for health care, obviously — runs the health care system.

M. Lee: In the general response the minister just gave, just to be clear, we are in agreement, then, that the province receives funding from the federal government for the cost of insured health services, which is a term that’s defined within section 2 of the act, as I mentioned earlier.

The only exclusion from that, as much as the minister referred to….

[2:10 p.m.]

It is definitely a general definition — “insured health services means hospital services” — and, more importantly, at least pertinent to this bill committee debate, “physician services and surgical-dental services provided to injured persons….” Then it does have that exclusion that I mentioned earlier in terms of health services related to “workers’ or workmen’s compensation.”

The minister did say in his response that there isn’t any particular level of detail. I think I would connect that up with what I just referred to, other than this definition, which would suggest, then, that the funds this province is receiving, like other provinces in Canada, can be put towards physician services for those people who are injured in motor vehicle accidents. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll make these comments in response to the question. Yes, there is, indeed, that carve-out for WorkSafe claims. There is no such carve-out for auto vehicle accidents. We do, indeed, receive moneys from Canada health transfer. The province is the first payer in the insurance cases in terms of health care costs. We get reimbursement from ICBC for some of those costs, and our policy is in line with the Canada Health Act.

M. Lee: Mr. Chair, can I just ask the minister to continue his comment in terms of: how is it that the province’s policy or approach is in line with the Canada Health Act? What does the minister mean by that?

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

M. Lee: Yes, and I think that gets us back to some of the principles for which British Columbia can receive the funding relating to public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessibility.

Just coming back, then, in terms of…. I don’t hear any difference in opinion or view in terms of the nature of what those federal transfers can be put towards. So that does invite the question: if it’s the case that the province of B.C. is receiving from the federal government health cost transfers for insured health services and that can be put towards the cost of health services provided by physicians for people who are injured persons in motor vehicle accidents, why is there a need then for ICBC to transfer the same amount for those physician services to the ministry if they’re already receiving funding from the federal government?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’d make this point. The health care system is far more than automobile accidents. The health care system is cancer. The health care system is diabetes. The health care system is a broken leg. The health care system is losing your vision. The health care system is heart surgery. The health care system is maternity wards. The health care system is a myriad of health services applied that people need. That’s what the health care system is.

[2:15 p.m.]

So to sort of say: “Oh, we’re getting these moneys from Health Canada, so why on earth should you be reimbursed by ICBC…?” There’s also sound public policy that those who cause the accidents bear some responsibility in terms of those costs. That policy has been in place, as the member likes to point out, for decades — under successive governments, when they sat on this side of the House for 16 years.

What this legislation is doing is ensuring that the payments that were made, that there’s absolutely no doubt that they were made in the appropriate way. Our policies are in line with the Canada Health Act, plain and simple.

M. Lee: Well, I mean, there are two things about what the minister said there, but let me just take the second one first.

Yes, we did touch on no-fault. Effectively, under the 1994 agreement, the NDP government expanded the scope of this arrangement from those who were at-fault drivers to pay out this additional cost out of their benefits back to the Ministry of Health. This, again, was an arrangement that was in place from 1973 and then documented in 1988. In 1994, under an NDP government, they expanded it to put that burden on people, regardless of their fault.

We know, in the debates that we’ve had in this House over the last two and a half, three years, including the bills that led to this amendment today, that this government continues not to see that difference. The coverage under the so-called no-fault regime is available for at-fault drivers and those who are not at fault. This government doesn’t see the difference. That’s what they did in 1994, and that’s what they’ve done on no-fault as well.

I think that it’s very clear that the NDP have a particular bent on this. Obviously, we all recognize that the health care system serves more than just people who are injured in motor vehicle accidents. Family members, parents, grandparents, children, all have experienced, unfortunately, other needs for our health care system, which is under strain. We don’t have to get into that right now.

Just to put this in perspective, we’re talking about $34 million that is being transferred that the Ministry of Health is looking for from ICBC. What is the total, because I don’t have this readily at hand, although I could probably look it up in the Canada health report. But just to ask the minister, given that he raised the matter: what is the total amount of that health care transfer from the federal government to the province annually?

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

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

Hon. M. Farnworth: So I would make this comment. Look, the amount that you get from health care transfer payments from Ottawa is a subject of Health estimates, and you’ll have plenty of time in the spring session to ask what the health transfer payments are that we get from Ottawa.

M. Lee: Yes. I have a copy of the Canada Health Act Annual Report here. Unfortunately, I don’t have a full copy of it. So the pages that would presumably set that amount out I do not have here for easy reference.

I’m only saying the minister made a comment that suggests that whatever the amount is — which, presumably, is more than $34 million — it is to be put to other good uses. There’s no dispute about that.

[2:20 p.m.]

The fact of the matter is that this province is receiving funding that can be put to the physician services for those British Columbians who are injured in motor vehicle accidents.

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

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll come back to the same answer that I have given, which is that it is good public policy that those who create the risk bear some of the responsibility, in terms of the costs associated with those risks. And yes, this province gets health transfer payments, as does every other province, just about — and the other provinces that have public auto insurance as well.

Again, I’ll just repeat that this legislation is…. There’s nothing nefarious about it. There’s nothing secret here. The way in which…. When you guys sat on this side for 16 years, the Finance Minister would have been very much aware that coming into the finances of the province would have been revenue or transfers or the medical costs. Reimbursed medical costs is the best way to put it — the reimbursed medical costs for some of the medical costs that the province paid out as the first payer in our single-payer public health care system. It’s as straightforward as that.

M. Lee: I have just been informed by one of my colleagues that the amount of annual transfers is in the order of magnitude of $5½ billion a year — $5.6 billion in 2020-21 and $5.8 billion estimated in 2021-2022. So it’s a large sum of money, as we would expect, and $34 million out of $5.8 billion is obviously a small fraction. Of course, as the minister would say, and we all would agree, there are lots of needs for those health care dollars in our province.

The minister just brought up an interesting comment that I’d like to ask him about, then, in terms of the arrangement. Certainly, I do understand, and I’m sure all members of the House understand, that other provinces are receiving similar transfers. That’s not a matter in dispute here. But since the minister raised it, can he tell this House if there are other similar arrangements in place for other provinces in terms of the transfer of driver-related ICBC costs of this nature?

Hon. M. Farnworth: As far as I understand, yes — Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Quebec. It’s the same approach taken by this province with the similar way in terms of dealing with payments. It’s the same that has been done in those jurisdictions as well.

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

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

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

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

[2:25 p.m.]

M. Lee: I appreciate the minister’s willingness to have this discussion at the committee stage, appreciating the circumstance in which this bill is being brought forward. The exchanges that we’re having, hopefully, are helpful to create some understanding about the nature of what we’re being asked to approve. But I would say that the responses and the ability to assess the responses, given the nature of the regulatory framework, can be somewhat challenging.

I’d say that, obviously, the government is in this chamber giving its response in a way that would not prejudice its responses in any court proceeding. I understand that. The minister has not had to refer to that, but I do appreciate that that may well be the case. It makes for a challenging discussion, though, because we’re not really getting to the heart of the matter. I feel personally, not being able to study the transcript of the response, that we’re not really getting to the issues at hand.

