Third Session, 42nd Parliament (2022)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, May 17, 2022
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 209
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
| Proceedings in the Birch Room | |
TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2022
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: M. Dykeman.
Introductions by Members
Hon. B. Ralston: Today is one of the most important, if not the most important, days in the legislative calendar. It’s Mining Day in the B.C. Legislature. B.C.’s mining sector is well positioned as a responsible supplier of choice in global metal markets, given our low-carbon footprint, high environmental standards and leadership in advancing economic reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.
Joining us today to celebrate this joyous occasion are Kendra Johnson, president and CEO of the Association for Mineral Exploration of B.C.; Alec Morrison, the president and CEO of the Mining Suppliers Association of B.C.; Michael Goehring, president and CEO of the Mining Association of B.C.; and Jill Tsolinas, executive director of the B.C. Centre of Training Excellence in Mining. I invite the Legislature to welcome these people to the Legislature, and please participate in the many events celebrating mining here in British Columbia that are taking place right here today.
R. Merrifield: Well, continuing on the celebration of Creative Industries Week, I am excited to have a constituent, a neighbour, a fellow entrepreneur, business owner and friend, Jim Csek, in the House today. Jim Csek is a CPA and CMA and has been a professional accountant for over 25 years. He is the founder and current COO and CFO for Csek Creative and NowMedia, alongside his wife and CEO business partner Nikki Csek. Csek Creative and — get this — the umbrella of NowMedia Group, NowCities, 16Flights Publishing House, Level Up Events, D6 Print Studio and IVA Productions. Wow. The Csek Creative team literally embodies the creative industries.
Jim is not your stereotypical accountant, however, and having had dinner with both him and Nikki, I will agree. But he has those underlying core values of a professional accountant. He understands what businesses want and understands how to put their objectives into action and then become a customer. Would the House please join me in welcoming to the gallery Jim Csek.
Hon. M. Farnworth: In the gallery today we have a first-time visitor. They are Bhupinder Hundal, the news director of Global B.C., who started that position in December 2020. It’s their first time in the House since becoming news director. He is a former member of Hockey Night in Canada, Punjabi edition, on both camera and behind it. He was raised in Port Alberni, a Surrey resident for over 25 years and a recipient of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Medal for contributions to the community. Would the House please make him most welcome.
A. Olsen: I’m going to introduce someone who is actually introduced fairly regularly in the House, my friend Jason Goertzen. This morning Jason met me on the trail out near my riding, on my bike, and he was on his bike. If you know Jason, you know that he’s an avid cyclist. We got in here in record time. I don’t know whether Jason was pushing me or I was pushing him, but either way, I think that both of our legs are screaming right now. Can the House please make Jason welcome, as usual.
A. Walker: I’d like to make an introduction, but I see that they are not here yet. I’d like to introduce the House to Bill Diez. They use the they/them pronouns. They aren’t here yet, but I know they will be passing through the House real soon. They are incredibly important to me and the member for Surrey-Newton. I hope the House and everyone in this House will please join me in pre-emptively celebrating the arrival of Bill Diez.
R. Russell: As I think a member from the Kootenays mentioned a while ago, we don’t often get constituents here from our part of the world. So it’s my pleasure to welcome Rob and Marilyn Irwin to the House. They got married a few years before I was born, which is a pretty remarkable accomplishment, I think. I pass on a message from their favourite niece, who works in the building, so welcome on behalf of all of us.
T. Shypitka: I just want to follow up from my colleague the Minister of Energy and Mines.
May is my favourite month here at the Legislature, not because it draws a close to the end of session or because the flowers are in bloom here in the capital city but because it’s actually Mining Month. It’s not only Mining Day, but it’s actually Mining Month here and a chance for us all to celebrate the positive impacts that mining has on our communities past, present and into the future. Mining is our gateway to a low-carbon future, while at the same time building partnerships and fostering reconciliation with our First Nation governments.
In the House today, as already mentioned, we have four dignitaries that are good friends of mine — no pun intended: Michael Goehring, president and CEO of Mining Association of B.C.; Kendra Johnston, the president and CEO of AME; Alec Morrison, president and CEO of Mining Suppliers Association of B.C.; and Jill Tsolinas, executive director of B.C. Centre of Training Excellence in Mining.
Would the House please welcome these fine folks.
B. Banman: Today is actually my 36th wedding anniversary. Believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, somebody has actually been putting up with me for 36 years.
Interjections.
B. Banman: I know. It comes as a shock to me as much as it does to you. Trust me.
I would like to wish my wife, Sharon, a very happy anniversary. We are apart. She hates that part of it, but as we all know, that’s part of the job. So I’d just like to wish my wife, Sharon, a very happy anniversary.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
INTERNATIONAL DAY AGAINST
HOMOPHOBIA, TRANSPHOBIA
AND BIPHOBIA
N. Letnick: Today, on the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia, I stand with members of the LGBTQ2 communities to celebrate gender diversities and combat discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity.
All individuals are equals as human beings, and human rights are universal and inalienable. The World Health Organization’s removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder, in 1990, helped challenge stigmas and increase access to health care and social support. However, with more than one-third of the world still criminalizing same-sex relationships today, we have a lot more work to do, as the LGBTQ people continue to experience prejudice, stigma and hostility. Discrimination against this community is not only unethical but also entails substantial economic and social costs, as people who experience homophobia are at greater risk of depression, substance abuse and mental disorder.
LGBTQ people should be able to be who they are, without harassments or attacks based on fear. As individuals, we need to do our part to counter our unconscious bias and create a sense of belonging for the LGBTQ community. As a society, we must continue to advocate for equal rights for the LGBTQ community, as no one deserves to be denied civil rights, legal protection or essential services because of who they are.
Let’s work together to build a tolerant and inclusive society for everyone to live and fulfil their potential in British Columbia. Today, on the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia, on this international day, let’s make sure that we keep this in mind every day.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AWARENESS WEEK
AND ACTION ON CLIMATE
CHANGE
K Greene: This week has been proclaimed as Local Government Awareness Week in B.C. Whether you have a city council, island trust, regional district or modern treaty nation, your local government has a direct impact on your family’s day-to-day life. They deliver services that are essential — from fire and police services to garbage collection and recycling, to roadworks and development permits.
Local governments have been on the front lines, tackling some incredibly challenging issues over the last two years. Throughout these difficult times, they have remained committed to delivering services, supporting economic recovery and planning for the future. Local governments are helping to lead climate action by taking steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance community resilience to the impacts of climate change. Our government is pleased to support this work with the $76 million local government climate action program.
In my community of Richmond, council has recently adopted the community energy and emissions plan 2050, or CEEP, which puts Richmond on track for a 50 percent GHG reduction by 2030 and net zero by 2050. One of the pillars of the plan is Richmond’s award-winning district energy program, which currently heats hundreds of thousands of square feet of residential and commercial buildings at near-zero emissions. I look forward to seeing CEEP in action over the coming years.
This week is the time to celebrate all that local governments do to connect with residents and ensure community needs are met today and for future generations. I want to extend a personal thank-you to all local governments, many members of which I have met over my time as a city councillor. I know how hard the past few years have been on your communities, and your leadership and the work of your capable staff matters to the communities you serve.
I encourage everyone to reach out to your hard-working community leaders during Local Government Awareness Week and thank them for their commitment, perseverance and guidance.
OKANAGAN WINE INDUSTRY
R. Merrifield: When I first came to the Okanagan, the wine industry was just in its infancy. To put this in perspective, Mission Hill winery and the beautiful buildings that are there today had not yet been built.
The wine industry would not be what it is today without the pioneering vision of the Stewart family — first, the member for Kelowna West and now his brother, Tony Stewart, at the helm — or the likes of Anthony von Mandl, who has created the entire Mission Hill empire. But now the next generation of visionaries join them, with Dennis O’Rourke and the Kitsch family, Trent and Ria.
What is most exciting about today is that it’s not just about the wine of the valley and how this industry impacts our GDP; it’s also about how this industry involves celebration and festivals and brings our community together. A completely sold-out Okanagan Wine Festival was back in Kelowna this last week, and more than 600 people came to the Rotary Centre for the Arts to get their hands on some of the best wines the Okanagan has to offer, as well as discover some new ones they had not yet seen.
If you were not fortunate enough to get one of these tickets, fear not. This spring wine festival is ten days long, featuring more than 70 events throughout the Okanagan Valley. Known for being one of the best spots in the entire world when it comes to incredible-tasting wine, wineries from across the Okanagan have missed being front and centre for people to discover.
This is only the beginning. Wine festivals are hosted seasonally, so if you missed out on this spring, fall and winter are still to come. Or if smaller tastings are your speed, please join a tour from one of our incredible tour companies, like Cheers or Beach Bum Tours, and hit up any one of the 20 wineries that are in my riding of Kelowna-Mission alone.
GWA’SALA-’NAKWAXDA’XW NATIONS
M. Babchuk: The Gwa’sala-’Nakwaxda’xw Nations traditionally existed as two separate tribes. Their traditional homelands are distinct and separate and are located on B.C.’s central mainland coast.
In 1964, the Gwa’sala and ’Nakwaxda’xw tribes were forcibly relocated from their homelands and amalgamated. They moved to the Tsulquate reserve, adjacent to Port Hardy, on the north coast of Vancouver Island. They were promised housing, better access to health care and education.
They arrived to find only three unfinished houses. Many tried to go back to their homes and villages, but they were burned down by the federal government. After the pain of this forced relocation, many turned to alcohol. Many did not survive. Their population dropped to around 200.
Today the population is approximately 1,100 registered members, and 56 percent of those members reside at Tsulquate. The average age of the members, according to the 2016 census, is 28 years old.
A forward-thinking comprehensive community plan in 2010 resulted in the K’awat’si Economic Development Corp. The KEDC has been behind the modern, four-star Kwa’lilas Hotel as well as other activities such as tourism, forestry, fisheries, construction and transportation. They’re also very invested in finfish aquaculture as well as seaweed and shellfish aquaculture.
The Gwa’sala-’Nakwaxda’xw Nation is an independent nation that manages all of its finances, education and social and cultural agencies. The land has started to be prepped for the new big house, and the four main poles are already carved. And in collaboration with our ChildCareBC program, a new on-reserve daycare will celebrate its grand opening on May 31.
They continue to have social and cultural challenges but are strong and vibrant with a strategic focus on their future.
I’m proud to be part of a government that is committed to self-determination, self-governance and reconciliation. I’m hopeful we will see our federal counterparts take the lead so the Gwa’sala-’Nakwaxda’xw can look forward to meaningful and productive consultations with all levels of government.
CLIFF MICHAEL
G. Kyllo: Being an MLA is the honour of a lifetime. It is never a right but a privilege earned every day through our service and devotion to our communities and the people who have elected us to serve as their representatives.
Today I stand to honour the passing of a former MLA whose legacy truly exemplifies one we would all be proud to share when we leave these chambers and eventually this world. On Thursday, May 12, Cliff Michael passed away at the age of 88.
Cliff served as a personnel manager for Federated Co-operatives and went on to represent the Shuswap-Revelstoke riding as an MLA of the Social Credit Party. Through his tenure, he served as Minister of Transportation, Minister of Tourism and Minister of Governmental Affairs. But as a fellow resident of the Shuswap, I remember Cliff for the things that he helped to bring to our community, including the Salmon Arm sports complex and the Shaw Centre, to name but a few.
The many lives that Cliff touched throughout his career and life are certainly too many to name here. Cliff is survived by his devoted wife, Dilys, his son Milton, daughter Colleen, step-children Kim and Rock and his many grandchildren and great-grandchildren. And my heart goes out to all of those close to Cliff who feel loss in his passing.
I recall in my early 20s, during a family dinner, the phone ringing. Back in the day when there was a phone line — you didn’t have a cell phone at the table — I had to go in the other room to take a call. I had my dad and my aunt and uncle there, and as I got back to the dinner table, my dad seemed quite annoyed. “Who were you talking to on the phone during dinner?” I was immensely proud to say: “Well, that was Cliff Michael. That was our local MLA.”
Cliff was so connected with his constituency. He made a call to me when I was just a young man, only 20 years of age, to ask me about the tourism industry and what was happening in Sicamous and the surrounding community. It’s that connection to the community that made such an impression on me as a young man. I felt so proud and honoured to come back to the table and to let my dad know that the MLA actually thought that I was important enough to give a call to, to look for my opinion.
I think it is for that reason that Cliff Michael was an amazing man. I consider him a friend. And I hope that the House will please join me in passing along our condolences to his wife, Dilys, and his family.
FARMERS MARKETS
J. Sims: Farmers markets are said to have started over 5,000 years ago in Egypt. Farmers and craftsmen came together in urban areas to sell and trade goods. The market was always the best place to get local fresh goods and support our local farmers.
Today these markets are vibrant, diverse community gatherings where people of all ages come together to shop, eat, be entertained and socialize and where you can still find the freshest produce.
There are more than 145 of them along B.C.’s Farmers Market Trail. In Surrey, we are very fortunate to have three farmers markets operating at different times throughout the city. The Clayton Community Farmers Market, located in the parking lot of a high school, opened for the year on May 1. Farmers, artisans, food trucks, baked goods, entertainment and smiling faces were everywhere.
Beginning on May 28, Cloverdale Market day offers fresh, locally grown prepared foods, local artist exhibitions and family-fun activities, showcasing the amazing restaurants and shops that that part of Surrey has to offer.
The Surrey Urban Farmers Market will open at Royal Kwantlen Park on June 11. Along with all of the vendors, the urban market offers community workshops, kids’ activities with an outdoor pool, and live entertainment. Every dollar spent goes to local growers, makers, bakers and strengthens our local community.