I do think that the ability to discuss this provision and to understand it is important. I appreciate that the minister and the members of the ministry team that are with the minister are providing some nature of responses to the questions that I am posing on behalf of our opposition caucus. It’s clear, Mr. Chair, that the government does not see any concern relating to how British Columbians are being asked to pay, out of their benefits, the specific costs of physician services.

Can I ask the minister…? I understand that there’s some sort of internal ICBC policy relating to when those particular costs would be paid out, such that it would not supersede the top limit on the benefits payable to an injured British Columbian. Can the minister please describe, to this House, the nature of that policy and the purpose of it?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, the internal policy of ICBC was that the payments were not to come out of people’s benefits, and that’s the case.

M. Lee: Is that at all times? Or is it only if it’s going to exceed the maximum benefit limit that an injured British Columbian is entitled to under part 7?

Hon. M. Farnworth: At all times.

M. Lee: I understand, although that is the policy, that that hasn’t been the case and that ICBC has to acknowledge that on some occasions, funds have been pulled away from their benefit payments. There has been some element of mistake that ICBC has apologized for, for some injured British Columbians.

To the minister: how many cases has that occurred in, in terms of ICBC having to apologize that they made a mistake despite the policy being in place, where there has been a reduction in the amount of the benefits payable to have come out of what that person was entitled to — an amount payable for physician visits? How many times has that occurred?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. There are over 100,000 claims a year on average. Whenever there is a system like that, there will occasionally, as the member has remarked, be a time that a mistake is made. As I said, ICBC is reviewing approximately 500 in order to make sure that there are no errors. But if any errors are found, then restitution is, in fact, made. The appropriate amount is paid.

M. Lee: With that policy in place, how does that qualify, in any nature, the amendment that’s being proposed here in terms of…. If that policy is being followed within ICBC and there are some number of mistakes that have been made — could be administrative, could be otherwise…. But assuming even if that administrative policy was followed 100 percent of the time, what’s the concern in terms of what’s being addressed here by way of this amendment?

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

M. Lee: Just coming back to our discussion previous. That is the concern around what is already being provided under the Canadian Health Act to this province and what might be a situation where we’re talking about the same taxpayer paying their federal tax — having those funds effectively being transferred to this province for provincial health care coverage — and that coverage being made available to those who have been injured in a motor vehicle accident and need to see a physician and those costs being paid out again, from ICBC to the ministry, even though the province is receiving funding for the same services.

Is there any consideration by this government that what we’re being asked to approve here, by way of this amendment, is effectively in terms of the transfers that are being made? When we talk about the costs of health-related services as defined under 14.2(1) of clause 2 of this bill, is that effectively considered as a tax?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No.

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

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: In response to a potential class action, that there can be no doubt that these payments that were made under successive governments, whether they be Social Credit, NDP, B.C. Liberal were made in a lawful manner.

Whether the Solicitor General or the minister responsible at the time for ICBC were members on the other side or my side, whether the Minister of Finance at the time, who would have known about transfers coming, accident reimbursements, health care reimbursement costs coming from ICBC, whether it was Kevin Falcon, who was the Minister of Finance when this was operating or whether it was a Finance Minister on our side — all of those were done in a completely lawful way, no doubt about it, in line with the Canada Health Act.

M. Lee: Let me just try and stick to the matter at hand here. The timing of this amendment being raised was communicated by the Attorney General of this province back in April to the lawyers for the plaintiff. It certainly talked about the legal agreement being negotiated in 1988 between ICBC and the Ministry of Health and then setting out the arrangement — and that the agreement in 1994, as amended, has been operative since then.

The purpose of the timing of this letter…. To the minister: it was written at what juncture of that litigation proceeding?

Hon. M. Farnworth: My understanding is that the letter the member is referring to, or the communication the member is referring to, was sent back in April. Then, of course, the bill was tabled June — I think June 15 or June 16, somewhere around there — of this past year.

M. Lee: As the minister says, the letter makes reference to communicating to the lawyers for the plaintiffs that the government intends to propose legislation for consideration by the Legislature.

[2:40 p.m.]

The intention is that the proposed legislation will include provisions that are explicitly retroactive and provide clear statutory authority for the reimbursement of costs of health-related services by ICBC.

Just to look at that particular communication by the Attorney General, when the Attorney General, on behalf of the government, is communicating that this legislation that we’re looking at today provides clear statutory authority, what exactly are the specific areas that the government is of the view that it needs to provide that clear statutory authority?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It was on the basis of the potential of the class action suit, and we felt it was important that the plaintiffs also be informed that government was considering this so that everybody is operating on the same basis of facts.

M. Lee: For the purpose of the class action suit, as you and others might appreciate, the nature of these litigation proceedings is such that there is quite a bit of analysis done and documents provided for consideration — affidavits and other statements of claim.

Presumably, of course, the government of B.C. has had the opportunity to review the nature of the claim and what has been brought forward. So I can only assume, of course, for the purpose of this discussion, that there is some concern relating to the nature of the claim — that there is some element that I’m sure, of course, the government would not comment on here as to concerns as to whether there is clear statutory authority for the reimbursement of costs of health-related services by ICBC. That is what the Attorney General communicated to the lawyers for the plaintiff as to what this legislation is about.

Presumably, as the minister has responded, this legislation addresses — these are my words; these aren’t the minister’s words — the concerns raised by the potential plaintiffs in the class action, assuming they get certified. They’re not. As I understand it, the class action has not yet been certified, so we have not gotten to that next step. But assuming they proceed and assuming a class action is heard and that that is the substance of it, there are some challenges there that this government wants to address.

This puts us in a tough position. Clearly, given the nature, we’ve canvassed a few of the issues that might be of concern, and we may still take the opportunity to canvass some other issues here, at least on this particular provision of clause 2.

It does put members of this House in a position where we’re being asked to make legal an arrangement that has been questioned — questioned more than just a spurious type of litigation claim. Because I presume, of course, that if the Attorney General of our province thought that this claim was non-material, non-significant — that is, the government of B.C. would have a defensible position — we wouldn’t be going to all of this. We wouldn’t be introducing legislation that is retroactive 48 years to the time where the NDP created this.

[2:45 p.m.]

I will just, only for the purpose of this proceeding, invite the minister to comment, if he chooses to at all, on the challenge that this government is putting this Legislative Assembly in when we are passing retroactive legislation of this scope — $34 million a year, the claim that is being brought on behalf of a very large class of British Columbians.

These are British Columbians that would’ve received part 7 benefits over 48 years, who were involved in motor vehicle accidents. Effectively, this government is being asked — for us as Members of the Legislative Assembly — to substitute our judgment for the court’s.

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

Hon. M. Farnworth: I understand the member’s question, and I’ll offer these comments in response to it — that is, that for the last 48 years, we have had sound public policy when it comes to health care costs and the reimbursement of health care costs by ICBC to the province. We believe — in fact, we are confident — that this has been very much in line with the Canada Health Act, that the public policy has served this province well in terms of protecting the province and ratepayers, that this legislation is about ensuring, without a shadow of a doubt, making crystal-clear to any court, that that is in fact the case.

M. Lee: I suppose, though, it stands to reason that the timing, which I was getting at earlier, of the letter from the Attorney General to the legal counsel for the plaintiffs and the timing of the introduction of the legislation in June — recognizing that we’re not sitting until, now, October — is such that the government is of the view that the shadow of doubt, as the minister raised, is a risk. It’s a risk that the courts would rule against the province for an arrangement that’s been in place for 48 years.