As we all head into summer, I look forward and I hope that you will get an opportunity to visit markets in your area. I will visit these markets, meeting new friends and supporting our local farmers, artisans and community volunteers who make it all happen.
Buy local. Buy B.C.
Oral Questions
GOVERNMENT PRIORITIES
AND MUSEUM REPLACEMENT
PROJECT
K. Falcon: Last Friday this Premier stumbled forward with a billion-dollar vanity museum project that nobody asked for, with no business plan and no credible explanation as to why they were doing this.
This, keep in mind, is at a time when the NDP is clawing back funding for parents with autistic children; when one out of five British Columbians do not have access to a family physician; when six people a day are dying of overdoses, the highest in history; where there are more than four violent, random assaults taking place every day in the city of Vancouver alone; and where gas prices are the highest in North America, right here in British Columbia. Yet this Premier thinks that now is the time to blow a billion dollars on a poorly thought-out vanity museum boondoggle.
My question is a straightforward one. Will this Premier, having heard the overwhelmingly negative reaction to this boondoggle, do the right thing and scrap this project?
Hon. M. Mark: When we formed government in 2017, we made it very clear that we were going to modernize the people’s museum, the Royal B.C. Museum. The reason why we’re doing so is because it’s seismically unsafe. The members opposite don’t mention that. They knew in 2010 — they were briefed; they were well aware — that the building, which houses our collective history…. Let’s put it into context — seven million objects spanning over 27 kilometres.
The members are laughing, but two floors are under sea level. We’ve seen major change in our climate over the years. If there were a flood, we would be wiping out our collective history. That is not a decision that we’re going to make.
The members opposite made a calculated decision not to protect the people’s museum. We are investing in the people’s museum to protect our shared history — our collective history — and to support the tourism sector. The members opposite…. I haven’t heard them say anything about how important museums are to tourism and how important they are — to invest in infrastructure.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.
BUSINESS PLAN FOR
MUSEUM REPLACEMENT
PROJECT
K. Falcon: Well, thank you. That was an interesting answer. This building has served the residents of….
Interjections.
K. Falcon: I haven’t got to the best part yet. Apparently, this government has concerns about floods. Now, this building, of course, has served the greater Victoria area and this province well for over 50 years. Suddenly the NDP are concerned about floods.
Well, that’s interesting, because apparently they’re not concerned about the 60,000 people a day that go underneath the Massey Tunnel. Apparently that flood concern….
Interjections.
K. Falcon: If this Premier is so stubbornly wanting to go ahead with one of the dumbest capital decisions I’ve seen since they cancelled the ten-lane Massey bridge that would have been opening this summer, if they want to stubbornly go ahead with this, then British Columbians deserve to see a full and unredacted business case. It’s important that I say “full and unredacted business case.” We don’t want to see the joke of a business case they tried to trot out when they were trying to justify the ridiculous eight-lane tunnel at the Massey Tunnel.
I’ll remind everyone in this House that that so-called business case didn’t include a value-for-money analysis. It didn’t include a risk analysis. It didn’t provide any of the construction costs or the cost of land acquisitions. It didn’t include a cost comparison between their ridiculous eight-lane tunnel idea, which nobody supports, and the ten-lane bridge project that came in $600 million under budget. No. There wasn’t even a description…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
K. Falcon: …of cash flows or the cost of tearing out the old tunnel.
My question to the Premier is straightforward. If the Premier thinks that this vanity museum project can withstand the scrutiny, will they table a full, unredacted business plan today in this House?
Hon. M. Mark: I forgot to welcome the blast from the past into these chambers. Coming in here, bringing here….
There’s no need to fearmonger. I’ve got the….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Would the members be interested in getting an answer?
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: If you stay quiet, the answer will be provided.
Minister.
Hon. M. Mark: Thank you, hon. Speaker.
Yesterday the media did request, for the business case…. We’ve heard it in the media today — that government is working on it. My team is working around the clock….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. M. Mark: No. With all due respect, we’re working on getting, if you let me finish…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. M. Mark: …and handing over the material as quickly as by the end of this week.
There are processes. Having the opposition heckle the fact that there are processes for due diligence, for government to go through rigorous processes to build business cases….
The answer is yes. We will be handing over the business case as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, second supplemental.
K. Falcon: Mr. Speaker, it is rare that I am completely at a loss for words in this House, but I’ve got to tell you. To hear a minister, days after they’ve announced a $1 billion vanity museum project, stand up and say, in reference to the business case, that they’re working on it….
Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me?
Just a message to the minister.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
K. Falcon: You’re supposed to have the work done before you announce a billion-dollar boondoggle.
Is it any wonder that every single capital project these characters have under their jurisdiction has been behind schedule and over budget? Is it any wonder? Is it any wonder that the Site C project has gone from $8 billion to $16 billion under their watch? This is a staggering level of incompetence.
I have a straightforward question to the minister, who is apparently still working on this business case. Will the minister at least release the portions of the business case she is working on, to this House, so that British Columbians can better understand how much of a boondoggle this really is?
Hon. M. Mark: I did answer the question that the member opposite asked. I said yes. The business case has been approved. It’s approved. That’s what we announced on Friday.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. M. Mark: The request to hand over a document that has to go through rigorous processes, part of government and due diligence….
The answer is yes. We’re going to be transparent.
Let me take a moment to talk about how important this project is. The business case informed that we need to protect our province’s asset. Across the street from this legislative chamber is our shared history. Our government is not going to take the risk, through an earthquake, through floods, to wipe out our collective history.
Those are calculated decisions that the members opposite chose to do. We have come forward to the public that we are building a new, modern, state-of-the-art facility that is going to be accessible. It’s going to be built with mass timber, supporting the forestry sector. It is going to be a magnet for international visitors to come to Victoria, the province’s capital, to access the state-of-the-art museum.
There’s more to tell you, hon. Speaker, but I wish that the members opposite, during B.C. Museums Week, would be celebrating this important investment.
T. Stone: So which is it? The minister, on one hand, says that they’re working on the business plan, and then in the next minute, she says that they’re working on — I assume — releasing it.
The minister was putting out little bits and pieces and details in a press conference last Friday, which was really just to announce the expenditure of $1 billion, with not much to support it. Then in other media interviews, you get a little piece of information here, and you get a little piece of information there. She’s all over the map, just like this plan.
British Columbians were shocked and dismayed at the announcement of an expenditure of $1 billion for a vanity museum project. Not only does this reflect a Premier and a government that’s completely out of touch with the struggles that British Columbians are facing today, but they haven’t even given any details about a business plan. There wasn’t even a rendering. There was not even a picture of what this museum might actually look like. There were no design details released.
In fact, this is what the minister said about this: “I don’t want to tell British Columbians what it’s going to look like. It’s an open canvas.” A billion dollars of taxpayers’ money on this project, and it’s an open canvas? Are you kidding me? No business plan, no design details, not even an explanation as to why it’s going to take eight years.
Again, the question to the Premier is: will the Premier either scrap the project today or stand up and release the business plan, or the bits and pieces of the business plan, that informed an announcement of $1 billion for a vanity museum project?
Hon. M. Mark: I’ll remind the members that in 2017, in our throne speech, we committed to modernizing the museum. In 2018, we were transparent about the process that we were building the collections and research building in Colwood, to house our archives, which are important institutions that help inform reconciliation.
Along the way, we have made it clear to the public, through engagement, by saying: “What does a new, modern museum look like?” We have gone to the public about what a new, modern museum could look like. We have spent years — from day one, since we got elected in 2017 — to build a concept plan, build our business case. We came forward to the public on Friday — that the business case has been approved. We are doing the work. We are doing the right thing.
To answer the member’s question, yes, we are going to hand over and share the business plan. But I want to remind the member opposite that the context in which he’s saying, “Did you have any indicative designs?” — yes, there are indicative designs. But the public said they wanted to be a part of this process on what a new, reimagined 21st-century museum is going to look like. That is the commitment that British Columbians are asking for, from us.
To answer the member’s question…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
Hon. M. Mark: …yes, we are going to hand over the business case. But I want the members opposite, during this moment in chambers, to admit the fact that on day two of the B.C. Liberals coming into this House, the first thing that he says he’s going to do is to cut an investment in protecting our shared history. Shame on the member opposite.
Mr. Speaker: Opposition House Leader, supplemental.
T. Stone: Well, that is absolute, utter nonsense, and the minister should know it. Since 2017, there has been discussion at the Royal B.C. Museum about a $50 million renovation, an $80 million upgrade, a $100 million upgrade.
Just last year, to great fanfare, the minister announces that there’s going to be the shutdown and the renovation of the Old Town exhibit in the existing museum. Then, only months later, suddenly the entire building needs to be knocked down and replaced with a $1 billion vanity project.
British Columbians are saying: “Give us a break.” They can’t afford gas. They can’t afford to put groceries on their table. They can’t afford housing costs and rent. And this is a priority that the province brings forward? It’s outrageous.
Not only did the Tourism Minister reference this $1 billion project as being an open canvas, but here’s another thing that she said to the media yesterday: “Business cases contain thousands and thousands of pages of documents.” But an important detail. Not a single one of those thousands and thousands of supposed pages has actually been released for British Columbians to see.
Somehow, before coming up with the design, government wants us to believe that this open canvas is fully costed at $1 billion. They’re going to move ahead almost immediately to close the existing museum for eight years, presumably while they figure out the details. That’s not how you’re supposed to build major projects, to the minister. People are actually going so far as to call this project fast ferries 2.0.
Will the minister release a full, unredacted business plan, or are they just too afraid to show the details of this $1 billion vanity museum project?
Hon. M. Farnworth: First, I just want to make one point. The only vanity project in this place is that member thinking he can sit on this side of the House.
The second point…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. M. Farnworth: …I want to make is, listening to them talk about business plans…. The minister said the business plan is going to be tabled. But you know what, hon. Speaker? We are still waiting for a tabling of the business plan of the Port Mann Bridge, which that member said was going to be tabled when he sat on this side of the House. There was never a business plan tabled for the Port Mann Bridge.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. M. Farnworth: In fact….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Interjections.
Hon. M. Farnworth: That’s the other thing, hon. Speaker. Since he arrived here yesterday, all we have heard is…. He’s going to cancel the museum. He’s going to cancel the tunnel.
Interjections.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I never thought someone who was the best buddy of Maxime Bernier would suddenly now become the leader of cancel culture.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, shhh. Members. Members, order.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, when I listen to that side of the House…. One, they don’t want to protect the collective cultural history of the province of British Columbia.
The minister said a business plan is being tabled, and the Leader of the Opposition seems to make a big deal about it. I’d just like to remind him…. I’d like to remind the Leader of the Opposition…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. M. Farnworth: …that when he stood, in 2008, with the Premier and promised to extend SkyTrain to Surrey and Broadway, he announced a plan that would be $3.1 billion, 2.8….
Interjection.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Oh, he says blah, blah, blah. I guess he would say that, because when he was Finance Minister four years later, there wasn’t a dime in the budget for any of those projects.
This side of the House is working every day to make life better for British Columbians. All they ever do is complain.
MUSEUM REPLACEMENT PROJECT
AND RELATIONSHIP WITH
INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES
A. Olsen: On Friday, our Premier stood and announced an $800 million monument to colonial storytelling, the rebuilding of the B.C. museum. In the presser, the Premier said: “The stories told here have failed to accurately reflect our colonial history or include everyone.” Yesterday in question period, the Premier and then, today, the minister said that they’re surprised that we don’t support “investing in our collective history.”
Well, this is the challenge that we face. It depends on where you sit. As uncomfortable as the truth is, the history the surprised Premier and minister today are celebrating is the grave-robbing of my ancestors.
The museum has had no problems telling the story of natural history. The woolly mammoth, a well-loved feature. Everybody can agree. Old Town breathes life into the adventurous spirit of explorers and settlers.
The museum’s problem is how they relate to Indigenous people. It has been identified as a terrible place for Indigenous people to work. It cannot be fixed by a bigger, brighter, shinier museum built with mass timber and wrapped in a Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ-inspired veneer. A new shrine to house the systemic rot is not the solution.
To the Premier, does he not understand that this announcement is actually a powerful act of aggression, a power play wrapped in the rhetoric of reconciliation?
Hon. M. Mark: I have the deepest respect for the member opposite, as a fellow Indigenous person who stands in these chambers, representing not only your constituents but also your heritage. I appreciate the words that the member is sharing.
There’s a lot of work going on at the Royal B.C. Museum. There have been complaints about the workforce, and we’re trying to fix it. We have a new CEO. We’ve been committed, from day one, that we were going to modernize the museum. That includes the way people work there, the way the exhibits are shared, working with the First Nations whose territory it’s on.
It is on the Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ territory. We are working hand in hand — I say paddle together — with the Songhees, with the Esquimalt to have their validation and to follow protocol in a good way about the work that is going to carry on, moving forward.
With respect, my village, Laxgalts’ap, is very far from here. Kids in schools in the Nass Valley can’t come down here and access this museum.
The Royal B.C. Museum is the people’s museum. It needs to be brought into the 21st century, which means….
Interjections.
Hon. M. Mark: I don’t know how the members opposite can’t resist heckling. I’m talking about our important history. I’m talking about sharing our important history beyond Victoria, with the rest of the province. It’s the people’s museum. Through technology, through virtual tours, by digitizing our shared history….
To the member opposite, when we learned, which we’re working on…. We’re coming towards the one-year anniversary of the 215…. The archives building plays an important role in reconciliation and repatriation. When I saw images of the children at Tk’emlúps….
Interjection.
Hon. M. Mark: You’re going to keep mocking?
I wish I had pictures of my grandparents and I understood what they went through. That institution is an important vessel for education.