Again, I stress this because this was created in 1973, as far as I can determine, because that’s what the retroactive nature of this amendment is for. So as far as I see, what we have is a government that is part of a party that created this in 1973, enlarged it in 1994 and ’95, and is now trying to make it fully legal beyond a shadow of a doubt.

That’s a pretty big onus that the government is placing on the Members of this Legislative Assembly, given that — as I mentioned earlier, and we got to this — this House has never had the opportunity to review this arrangement. I appreciate that there have been successive governments, but we are being asked holus-bolus to be looking at this amendment to make legal beyond a shadow of a doubt this arrangement, in the face of a court proceeding that is representing all British Columbians who have been involved in motor vehicle accidents who are subject to and receive part 7 benefits.

When you stand back and look at this, we have a responsibility to ensure that this is reviewed, adjudicated in a proper forum. I don’t take lightly, and would I suggest that all members of this House do not take lightly, the passing of legislation of this nature, to have that far retroactive effect — 48 years, $34 million a year, what some estimate to be $1 billion. That’s significant.

[2:50 p.m.]

The fact that this has all happened under an NDP government watch…. That’s why members of the opposition caucus are here speaking about this, speaking about the fact that this government, with an Attorney General that has once again weighed into a legal dispute by basically, effectively, informing the counsel for the plaintiffs, “Oh, you know what? That little legal claim that you have against us — well, we’re just going to make it go away.”

It’s more than a shadow of a doubt. It’s reasonable concerns that have been raised. Now we’re being asked to pass this legislation to address it, to fix it, in the course of a proceeding.

This is, some would say, important for British Columbians to have a voice, to have the ability to take their dispute with the government to court. Yet we have the chief legal officer of our government here, the NDP government, once again putting his hands on the scale to tip them in the government’s favour in such a way that this government is now introducing legislation that puts back the legal effect of what has been happening, once again under an unwritten agreement, since 1973. Documented for the first time in 1988. Expanded again in 1994 under an NDP government. And now we’re addressing it here.

I’m very uncomfortable with being presented legislation of such a significant impact. To the minister, does he not see the importance of enabling and allowing British Columbians to have their day in court, as they’re trying to do? That they should stand down this particular provision of the bill, such that British Columbians have the opportunity to have their dispute with this government addressed through the court system, as they should?

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

What it does do is ensure that payments that were made by ICBC for health-related costs for the last 48 years, which has been good public policy that has served Social Credit, NDP, B.C. Liberal governments…. I’ll remind the member that while he may not have been in charge of ICBC, may not have been the Minister of Finance, current colleagues certainly were. Former colleagues of some members of the House, who have aspirations to be back in this House, certainly were and did not have a problem with the policy that was in place.

What this is doing is ensuring that sound public policy was absolutely valid. The idea that somehow this is unique or has not been done before…. I would remind the member, because he’s familiar with UBC and the UBC parking and towing that was retroactively done away with by the previous government when they were on this side….

This is about ensuring and protecting the interests of British Columbians, both in terms of taxpayers and of ratepayers. As I keep saying, it’s nothing nefarious. It’s not secret. The plaintiffs were told that this would be coming back in April. The legislation was tabled in June. The opposition has been able to review and see this legislation.

[2:55 p.m.]

It’s been sitting out there from June 15 to July 1, from July 1 to August 1, from August 1 to September 1, from September 1 to October 1 until now. There has not been a big uproar, because people look at it and go: “Oh, yeah. You know what? Okay. It makes sense, what’s being done.” That’s what’s happening here today.

I appreciate the discussion. I appreciate the questions, and I appreciate the member’s interest in this legislation. But let’s also recognize that this is also the right thing to do.

M. Lee: Well, you know, I think, obviously, those who are moving this forward, and on behalf of other British Columbians who have had their benefits challenged by this…. And, obviously, all the payments from ICBC. I mean, that does affect ratepayers. All those payments that went out from ICBC to the Ministry of Health. That was another way to increase costs for those ratepayers.

There is an impact here, and I dare say that the nature of this challenge is of far greater scope than the example the minister provided. I think if this was about doing the right thing, I think there are other people who certainly disagree, and they’re outside this chamber.

I appreciate that the minister has a good understanding of history and has a good understanding of the timeframe from which we’re talking about — 48 years — but we’re also talking about since April and June. I appreciate that the minister can count down the months. But the fact of the matter is that it doesn’t change anything.

We’re still being asked to review this piece of legislation in front of the House today in committee stage. We’ve been at this for a couple of days in terms of other bills that have come in front of this House. This is the opportunity to have that discussion.

When the minister says they’re doing the right thing, I’ve just got to say about doing the right thing that this government has repeatedly had a history, a track record, of overriding the rights of injured British Columbians, that, as we know, we had an Attorney General that changed the rules of court. That was a rule pulled back.

We’ve had an Attorney General that has been in conflict at the same time that he’s been the Minister Responsible for ICBC. That is the situation that we are in the backdrop of what’s being addressed. That occurred over some years under the government.

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

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

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

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

Hon. D. Eby: Point of personal privilege, the allegation that I was in a conflict, which I do not believe is true.

The Chair: Thank you, Attorney.

Please proceed, Member.

Debate Continued

M. Lee: Well, this is something that I have spoken about in the House at length, Mr. Chair. The member for Vancouver–Point Grey is certainly aware of that. We’ve had much discussion about that in the past, and he knows my views very well.

My concern, of course, is that he wrote this letter too. This letter…. Even though he’s not the Minister Responsible for ICBC any longer, this minister is. It is still yet another example where the heavy hand of government has come over top of the rights of injured British Columbians — not just going forward, but looking back over 48 years.

Again, how is it that the government is now putting in place or bringing forward this legislation in light of the litigation that is in front of the courts?

[3:00 p.m.]

Does the government not have a concern that it is effectively quashing the rights of those claimants to bring forward that claim?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’ll just repeat what I said earlier, which is that this legislation will not stop the litigation.

M. Lee: We don’t have the opportunity to speak to the minister who wrote the letter to the lawyers on behalf of the claimants. So I’ll just raise this with the minister here, which is that certainly the Attorney General, on behalf of the government, did have some understanding that there would be some impact on the above-mentioned actions.

If the minister referred to the letter, he would know that it says: “While it will be within the discretion of cabinet to introduce such legislation” — that’s happened — “and within the discretion of the Legislature” — which is what’s happening now — “to pass such legislation, I write to inform you of this intention, which is to propose this retroactive legislation, which, if passed will have an impact on the above-mentioned action.”

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

What is the reference and what is this to mean, from government’s view, that it would have impact on the above-mentioned action?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It will not stop litigation, but what it certainly does is…. The legislation, as it’s laid out, will make it crystal-clear that the health care payments made by ICBC were done in a completely lawful and proper way. That’s what the legislation is all about.

M. Lee: One example of the lawful nature of the arrangement is the concern that this arrangement is effectively another tax, that there is a double payment going on here, that the province of B.C. is already receiving the funds to cover physician visits for those injured in motor vehicle accidents by coming under the Canada Health Act from the federal government. We covered that earlier.