We are going to do things better. I want to commit to the member opposite and to all members of these chambers that we must do things better. We must bring it into the 21st century. We must work with Indigenous communities. We are going to reset the relationship with the RBCM. That is precisely what was called for in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act action plan.
Mr. Speaker: Member for Saanich North and the Islands, supplemental.
A. Olsen: The minister is lucky. She’s lucky because her items are back in her community, many of them. That repatriation, many of the repatriations up there, has already happened as part of treaty, which Indigenous nations around this province are waiting for in order to be able to have our items come back home. Most Indigenous people I speak to have no desire to visit their culture in a museum.
This announcement brought me to tears multiple times this weekend, right here. The cultural significance that museums and the Premier call “artifacts” are not oddities from another century. They are meaningful to our living and breathing cultures — contemporary items. In fact, some of the items in the museum’s collection are the missing puzzle pieces to the broken parts of our culture, the parts that we haven’t had the benefit to access because they’ve been locked away in cabinets in the basement.
Growing up in the western culture, we’ve learned to celebrate museums and the strictly curated narratives that they tell about our history. But we want our sacred items home. We want our technologies. We want our innovations. We want our designs. We want them in the hands of our teachers and our children so that they can be inspired by their ancestors at home. We don’t want to visit our culture locked behind glass. We want it on the land and on the water, where our culture lives and breathes.
Mariah Charleson, the vice-president of the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, tweeted: “I wonder how many stolen items could be repatriated to the appropriate owners with that amount of money.”
Why is this B.C. NDP government spending $800 million to warehouse Indigenous culture and in 2020 only invested $500,000, in $30,000 increments, for Indigenous nations to repatriate their ancestors and items of cultural significance?
Hon. M. Mark: There are many things that I agree with the member opposite on. This is why we have to do this important work. This is why we need to bring it into the 21st century.
The member opposite can shake his head. I am being sincere in telling you. I have told my staff. Who stole and raided my cupboards and our kitchens as Nisg̱a’a people, as Gitxsan people? Our bowls, our tools are over behind glass cupboards. I have said that. I’m not trying to be provocative or politically incorrect.
These institutions were created at a moment in time. Times have changed. All members in these chambers voted for the declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. We are going to do things differently, and that includes repatriation. That is a part of our action plan.
I want to say in these chambers, for the record, with all due respect, I’m Nisg̱a’a, Gitxsan, Cree and Ojibway. My daughter is Haida. We don’t all agree. We don’t all think the same. That is the importance of self-determination. There are some nations that want their archives to be in these institutions as opportunities for learning, to understand how things were created, to teach. That is what institutions like the Royal B.C. Museum are intended to do. We are going to fix things.
The members opposite who kind of mock and make jokes like cancel culture…. Now more than ever we need to use institutions like the museum to bring us along, to bring up our awareness, to have understanding, especially here in B.C., where so many Indigenous people have not had the best experience with the Crown.
BUSINESS PLAN FOR
MUSEUM REPLACEMENT
PROJECT
P. Milobar: Well, the excuses are hard to keep track of, but let’s make one thing very clear. The minister keeps talking about protecting a collection. I will point out to the minister that this side of the House has not once taken issue with the $224 million being spent in Colwood to make sure there’s a proper storage facility for artifacts from British Columbia’s museum. So let’s take that off the table right from the get-go.
The minister says: “During Museums Week, I can’t believe this.” Well, I have news for the minister. Museums across this province were hoping that instead of having to beg and beg and repeatedly beg the minister for $50,000 here or $25,000 there, on Friday, they might have had an announcement that supported museums across this province.
Instead, a billion-dollar vanity museum project for the Premier that has no business plan, no timelines and no expectation it will even be done properly — let alone the timeline that Old Town gets shut down, with no mention of this happening. And in mid-renovation, magically, the building needs to be torn down completely instead of renovated.
Now, this isn’t just the opposition saying this. I have lots of quotes, but I’ll just read one. This is what George Fraser wrote: has the Premier “lost his marbles? He has certainly lost my vote. A billion for a museum today will explode to a billion and a half eight years from now.”
When will this Premier, when will this minister, stop playing games with the business plan and agree to release the full, unredacted…? Not working on…. “We’re working on release” means that they’re working on redacting the heck out of it.
When will this minister release the full, unredacted business plan for this open canvas of a boondoggle for the Premier’s vanity museum project?
Mr. Speaker: When the question was asked, everybody was quiet. I appreciate it. Let’s hear the answer now. Everybody should be quiet.
Hon. M. Mark: I’ve sat in these chambers for 30-something question periods. There have been no questions about tourism. The member opposite is asking five questions now and has not mentioned tourism. I’ve answered. To the questions that members have asked, I’ve said yes, we will release it.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, let the Chair hear the question and answer, please.
Hon. M. Mark: I’ve said yes. We are going to release the business plan. But I want to mention what the tourism industry, what Paul Nursey, the president and CEO of Destination Victoria, said about the museum.
“The Royal B.C. Museum has been and will continue to be a vital and essential demand driver for the visitor economy in greater Victoria. At Destination Greater Victoria, we are excited about the significant capital investment downtown on the Inner Harbour in the heart of the capital city. We believe this investment will elevate the Royal B.C. Museum experience to become globally competitive.
“We also acknowledge the years ahead during construction will have challenges to overcome, but we are also hopeful that the strategy that the Royal B.C. Museum has put in place will help to mitigate these temporary impacts. We are a forward-looking city and organization, and we look forward to what is to come.”
[End of question period.]
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call estimates debate on the Ministry of Finance.
In Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee stage, Low Carbon Fuels Act.
In Section C, the Birch Room, I call continued estimates for the Ministry of Health.
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.
The committee met at 11:04 a.m.
On Vote 26: ministry operations, $318,847,000 (continued).
P. Milobar: I’m just double-checking with the minister because there was an outstanding question at the end of the day yesterday, but I was going to transition to BCFSA questions today.
I’m not sure if she wants to deal with the question first, and then we’ll roll into new questions. I’m good either way.
Hon. S. Robinson: I’d be happy to respond to the member’s questions. Yesterday, I think, the last question of the day — there were many questions — was about…. The member asked me, as minister, to point to where in the budget is the $240 million worth of what he calls subsidy to Parkland. That’s what I recall as the last question.
The low-carbon fuel standard credit system does not result in cash or revenue for government that can then be provided as a subsidy. That’s not how it works. There is no subsidy provided to any company through the LCFS system, including to Parkland. Any company like Parkland is able to enter into an agreement under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements) Act and receive compliance credits to offset their investment in the production of low-carbon fuels.
Credits are awarded when a company achieves milestones in their project. The credits have a value that can be monetized by the company selling the credits to others on the private market, so this is a private transaction. They are usually bought by companies that can’t achieve the carbon intensity requirements set out in law, thus allowing them to buy compliance with the low-carbon fuel regulatory requirements and avoid penalties under the act.
If the member is looking for greater detail, I would need to encourage him to canvass the ministry responsible, which is the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation.
P. Milobar: Thanks to the minister for that. No, that’s fine. That puts further clarification on the process there.
Jumping into the BCFSA questions. I recognize we’ll be up against the clock fairly quickly before lunch. Then, just so the minister is aware, the Green Party will be doing the first hour after lunch, and then I’ll pick up after that with various Crowns.
There’s been a lot of discussion, obviously, with the BCFSA around cooling-off periods — various reports and advice that we’re waiting for from the BCFSA. Has the report on the cooling-off period come forward yet, and if so, when will it be released?
Hon. B. Ma: While the minister is preparing her answer, may I seek leave to do an introduction?
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
Hon. B. Ma: The grade 11 class of the global perspectives program from Sutherland Secondary is visiting from North Vancouver.
I may be accused of being biased, perhaps, but I believe that the teachers at Sutherland Secondary are some of the best in British Columbia. They’re so committed to their students. They work incredibly hard to ensure that their students have a very good education. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the teachers Claudia Panton, James Nevison and Jeffrey Aw-Yong for bringing their students here to the Legislature today in order to observe proceedings.
I know it can be a little bit confusing, what’s happening on the floor of the chamber, sometimes. What’s happening is that we are in budget estimates. The member for Kamloops–North Thompson is a member of the official opposition. We have the Minister of Finance here on this side of the House, with the B.C. government.
The official opposition will be asking questions about what is in the Minister of Finance’s budget, and the Minister of Finance will speak with her staff and then prepare an answer and respond. That will happen for hours and hours at a time. So you get the privilege of seeing some of the real work in action right here in the chambers.
Would the House please join me in welcoming them to the gallery today.
Debate Continued
Hon. S. Robinson: Welcome to the students from Sutherland. We do all of our speaking through the Chair. It’s safer for everybody that we do that. That’s why we address and turn to the fabulous-looking people at this centre table. They are the ones that we engage with, rather than directly across the aisle, although sometimes we do throw a shot across the bow. But we really try to stay focused to the table.
With that, I’m happy to report to the member that we have committed to and that BCFSA has committed to delivering that report to me this spring. Even though the weather doesn’t feel spring-like, it is this spring, and I’m hoping to receive it shortly.
P. Milobar: That’s a little concerning, though. I mean, we are three or four weeks post–dealing with the bill and first discussing, and about a month since the minister first said “expecting it shortly.” In fact, we were half under the expectation and discussion that it may actually even be ready, based on the minister’s comments while we were debating the bill still or shortly thereafter. It’s obviously not at the speed we saw the FOI fees brought in after that bill was enacted, at this point.
I guess be careful what you wish for, though. But I think somewhere between the speed that that OIC was signed off on by the Minister of Citizens’ Services and now, waiting for what seems to be the never-ever plan for a report, is troubling. Spring — it depends. Weather is one thing. Calendars are another. Spring is only a few weeks away from being summer. A month ago was “soon.”
So could we get a more firm date than “spring” and “soon” from the minister as to when a critical report that is going to guide recommendations around something as fundamentally important as a cooling off period, geographic differences and whether or not deposits will be lost — people who have saved for ten or 15 or 20 years for a down payment that they may lose if they decide to back out of a deal…? This is a pretty serious and significant report to changes on how people would buy and sell their biggest investment, for most people, in their lives.
To hear, a month later, “soon” and “sometime in the spring” frankly just doesn’t cut it with a whole lot of people out there, let alone the people that are currently trying to buy and sell and trying to figure out what their future might hold. So can we get a more definitive date? BCFSA representatives are advising the minister today. Surely they must have a pretty good sense of when that report would be actually done. When exactly are they telling the minister that that will be delivered?
Hon. S. Robinson: I see that the students from Sutherland are still here. They’re fascinated with what we’re talking about.
I want to introduce into the House Erin Seeley, from the BCFSA, who is here, as well as Chris Dawkins, from the policy and legislation division.
The member accentuated that this is a serious and significant report. I completely agree. This is a serious and significant report. That’s why, back in November — November 4, to be specific — when we asked the BCFSA to take on a robust consultation…. We directed them to work as quickly as they could, while doing a robust consultation, and to get a report back to us this spring. So I’m fully expecting to get it back this spring.
The terms of reference were made public back in the fall. That’s available on the BCFSA website, if anybody is interested to see the terms of reference for the BCFSA to do this. I urge anyone to go take a look at what we asked them to do on government’s behalf.
I’m happy to share that, in January and February, they embarked on this consultation. Over 100 groups participated. That’s a significant participation on a very specific set of issues.
It is important. The member is absolutely right. It’s a serious and significant report. So it’s important to make sure….
I want to express gratitude to BCFSA, as well as to all those who participated, for getting the recommendations right. That is going to inform us on how to best proceed.
I also think it’s important to acknowledge…. They were asked to consult about other issues. We wanted to make sure that we were capitalizing on people’s time. It would help inform us about what more might need to be considered as we address overactive real estate markets. What are others doing?
We did ask them to consult around blind bidding. We wanted to get a better understanding about what the risks were with unconditional offers. We wanted to understand about mandatory inspections. Would that be something that would help — again, as a consumer protection measure? The member is right. People are making significant investments in their homes. Unconditional offers carry significant risks. How do we help people in these very difficult times?
It’s also important that we did this consultation…. It was broader than just the real estate industry itself. They engaged with consumer groups and regulators as well. So it was a very, very fulsome and very broad consultation.
You can only imagine, Mr. Chair, how complex it is to go through over 100 groups that participated and analyze the information, collate it, have it make sense and pull it together in a cohesive report that delivers good advice to government. That’s what they’re working on.
Again, I’m advised that it is coming shortly. I know that it’s frustrating for the member. It’s frustrating for me. We have important work that needs to be done. I also think it’s important that they get it right. I will say that they’ve moved with significant speed. They did the consultations in January and February — that’s a lot of groups to be meeting with over just a couple of months — and then to collate it over March, April and May and get it written.
I’m hopeful that we will all see it fairly soon.
P. Milobar: Well, the delay would be more understandable if things like looking at blind bidding and things of those natures, in the minister’s answer, hadn’t been part of the initial consultation and they had to go back out and look into those things. But that’s not what happened. The whole bundle of things were being consulted with at once. Yes, it was 100 groups, and yes, it can take time.
The problem I have is that we’re trying to seek an actual date, because the “shortly” answer has lost its effectiveness. This report is supposed to form the basis of regulation on a bill that was rushed through the House so that it would be ready to go so that regulation could be developed as soon as the report landed. That was the rush for the bill.
Problem being…. And this is what the minister’s words were on March 30 of this year, speaking of the bill: “It will move through the House, and we’ll certainly, at the same time, be able to review the report” — review the report at the same time as the bill — “and bring in the regulations. I’m expecting that we’ll be able to do this very quickly for both.”