This arrangement, by transferring further funds to cover the same amounts, is going from ICBC to the Ministry of Health and that effectively is a double-dip, a double tax of some nature. That payment scheme, for example, has never been approved by this Legislative Assembly.

In response to a question I asked earlier, the minister responded with a short answer, no. But this is part of the challenge, which is that that is a concern, on its face, as to whether this charge — this additional charge, this transfer of amounts, this levy — is an amount and a payment scheme and arrangement that has never been approved by this Legislative Assembly.

Just so we’re all clear here, this will be the first opportunity in 48 years that we can approve this arrangement. If there is any concern relating to this being an unconstitutional or illegal tax, part of the elements of that is the fact that it needs to be approved by a legislative body. It’s the principle of no taxation without representation. This can’t be done on a handshake deal, which is what was happening between 1973 and 1988, expanded again in 1994 by the NDP government, created in the first place under 1973.

[3:05 p.m.]

As members of this Legislative Assembly, we’re being asked to judge that. We’re being asked to make that go away, if that was a concern. Just to address that concern, I think it is helpful if the minister is prepared to share a little more than one word. I didn’t ask the question this way, I will admit. So I will ask the question a slightly different way, which is: could the minister share with this House the view of the government as to any concern as to why this is not an unconstitutional tax?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think the fundamental response to that question is that we do not believe this is a tax. It’s that straightforward. The details, as the member points out, obviously would be argued in litigation.

This is a public policy that has been in place. It is based on accepted principles in terms of a policy around those who have the risk, cause the accidents, have a higher proportion of those health care costs to pay. That’s how things have operated. This is totally in line with the Canada Health Act, as I’ve said a number of times now — the single-payer principle — and ICBC reimburses some of those costs. It does not come from benefits. It is not a tax. The government is confident that that is very much the case.

M. Lee: I hope the minister does appreciate, obviously, that as members of the opposition, we don’t have the benefit of any further explanation beyond what the minister has said, which makes it very limiting in terms of our ability to assess how we would support this provision.

There are, on its face, at least, serious questions and concerns being raised about this arrangement in the courts by nature of this claim. By virtue of this amendment to the legislation, this will effectively address…. I mean, I’m sure the government is not going through this to leave any holes in this.

Let me ask this question to the minister. It’s a slightly different way of approaching this. In view of the claim against the government of B.C., does this amendment address all of the potential challenges that can be raised in the nature of that litigation claim?

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

The Chair: The committee will recess for ten minutes.

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

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

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

I just wanted to bring us back to the discussion. Certainly, the minister has heard our concerns about the nature of this provision, in the face of the active litigation claim that’s coming in front of the B.C. courts. I just wanted the minister to comment, if he’s aware of the decisions that have been made in the past, looking at these sorts of retroactive pieces of legislation.

[3:20 p.m.]

As the minister has talked about this, he demonstrates that the government is familiar with both the arrangement and, certainly, the retroactive fix, so to speak, to address this. I presume, and I just want to confirm, that the minister is familiar with, and his team advising him are aware of, the Supreme Court of Canada decisions that have considered legislation of a retroactive nature that has been put forward to address other types of concerns relating to unconstitutional tax issues — whether there has been an assessment made as to whether there is any challenge in terms of even this legislation coming forward, in the face of that claim.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It is the government’s position that this is not a tax and that this is the appropriate way for us to proceed. Of course the case, if it gets to court, will be argued in court, but the government is confident that this is not a tax.

M. Lee: I just want to draw the minister’s attention, then, to some of the court decisions of the highest court of our land, the Supreme Court of Canada. There is a decision, Kingstreet Investments v. New Brunswick, a 2007 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada where Mr. Justice Dickson said the following: “If a statute is found to be ultra vires the Legislature which enacted it, legislation which would have the effect of attaching legal consequences to acts done pursuant to that invalid law must equally be ultra vires because it relates to the same subject matter as that which was involved in the prior legislation. If a state cannot take by unconstitutional means, it cannot retain by unconstitutional means.”

This provision and this statement seems to speak to the situation that we’re in here. Again, has the government assessed the viability of this legislation in the face of this legal claim?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member’s question and the statement. I’m aware that that applies to an unconstitutional tax case. It is the firm belief of government that this is not a tax. Retroactive legislation is something that has been used before and, no doubt, at various times into the future by successive governments, may well be used again. But we have, as government, the view that this is the appropriate legislation, that the path being chosen is the appropriate one. I repeat again, this is not an unconstitutional tax. It is not a tax.

M. Lee: Just as we proceed through this bill, I would ask again the minister to address a comment I raised earlier in terms of the timing and the sequence of this amendment being considered by the House at this time in the face of the litigation claim ahead of the decision to be rendered by the court in terms of whether the class action will be certified, and then to move forward through further judicial proceedings.

[3:25 p.m.]

It certainly would be, with the amount of issues that we’ve canvassed here today and the responses that government has provided through the minister, that there are quite a number of issues to be addressed here, issues that are not easy to assess in this forum because there is some degree of complexity involved with the legislative framework and the ability and the preciseness and clarity of the responses that the minister can provide while this matter is in litigation proceedings.

I appreciate that we’ve been receiving fairly general, definitive — at least the way that the minister is expressing it on behalf of government — responses because the position of the government of B.C. is under review and in dispute.

It would seem appropriate to myself and other members of our caucus, including the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, that we ask the minister to consider standing down this particular clause 2 — that the other parts of Bill 12 be considered but that clause 2 not be moved forward for approval. Certainly, we would not support that adoption at this time, in face of the litigation proceeding.

Would the minister consider standing down this particular clause 2?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the discussion that we have been having, and I appreciate the questions from the member and, obviously, his interest and the role that he is in, asking questions as one of the opposition critics on this piece of legislation. But as I’ve outlined, I think the government has made its position clear in terms of the direction and the way in which they’re proceeding with this particular issue and the legislation before us. So respectfully, I would have to decline his request to stand down this section.

The Chair: As we’re constantly learning in this position, apparently the correct procedural way to do it is, when I call for the vote, to vote against the clause.

Anything else on clause 2?

Clause 2 approved on division.

On clause 3.

M. Morris: Just a couple of questions on clause 3. I see that some definitions have been moved into section 113 under clause 3 here. Definitions have changed slightly here, and I’m just wondering what the reason and the rationale was for changing these.

The definition of “dependent child” under sub (b) now includes “on the date that a benefit under this Part becomes payable.” I’m just wondering: why was that particular definition changed to that?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s been changed for internal consistency. There’s no substantial change to what the definition specifically means.

M. Morris: Thank you for that.

It talks about a prescribed class of persons under subsection (c). Would that be the same as the prescribed portion under part 7 of the regs, under “supported child”?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, they are different. One definition deals with enhanced care going forward. The other deals with the system that was.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

M. Morris: Just for clarification. A lot of this is technical in nature, I guess, just changing from one format to another, and some definitions are changing in here.

[3:30 p.m.]

I’ve looked through this very carefully, and I don’t see any issue to raise from clause 4 to clause 34.

Clauses 4 to 34 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:31 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 12 — INSURANCE (VEHICLE)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

Bill 12, Insurance (Vehicle) Amendment Act, 2021, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

[3:35 p.m. - 3:45 p.m.]