But the only thing the minister seems to have moved very quickly on is a bill that has no detail whatsoever in it, except giving her regulatory powers to do whatever she wants as it relates to cooling-off periods, blind bidding, people potentially losing their deposits — their down payment that they saved for ten, 15 years. And the minister confirmed during committee stage that that is, in fact, a consequence, if you have clauses, regulations, that will remove deposits: losing them, making them non-refundable.
Whether or not there’s going to be geographic differences for what has now been deemed a consumer protection bill and not an actual way to regulate prices of housing and make them more affordable — so whether or not people in various parts of the province will have different consumer protection or not…. All of that, on March 30, was supposed to happen very quickly.
It’s May 17. The best we can get from the minister, with the people, with the agency that’s actually tasked with writing the report here advising…. And just for the viewers at home — and I can’t see if the kids are still here or not, but just so they’re aware — it’s not just staff in estimates in the room that you see that are helping advise. They have staff in offices watching these proceedings, communicating back and forth with the minister and the staff here, to make sure that the question, in theory, gets a comprehensive answer and not spin.
So the answer I’m looking for to the question is: can the minister define a date that we will see the full and unredacted report publicly from the BCFSA as it relates to the cooling-off period, blind bidding, deposits, inspections — all of that? What is the actual date that will be delivered?
People, I think, deserve to at least have a date. If the deadline is missed, we can address it at that point. The fact there is such hesitancy to give a date — to not work towards a date, to not tell and task the BCFSA, as the minister, “I want this report by this date, because I said on May 30 that it would be soon, and it’s now May 17” — is not good enough. The minister has the ability to do that.
Will the minister provide us with a date, on May 17, of when we can expect this report? On March 30, she said it would be soon. Soon has long since passed.
Hon. S. Robinson: I can assure the member that the students are still here in the chamber.
The report. First of all, the report will be made public. It will be on the BCFSA website. It will be a full report, unredacted, available for consumers to see, available for everyone to see. It has always been about consumer protection, and I expect to receive it before the end of this month.
P. Milobar: That’s good, because we’re still in session into June. I’m sure we can follow up with that if that’s not out.
Will the report be made public before the regulations are in place or after the minister has already decided what she will or won’t action of the report and has already made regulations, as the bill has provided her the powers to do?
Hon. S. Robinson: Bye, everyone.
I can let the member know that the students have now vacated their seats.
The regulations will be made after the report is released.
P. Milobar: Another area with the BCFSA is strata insurance. I’m just wondering if the minister and the BCFSA feel that strata insurance rates, insurance prices, had been corrected by the end of 2021 or not.
Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member asking the question. I do think that this has a significant history that goes back…. I call it the before times, before COVID. I remember how challenging this was, and certainly back in 2019, we were hearing from strata owners, council members and stakeholders that were very concerned about the rising insurance costs and difficulties in obtaining insurance for some strata corporations.
We were hearing that right around the province — not just here, but in other jurisdictions as well. In 2020, we directed the B.C. Financial Services Authority to conduct an in-depth investigation to better understand the extent of the cost increases and the many cost drivers, the many factors that were driving up the prices of the strata insurance.
BCFSA issued a final report into the strata insurance market back in December 2020. The final report found that the strata insurance market at the time was unhealthy because of a number of factors. There was a higher loss experienced by insurers in the market; a risk of catastrophic losses, including flood and earthquake. A reduction in the number of insurers in the market was also contributing severely to this. Insurers were leaving the market.
We saw an increase in the number of insurable buildings. Buildings were aging. Poor maintenance records were contributing to this, as well as increasing building costs, and the volume and magnitude of claims. All of the elements were what the BCFSA came back with.
In 2020, Bill 14 received royal assent. That’s the municipal affairs and housing amendment, No. 2. This legislation was intended to help mitigate the impact of rising insurance costs for strata corporations and to increase transparency for strata lot owners and purchasers.
Further changes were made to the regulations under the Financial Institutions Act. They were deposited in September 2020 to ensure that strata property owners are provided better disclosure. We want to make sure that strata owners understood the disclosure from insurance companies and brokers, that they had all the information they needed to — again, a bit of a consumer protection piece — understand what needed to be insured and what was happening in the industry.
Insurers, insurance brokers are now required to provide advance notification to strata corporations if they anticipate a change to a policy or a non-renewal of a policy so that they have the time they need to do their due diligence and to do any shopping that they might need to do. Insurance brokers are now required to disclose the commissions they receive on strata property contracts of insurance so that everyone understands…. Much more transparent as a result of the work that we asked the BCFSA to undertake, and the work that we’ve done as government, in collaboration with them.
The BCFSA also worked with insurers to effectively end the practice that was known as best terms pricing in B.C.’s strata insurance market at the end of 2020. Best terms pricing is when premiums for property insured by multiple insurers are based on the highest bid, and everyone bumps up their fees. That has been eliminated as well.
What I can assure the member at this point is that there is some early anecdotal evidence to suggest that the market for strata insurance is improving overall. There’s been a data call put out for 2021 data, requesting updated data on strata insurance pricing. Staff right now are going through the data and will provide government with an update as soon as they have completed their work.
P. Milobar: There doesn’t seem to be, however, a noticeable decline in the cost of insurance by the end of 2021. That was really the premise of the question.
Just looking for a brief answer of whether the minister and BCFSA believe that strata insurance prices have corrected themselves by the end of 2021.
Hon. S. Robinson: As I noted in my earlier response, there is early anecdotal evidence that suggests that the market for strata insurance is improving overall. I need to remind the member that this is a global market. These are large companies. We are a small jurisdiction, relative to the world, so it is a challenging industry to affect and to impact. Having said that, there are some early and anecdotal indicators that things are improving overall.
Ministry staff, I’ve been told, have heard from some stakeholders that premiums have gone down for some strata properties with a low claims history. Properties with a high claims history are those with identified and unresolved risks and do continue to face challenges. Again, that’s anecdotal, and it’s really important to take a look at the data so that better informs government.
Right now, they have put out a data call. They are sifting through the data to make sure that they understand what is happening in our small market here so that we can figure out how to best respond to what is happening based on real data and not just on anecdotal information.
P. Milobar: Well, we’re almost halfway through 2022. I’m asking these questions because, much like we saw with the mandate letter for the minister around rent subsidies, renters rebates, which haven’t been actioned, strata insurance costs are in the mandate letter of the minister as well. In fact, it says: “If rates have not corrected by the end of 2021, explore a public strata insurance option.” Not “if anecdotal evidence” or anything of that nature. It’s if rates have not corrected.
I never heard anything in the answer there that suggested the minister was already starting to take preliminary steps of exploring a public strata insurance option, which is in her mandate letter, very clearly spelled out by the Premier, on a timeline that would trigger this action to start, which was the end of 2021. Here we are, almost six months later. Has the minister initiated any actions with the BCFSA around exploring a public strata insurance option?
Hon. S. Robinson: The member asked about what actions I’m taking on my mandate letter. I’m happy to report that I am taking action on my mandate letter, which is why we asked for the data. That is action on…. I have been directed by the Premier to monitor this carefully and to watch and engage with the insurance sector to see what additional actions we might need to take.