YEAS — 51
Anderson	Bailey	Bains
Beare	Begg	Brar
Chandra Herbert	Chant	Chow
Conroy	Coulter	Cullen
Dean	D’Eith	Dix
Donnelly	Dykeman	Eby
Elmore	Farnworth	Fleming
Furstenau	Glumac	Greene
Heyman	Horgan	Kahlon
Kang	Leonard	Ma
Malcolmson	Mark	Mercier
Olsen	Osborne	Paddon
Popham	Ralston	Robinson
Routledge	Routley	Russell
Sandhu	Sharma	Simons
Sims	A. Singh	Starchuk
Walker	Whiteside	Yao
NAYS — 22
Ashton	Banman	Bernier
Bond	Cadieux	Clovechok
Davies	Halford	Kirkpatrick
Kyllo	Lee	Letnick
Milobar	Morris	Oakes
Paton	Ross	Rustad
Stone	Sturdy	Tegart
	Wilkinson

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call committee stage, Bill 17.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 17 — PROTECTED AREAS OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 17; N. Letnick in the chair.

The committee met at 3:52 p.m.

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

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you very much, Chair.

Joining me on my right is Rumon Carter, and on my left is Brett Hudson.

On clause 1.

P. Milobar: A few overarching questions, I guess, at the beginning, for the minister, given that a lot of this is semi-housekeeping as we move through. And this will come as no surprise to the minister that the first few questions will be around UNDRIP and consultations that have taken place overall.

I’m wondering if the minister can give us an idea of how much consultation, and what shape that took, with Indigenous communities throughout this bill and the overall bill in its entirety?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. We in fact conducted extensive consultations, as we do with all of our actions in changing parks boundaries and establishing parks and naming parks and discussing management issues.

Specifically, we consulted with First Nations on the establishment of the new park, the park and conservancy additions, the boundary modifications, the renaming proposals and the cancellation of Elk Falls Protected Area.

[3:55 p.m.]

Where we did not consult was on the replacement of the boundary descriptions for Lakelse Lake Park with an official plan and the administrative update to the boundary description for Ellison Lake. These were strictly administrative changes and do not impact the boundaries or management of the lands in any way.

We also consulted with the Attorney General’s ministry about whether our level of consultation met the requirements of various court decisions, pieces of legislation, as well as our own Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and acted accordingly.

When we get to each specific section, I’d be quite happy to detail the specific consultations for each one of the sections of the act.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

P. Milobar: I’m just wondering if we could get that further description of the consultation that took place. How were the area bands decided? Were the area bands all consulted? Was it provincewide, as well, in terms of other organizations?

We’ve heard that from various ministries — that various provincial Indigenous groups have been consulted, not individual bands, on some legislation. So to get a flavour of what actually happened in section 2 consultation….

Hon. G. Heyman: I’ll answer the second part of the member’s question first. We consult directly with the nations that have interests, rights and title to areas where we are considering establishment may mean adjustments, additions to particular parks.

We do not consult with provincewide umbrella organizations on these, because they’re not directly impacted. It’s the nations with rights and title. Specifically with respect to section 2, the K’ómoks First Nation; the Wei Wai Kai First Nation; the Wei Wai Kum, otherwise known as Campbell River Indian Band; and Homalco First Nation were consulted between 2011 and 2019.

B.C. Hydro consulted on the proposed land exchange in 2011 and 2012 and provided notification to the Laich-Kwil-Tach Treaty Society in June of 2012. B.C. Hydro also met with the K’ómoks, Wei Wai Kai and Wei Wai Kum First Nations in 2018 and ’19 to ask for final comments or concerns regarding the land exchange.

The K’ómoks First Nation, the Wei Wai Kai Nation and the Campbell River Indian Band have impact-and-benefit agreements with B.C. Hydro, and they provided letters of support as part of their IBAs.

[4:00 p.m.]

The Homalco initially responded with no objections, reserving the right to further comment after completing traditional land use and archaeological studies. At a subsequent meeting in May of 2018, they raised objections, citing their own asserted territorial rights to the land. B.C. Hydro followed up, citing the previous responses on record from Homalco First Nation, but received no further response.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

P. Milobar: I’m wondering if the minister…. It looks like Beatton Park, located up by Fort St. John…. Would this be considered in the area of the Blueberry River First Nations, and if so, how would the recent court ruling be taken into account, with any changes contemplated within this piece of legislation, with Beatton Park?

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. G. Heyman: As the member will know, the change to Beatton Park was the addition of 23 hectares of private land, which was purchased by the ministry in 2007, and 11 hectares of foreshore next to the private land addition.

Consultation was initiated with Blueberry River First Nation in April 2019 — the answer is yes, it is in their territory — and concluded in June 2019. The only response that was received from Blueberry River First Nation was a request to provide some further information, which was done. There was no further communication from Blueberry River.

The consultation efforts that were undertaken have been considered in light of the Yahey decision of June 2021. We believe that the Crown’s duty to consult in respect of these amendments, in light of that decision, have been met.

P. Milobar: I’m just seeking further clarification. I know that part of that court decision was that the government had to come to accelerated discussions and negotiations with the Blueberry River First Nations around things like permits. A lot were put on hold. The ability to issue permits was put on hold, for the most part.

Was there was any governmental permitting that needed to be done — and that was not signed off on by the Blueberry River First Nations — with this amendment, or is it not subject to any type of permitting whatsoever from government, even if it’s an internal permitting structure?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: That’s a good question. There are two parts to this decision. We purchased land and added it to a protected area, so that, in and of itself, doesn’t create an impact. One of the things that was the subject of the Blueberry River First Nation court case and the ultimate decision known as Yahey….

There is, however, an existing water intake that did not require permitting when it was on private land. If it requires permitting in the future because it’s part of the park, then, of course, that would be subject to consultation with the Blueberry River First Nation before any action was taken on that.

P. Milobar: So with this park then, with the addition of lands coming in…. Does that change any of the ability, any of the land mass in that area that would be available for hunting in regards to either Indigenous or non-Indigenous peoples in that area with this park boundary change?

Hon. G. Heyman: Well, currently, because we haven’t passed this bill yet, it’s private land. Hunting is only allowed with the permission of the landowner, including hunting by Indigenous people.

With the inclusion of this area in the park, it will be available for the exercise of traditional hunting rights by Indigenous people. It’s also available for hunting to anyone else with a licence, but the issue of quotas for particular animals or species would be pursuant to the Wildlife Act. That would undoubtedly trigger a consultation by the ministry administering the Wildlife Act — which is not my ministry — with the Blueberry River First Nation.

P. Milobar: In terms of further down in 3, if I’m reading this correctly….

In the description of the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy Park, I get — and many of these parks, I guess, would be similar and following a similar vein of this question — that it’s only a few hectares here and there that we’re moving around with mapping. But sometimes that could have significant consequence, depending where that line moves, especially when it comes to foreshore areas and abutments around lakes of that nature as the riparian area would come into effect.

Was any assessment done on the parks that start to impact a remapping, a realignment of their boundaries as it pertains to those water bodies and what the neighbouring properties’ impacts are on riparian areas and buildable areas of potential use next to the parks, or is that not part of the assessment overall?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: The change to the Purcell Wilderness Conservancy Park is nowhere near a water body or riparian area. It is a small piece of road, which services four existing private lots, that was erroneously included in the park in the first place. The road pre-existed. This just simply ensures these lot owners can continue to have access to their lots, but there is no impact on water.

P. Milobar: Thanks for that. It was a little confusing.

Of course, when we’re dealing with large tracts of land…. When the description is the easterly shore of the natural boundary of Kootenay Lake, one would assume we’re talking about lakeshore. Like I say, many others are talking about foreshore.

I guess, in general, just a follow-up to the overall question around foreshore and this bill in general. This comes forward every year. With the riparian act now being in place for ten, 15 years, does the overall assessment take that into account, as these boundary changes come forward on foreshore and other areas of these park adjustments that we see described throughout this bill?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question.

The answer to the question is that we always consider impacts to riparian areas when we add foreshore. But to take a step back from that, what happened is that we purchased private land, and we’re bringing it under the Parks Act, which enables us to directly address any riparian impacts as part of a park management plan. So the ability to apply protections that are consistent with the Riparian Areas Act is enhanced.

E. Ross: In terms of the consultation, I heard the answer given previously. But my question is pretty specific to the consultation regarding Blueberry River, for example. We know there is some type of agreement, in principle at least.

[4:15 p.m.]

When we’re talking about boundaries in terms of lands here, whether it be foreshore or not, will this be part of the Blueberry agreement that’s currently being negotiated right now as we speak?

Hon. G. Heyman: To the member, I’ll repeat that we consulted with Blueberry River First Nation on the amendments that were within territories where they have rights and title and, of course, interest, and provided the further information they requested and received no other requests for information or commentary from them.

Presumably, they were satisfied, but I am not part of the negotiations to resolve issues of permitting and impacts that flow from the Yahey decision, so I can’t say if that’s been brought up. Although I assume that if it had been, I would be informed. I guess, potentially, the Blueberry River First Nation could raise issues related to parks in their territory but have not, to date, to my knowledge, but again, I’m not at that table.

E. Ross: There’s a difference between treaty bands, non-treaty bands and the band that actually achieved title through the courts. We’re talking about Tŝilhqot’in, for example.

In terms of the mandate that we’re talking about now, in terms of the Crown adjusting the boundaries as per this bill, were non-treaty bands that are in the process of negotiating a treaty…? Were they made aware of this through the negotiation structure of each community?

Hon. G. Heyman: I’d like to, before giving an answer, ask a question of clarification of the member for Skeena. Is your question general, with respect to all of the amendments, or specifically to section 3?

E. Ross: It’s specific to section 3.

Hon. G. Heyman: The answer would probably be the same no matter what the member’s answer to my clarifying question was, but I thought it was important to ask.

We consult with both treaty nations and non-treaty nations. We consult with nations who assert an interest in lands where we’re proposing activities or, in this case, additions, amendments, etc. We consult quite broadly, and we consult with any nation that asserts that they have an interest.

E. Ross: To be clear, then, the First Nations that are negotiating treaties right now are actually clear on the idea of the boundaries changing or being amended? That is part of their treaty negotiations?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: The changes to boundaries or additions are not part of the treaty negotiations. I guess, potentially, they could be, if a nation put them on the table. But they are just simply subject to the consultations that we do with Indigenous nations in our regular activity — in this case, with respect to amendments to the protected areas act.

E. Ross: That was true prior to 2017. That was true. That’s not true anymore. Bill 41 has actually highered the standard above and beyond anything else that we have ever seen. We actually don’t know what the standard is anymore. So now we’re talking about a government decision.

Previous to that, it was a government decision that affected asserted rights and title, whether they be treaty or not. So the question is: do the bands that you consult with understand what this means in the context of treaty negotiations and how that affects the parks and protected areas chapters in treaty negotiations, for example?

Hon. G. Heyman: As part of our consultation, we serve notice to nations that have asserted an interest in the territory, and we include in that a description of what we’re proposing as well as maps. When we get responses, we answer questions. We engage in discussion with them, and part of our legal analysis of whether we meet the tests that are required is an analysis of whether we meet the tests required under our new piece of legislation, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

E. Ross: My last question. In the notification…. I’m presuming that it was a notification that was sent out, in terms of the amendments that we’re talking about here in Bill 17. In the Crown’s communication, was there any mention of accommodation when we’re talking about the decisions that we’re making in terms of land designations?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you for the question, because it allows me to offer further clarification. In our notification to Indigenous nations, we provide information. We provide maps. Then, we ask them if they believe that there are impacts on their rights, their title, their interests, anything else that is significant to them — traditional use, culture, archaeology.

When they give us an answer that, yes, there is, and this is how, we then engage with them around what can be done to accommodate that, if anything can be done to accommodate that. Usually the case is that we find an accommodation, and that is the nature of our consultation and our work with Indigenous nations pursuant to DRIPA as well as existing court decisions and legislation.

E. Ross: Maybe I should actually bring it back a bit to clarify what I’m getting at. As I said to one of the other ministers here, regarding a bill, consultation is not just notification. That’s not what it is.

[4:25 p.m.]

If the government goes back to read the case law that’s been actually established in the courts of B.C. and Canada over the last 40 years, it talks about meaningful consultation. It means follow-up. It means discussion. It means a lot more than just sending out a letter and then expecting a band council that’s got probably 40 or 50 different things to do on that day to find the time to respond. They’ve got different things to do. They’ve got treaty negotiations to decide. It might be an arm of the council, or it might or their own separate society. It’s quite complicated.

The real question — and what I’m getting at in terms of the first notification that was sent to these First Nations — was the word “accommodation” used? I’m not talking about the follow-up actions. I’m talking about the first notification, because as I understand it, this government is actually substituting notification and letters for meaningful consultation. So in the first notification of this amendment, was the word “accommodation” used for the First Nation in question?

Hon. G. Heyman: The member is quite right: notification isn’t consultation. I didn’t mean to imply that. I apologize if I did. It is the first step in consultation. The member is also right that nations have many things with which they have to deal.

The letter is the first step in the consultation. If we don’t get a response, we will follow up as part of our review of the proposed amendments.

[4:30 p.m.]

We also do our own assessment of what we think impacts may be and ensure that if we see them, we engage with nations about those. Specifically, if agreements are already in place with nations, whether they are treaty or other forms of agreements, reconciliation or otherwise, that specify particular forms of consultation or methodologies to address issues, we ensure that we follow those — that we’re aware of them and that we follow those and honour those.

Finally, in a number of cases, we have been ready to proceed with something but have not heard back from a nation so we have delayed it to perhaps another session, another version of a protected areas amended act until we can be sure that we have spoken with the nation and we have reached agreement or accommodation or consent. One example of that would be that we don’t unilaterally, or in any way, choose Indigenous place names for parks. That’s very much something on which we depend on the nations to give their consideration, in their own way, to what is an appropriate name. We follow that lead.

Clauses 3 to 8 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:32 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[4:35 p.m.]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 17 — PROTECTED AREAS OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

Bill 17, Protected Areas of British Columbia Amend­ment Act, 2021, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Heyman: Could we have a short recess, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: The House will be in recess for about ten minutes.

The House recessed from 4:36 p.m. to 4:45 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. G. Heyman: I call continued debate on the throne speech.

Throne Speech Debate

(continued)

Hon. N. Simons: I thank my colleagues from all around this House for their welcome. It’s a pleasure, indeed a surprise, that I’m up on my feet and speaking about the throne speech again.

The last time we had a chance to do this was just a few days ago, and I began by acknowledging the leadership of the people of the Sunshine Coast — upper and lower Sunshine Coast. I reiterate my appreciation for their ongoing advocacy on behalf of their communities about the people and the place that they represent.

I’m pleased to be able to talk about the successes and the aspirations that our government continues to work towards. It’s a pleasure and an honour to be able to speak to the Speech from the Throne from this new seat of mine in executive council for the first time. So thank you very much. I appreciate that.

While the throne speech was delivered some months ago, its importance and its relevance remains. Our goal as government continues to be to invest in people and to ensure that we successfully continue to remain resilient through this challenging COVID-19 crisis, opioid epidemic crisis and the challenges that many in our communities face on a daily basis.

Our role here is to ensure that we focus our attention on ways that we can assist individuals and communities as we proceed through the challenges. We do so with respect and partnership with Indigenous communities throughout the province to ensure that we continue to pursue the path of reconciliation that we recognize is not always a straight path, is not always a smooth path, but is one that we have committed to walk together.

I truly believe that this is a desire of all British Columbians, that we have, in our province, systems in place to ensure respect for our differences, our history and recognize the work that we have to do to ensure that we remedy, as much as possible, the harms of previous actions and commit to working together to ensure that the responsibilities of the provincial government meet with the needs of communities across the province.

I’d just like to take this opportunity to speak about a couple of events that took place recently surrounding the Day for Truth and Reconciliation, September 30. In the tradition of many Coast Salish nations, witnesses are called, witnesses speak of events that they’ve participated in, events that they’ve witnessed, and events of importance to their community and to the wider British Columbia audience.

[4:50 p.m.]

I had the honour to be invited to a ceremony by the Tla’amin people on a river that they used to call tiskʷat — that, in fact, they still call tiskʷat. It’s known colloquially now, or officially, as Powell River. It’s one of the shortest rivers in the world because it was dammed in the early 1900s in order to create power for a sawmill. In so happening, the company that took over that end of that river evicted the Indigenous community that was there. It was a large, important community that sustained many people. It was one of the largest salmon runs in British Columbia.

The contrast between the name it was given — tiskʷat, meaning “big river” — to the current name, named after Israel Powell, who has his own history of oppression against Indigenous people, seems to be incongruous. In fact, standing on the banks of that river, tiskʷat, with Elders present, with Hegus John Hackett present, with councillors and the executive of the legislature of the Tla’amin Nation, treaty nation, a ceremony was held in order to feed the ancestors, the people who had been in that spot since time immemorial.

A place that had nourished the community was now in the shadow of one of the largest pulp and paper mills. The purpose of the ceremony was to recognize that there was a desire for some healing and an opportunity to share a desire to go forward in a better way.

The mill there will be incorporating the name tiskʷat into their name. I honour and respect the work that’s being done as part of a process of reconciliation, as a symbol, in fact, but an important symbol that helps to, I hope, heal some of the wounds. It’s just a small step, an important step, and one of many, I hope, that will be taken as our communities become more aware of our history.

I just want to say that I think with the tragic discovery and, perhaps, realization among many of us who were not familiar with the history and legacy of residential schools, there has been an awakening among Canadians. In fact, it reinforces this expectation that we have to know the truth in order to reconcile. We have, I think, as Canadians, understood in a different way the impact of the residential schools and colonial policies in Indigenous communities.

Having worked with Indigenous communities myself, I have heard of the stories. I’ve been told the stories from Elders and from, in fact, people very close to my age who attended residential schools into the ’70s. What we need to learn from that is not to let the chauvinism, as they used to call it, of our perspective, of our culture, ever to dictate what other communities, how other communities, should be.

They used to call it that while this province was developing a child welfare system that, in fact, picked up where residential schools stepped off. In fact, the harms that Indigenous communities faced continued with new policies.

[4:55 p.m.]

I want to just pay tribute to the people in the Indigenous communities who fought hard to reassert their authority over their children and child welfare, who wrestled from government the ability to be the ones to make decisions about their children and their well-being. It was a long process and one that continues, in fact, today, when we look at the numbers. And we have a lot of work to do — a lot of work to do addressing the inequalities in our society, a lot of work to do to address poverty.

This is work that I am pleased to say that our government is committed to and has been committed to since being elected in 2017. For years, the opposition…. When I was in opposition, we were calling for a poverty reduction strategy for this province. I remember hearing all sorts of trite responses — that the best poverty reduction strategy was a job, as if that statement alone was going to resolve the issues.

What we needed was a plan that had measurable outcomes, a plan that we could measure our successes against. Or our failures. But to measure, to ensure that we knew there’s a process to address poverty…. That process involved consulting with British Columbians, figuring out what measures we needed to use in order to address poverty. The goals were set: a reduction of 25 percent of poverty based on 2016 numbers and 50 percent reduction of poverty among children.

At no time would we say that our job is done or that we’re satisfied or happy. This is a progress report that was tabled recently, reflecting government’s continued goals towards reducing poverty. That isn’t a job that will ever end. There will be no great celebration, but what we can be confident of is that we are measuring. We are keeping account of our promise — of our commitment, in fact — to the people of the province that our effort is to ensure that our society is more equal so that we can raise up and help and support and, in fact, create a better condition for people in this province.

Poverty reduction, in fact, is more than income, even though our government introduced and put in place the largest increase in social assistance in the history of the province. That wasn’t the first increase since 2017. Last year, when we introduced the increase of $175 a month, that was the third increase since our government took office in 2017. I might point out that those three increases followed a decade of zero increases. So, again, this is not something where any of us would say we have achieved our goal. This is a process. Income is part of that.

Child care is part of that. Ensuring that families have access to supports that include child care. Child care that they can trust, that they can access, that they can afford is essential to families who face costs that are beyond their control. The commitment of our government to create a system of universal daycare…. The challenges of one of the biggest social program investments in our provincial history are great, but they are being met by our leading ministers and their staff, who are also committed to the same goal of creating a system that works for British Columbians.

Providing homes. Ensuring that people who are without shelter have shelter. Give them an opportunity to think and dream of having a safer life, having, perhaps, a healthier life. But having some ability to actually think about more than their day-to-day survival. A roof over their head, some privacy.

[5:00 p.m.]

I’m so proud of the fact that our government took and is taking this responsibility seriously. In my riding alone, there have been 120 supportive housing units created. Shelter beds have been opened. People have been offered an opportunity to have a pillow and have a place to sleep.

I know that in some communities, there is distraction over the discussion about whether these supportive housing homes or apartments are what their communities need. I would just tell you that they are welcomed in our community.

In Gibsons, the children from Gibsons Elementary School welcomed the new residents with pictures that they had created in their classrooms. They were brought just a bit down the hill and put in the welcome in the lobby. Gift baskets were put together by committed businesses. The town of Gibsons helped to coordinate that.

I’m just so proud of the fact that as British Columbians, we embrace the diversity of our communities. We accept the challenges that we are faced with in our communities without fear, with confidence. They’re community members.

I remember someone saying to me: “Oh, I don’t want people from somewhere else coming to live here.” I just knew that there would be children walking past that supportive housing unit who would know that people care for those who don’t necessarily have the financial ability to have a place — that we still care. I know that there are children who go to that school who have relatives who don’t have a home, and I think about their perception of the importance of public support.

It’s important that people see that we have a system that doesn’t turn its back on anyone, so I’m just really pleased at the fact that our government is investing in people. That sounds like a slogan, but it’s what we’ve been doing. We’ve been investing in people and in communities — communities that we hope thrive, continue to thrive.

We build schools. In Sechelt, west Sechelt, we’ve gotten rid of portables. We’ve made it known to the children of our school system that this is for their betterment.

I remember opening a school in Powell River, having an opportunity to speak. This was even before our government, but it reflects what I think British Columbians expect. I said to the youngsters there that the people who paid for that school were their mom and dad, their uncle and aunt, people they don’t know, people in other communities. We all paid for that school — that beautiful gym floor, the beautiful exterior that’s a welcoming playground, that’s accessible. These young people…. I think it’s important for them to know that we share in the costs of creating a society that is fair.

I am convinced that our investments in child care, in reducing poverty, in housing those without a place to live, in helping to provide access to education to those who wish to have that education and support in jobs for those who can work are fundamental to the health of our community. I’ve been in this place for many years, and I’m just pleased that this is the focus of government.

The focus of government is a healthy society where businesses can thrive, where they have an educated and supported workforce, where we have a natural environment that contains the most beautiful landscapes, the diversity of species. These are things that we as government, we as legislators, can promote and support.

[5:05 p.m.]

I’m proud of the fact that we have 57 of us and 30 committed people — people committed to their communities in different ways but ultimately with, I hope, the same goal: to ensure that we have a province that’s healthy, a province that continues to be a leader not just in handling challenging situations but in economic recovery from the challenges that we face.

The sign of a good government is not always flashy. It’s just nose to the grindstone; work hard. Not everyone is going to be happy with everything we do. That’s understandable. But as MLAs and as representatives of government, we have a commitment to our constituents, to the place they live, to the services they require.

I think that’s what is reflected in the throne speech. It was meaningful when it was delivered; it remains meaningful now. It is our intent, as government, to continue on this path and ensure that British Columbians don’t just get through the challenges but get through stronger, more resilient, hopeful and healthy.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the throne speech. With that, I take my seat.

K. Paddon: I’m very happy to rise and speak to the throne speech. It may have been a bit ago, but we all remember what it was about, because we’ve been working on it ever since.

One of the first things I’d like to discuss with relation to the throne speech is the priority of protecting people’s health. Now, I have the privilege and the honour of serving in Chilliwack-Kent. As we all know, vaccinations are available. Vaccinations, we have been told and we understand, are one of best ways to protect ourselves, our communities, our schools and our health care system.

I was very proud when I received my first vaccination and then again when I received my second. I’ve had the privilege of speaking with people in Chilliwack-Kent who were also excited and proud to receive their vaccinations, as well as speaking with people who may have initially been a little bit fearful or uncertain. We know that there are multiple reasons for that.

Some people were uncertain because of the newness. Other people were uncertain because they’re not used to having a lot of interaction with our health care system, our medical system — and even, potentially, have had some experience or heard some stories about negative interactions. So one of the things that has been an honour and a privilege is to be able to be a conduit to those trusted sources of information.

As we all know, in the province of British Columbia, we’re very proud that we understand where the health care decisions should be being made. We have these trusted sources where information can be obtained and considered in order to make our informed decisions about vaccinations.

One of the reasons I bring this up is because as we focus — as the throne speech indicated — on people’s health and livelihoods, we can’t really do so without at least mentioning vaccinations. So I would take this opportunity to encourage everyone and anyone who has not yet been vaccinated, but is eligible, to get vaccinated. Talk to your doctor if that’s a step that’s important for you to take. But absolutely, the best way for us to protect our communities, our schools and our health care system is for us all to get vaccinated.

[5:10 p.m.]

Part of what we talked about in the throne speech, as well, was how we’re going to help people now, how we’re going to create conditions for a strong economic recovery that works for everyone. For me, one of the things…. When I hear the word “everyone,” I think about people I used to have the ability to serve in a very direct way, in a very hands-on way. You know, I love what I do now, but there’s something special, as well, about that hands-on work.

What I used to be able to do…. I’m not sure if my friends know. I was actually a vocational counsellor, and I worked directly with youth, young adults, with intellectual disabilities. I helped to prepare them for our workforce.

There are a lot of myths — I know I’ve spoken about it in the House before, and I likely will again — about hiring or employing someone with an intellectual disability. But when we are talking about workforce that is underutilized and is a resource that is available to us, individuals with intellectual disabilities are ready, willing and able — that’s a hashtag and a webpage, so feel free to look it up — to work.

There’s a myth that they require a lot of accommodation or that there are safety concerns, when in fact — as I know some of my friends and my friend the Parliamentary Secretary for Accessibility would definitely be able to talk about as well — most accommodations cost nothing or under $500. There are programs. There are services — Neil Squire Society for one. I know a lot of employers have been able to take advantage of that in order to do exactly what the throne speech is calling us all to do, which is to create that strong economic recovery for everyone.

The other myth around safety…. Individuals who are ready, willing and able — again, hashtag and webpage — to be employed and ready to help us with our workforce needs, doing real work for real pay…. Their safety records tend to be better than the average. They fill a need in the workplace, in the workforce, for our employers locally. They increase the safety in a worksite. They also are able to increase the culture, add to the culture.

One of the things that is also very important is that we recognize that our local communities have been on the front lines of COVID. Our government has been there to support them. Throughout the pandemic, we ensured that local governments could continue providing the services and keep people who provide those services working. This included social services, community groups and the things that people rely on day to day.

One of the community groups that really bloomed — and I think this was a result of the community needing something to rally behind, the community understanding that we all needed to be part of something bigger, something part of our community, after being home for so long — was the Chilliwack Pride Festival this year.

The Chilliwack Pride Society had a massive event. It was planned by volunteers. There were volunteers running booths, lots of local organizations and some amazing businesses from Chilliwack and Chilliwack-Kent. At the end of the day, there were thousands of people who came from all around the Fraser Valley.

The president, Teri Westerby, did an amazing job, welcoming people to our community, showing people that perhaps old ideas of who Chilliwack-Kent is are not quite as relevant anymore — that as a community we come together and we support each other, that we’re inclusive, and that we really are focusing on the community and on the people who make up our community.

[5:15 p.m.]

Over the next year, as the throne speech calls for, we will take concrete steps to ensure that British Columbians come back from the pandemic stronger than ever. Now, we realize that we’re still very much dealing with what’s happening. We’re still very much in the pandemic. This is, again, something that we talk about a lot. It’s something that impacts everything we talk about, because it’s something that touches every part of our lives. I know that for youth, that is especially relevant.

I just want to say that one of the ways that we’ll be able to bring youth into creating a stronger B.C. is through the youth leaders council that the applications were announced for yesterday, through the special adviser for youth to the Premier. Those are my remarks.

Deputy Speaker: Noting the hour, I will now put the question for the motion for Address in Reply: “We, Her Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the present session.”

Motion approved on division.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. The House is now adjourned. This House stands adjourned until Monday, October 18 at 10 a. m.

The House adjourned at 5:17 p.m.