We’ve taken initial steps. I read into the record about, for example, the best terms pricing, the legislation that we did in Bill 14, regulations to the Financial Institutions Act to ensure that strata property owners are provided better disclosure. I think it’s also important that the member and the public know that we’re working on this particular challenge in collaboration with the Attorney General and the Minister Responsible for Housing.
The housing policy branch is consulting on possible regulatory changes, as well, under the Strata Property Act, with respect to requiring strata corporations to obtain strata depreciation reports. Previously they could be postponed indefinitely. So they’re looking at what can be done there — and providing more insurance information to prospective purchasers and increasing minimum contributions to strata corporations’ contingency reserve funds from both developers and owners. That work is being reviewed in terms of policy development.
As well, I want to go back to the member’s question around me acting on my mandate letter and the fact that I’ve directed staff and, thus, the BCFSA to do a data call for 2021 to understand what’s happening in the insurance markets. Given that you can’t get the data for 2021 until 2021 has passed and that we put the data call…. The request for data went out in February so that the data could be obtained.
It was presented to…. The insurance companies have been very good at providing the data, and it arrived at the BCFSA in April. So in order to understand the state of the market through the end of 2021…. Once we get the results, we’ll certainly consider next steps.
P. Milobar: Well, it certainly sounds like we don’t have a definitive answer on whether or not the pricing has improved or not. Fortunately, the Housing Minister’s estimates still haven’t happened yet, so I’m sure there’ll be some follow-up there as well.
I know we’re getting close to having to note the hour here once the other rooms come in to report, so I want to loop back to the report we’re waiting on around the cooling-off period and that, just to clarify with the minister. We’ve come to realize….
Again, the most glaring example would be the freedom-of-information bill that the Minister of Citizens’ Services brought in that was going to be consulted with. People were going to be consulted before regulations around fees were brought in, and then, within a few minutes of the bill passing, debate and interactions like this counted as the feedback and consultation, and suddenly the fee was enacted.
I’m not suggesting this minister is doing that by any means, but I just want, I guess, for the public record and certainty, to understand. It was good to hear the minister say that the report will be made public before regulation is made.
For how long will the report be made public, and what is the intended feedback period or structure that the minister and the BCFSA has envisioned for their report to get broader…? The report comes out. How is the feedback going to come back from the general public and industry to inform the minister on what the regulations will be, and what does that timeline look like before regulation finally gets set?
Hon. S. Robinson: I think we need to remember that we have received over 100 groups that have been consulted on this report. BCFSA has heard from many who have an interest in consumer protection — regulatory bodies, the real estate industry, consumers. So there has been lots of robust consultation on this.
I have been told that development of regulation can take some time, depending on the advice that we receive from the BCFSA. Until I see the report, it would be really hard to let the member know how long it would take to develop regulations. Of course, I want to assure the member that the report will be available on the BCFSA website for a long time. I just learned that the strata report that we received several years ago is still available on the website. It will live its life, available for the time to come.
This is a priority for government, but we also know that we need to consider whatever recommendations we get from the BCFSA, very carefully. We’re going to make sure that we have full understanding of what impacts any regulations, going forward, would have on the market and on consumers.
With that, Mr. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:51 a.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. L. Beare moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. today.
The House adjourned at 11:52 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 15 — LOW CARBON FUELS ACT
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section A) on Bill 15; J. Sims in the chair.
The committee met at 11:06 a.m.
The Chair: Minister, would you like to introduce your staff?
Hon. B. Ralston: Yes, thank you very much. I’m here with Les MacLaren, who is the assistant deputy minister, electricity and alternate energy division, and Michael Rensing, who’s the director of the low carbon fuels branch.
On clause 1.
T. Shypitka: We’re going to Bill 15. We’re going to have numerous questions here. As the minister knows, Bill 15 replaces and repeals the previous legislation, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act of 2008, and adjusts the formula for compliance credits, increasing department intensity, in turn making it more difficult, perhaps, to receive compliance credits.
This bill gives the minister the power in determining additional carbon intensity through regulation, but this does also require definition of what is considered additional carbon intensity and how it is measured.
Replacing the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act, the new legislation will have an updated scheme for incentivizing the supply of renewable and low-carbon fuels in British Columbia. The incentives are based on the creation of what is called the initiative fund that would be funded by selling compliance credits, which we will require clarification on — why the fund was created and what the money is expected to be spent on. Further, as a goal of this legislation is to reduce the greenhouse gases emitted, we would hope to be provided with material that will identify if the carbon intensity of base fuels will be changed dramatically.
Additionally, as the process of lowering the carbon emissions is so expensive due to the cost of the refining process, how will this impact the already high cost of gas for transportation? As costs continue to soar for so many people in British Columbia, this is going to cause greater stress.
Now, this is a very technical bill, and it can take as long or as short as we want to make it. We’re looking for some fairly quick, responsive answers because we could go days, or we could be finished up, perhaps, even this afternoon. It depends on what we receive, I guess. I’m hoping it’ll be quick and as painless as possible, because there are a lot of parts of this bill that I have a hard time grasping.
We’ll stick with section 1. I can ask a few questions, but I think I’ll turn it over to my friend from Vancouver-Langara on some further definitions.
M. Lee: I appreciate the opportunity to join my colleague from Kootenay East to talk about this bill.
I’d ask the minister…. In connection with this bill, there was a B.C. low-carbon fuel standard amendments discussion paper, dated January 30, 2022, which was distributed for comment. The deadline for comment was, I think, February 14, about 30 days later.
Can I ask the minister: to which First Nations was this discussion paper circulated, and how many First Nations actually responded to the discussion paper?
Hon. B. Ralston: I thank the member for the question. This legislation is enabling and is not anticipated to have a negative impact on Indigenous peoples. The ministry engaged on the basis of advancing UNDRIP and relationship-building with Indigenous peoples.
The ministry initiated engagement on this bill with the remote community energy strategy working group on December 14, 2021. That included a presentation and discussion on interests and concerns with proposed legislative changes. This group consists of representatives from eight remote communities in the province.
All 204 First Nation communities in British Columbia were sent a notification letter outlining the scope of the proposed legislative changes and linking to a publicly available discussion paper — I think that’s the one the member referenced — and an optional response form. This letter was also sent to the First Nations Energy and Mining Council and the First Nations Leadership Council. This letter provided the opportunity to comment on the bill or to request a meeting for further discussion and indicated the engagement would be ongoing through 2022.
To date, the ministry has received responses from five Indigenous communities and from one Indigenous organization. The minister provided an additional seven days for the Indigenous organization to respond to the letter.
M. Lee: I would just note that in the discussion paper, the ministry believes that the expanded scope of the new act will lead to an increased supply and affordability of low-carbon fuels in the province and that the ministry believes the outcomes to be in alignment with the rights asserted through articles 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 32 under the Declaration Act.
Under the Declaration Act, Bill 41, which became the DRIPA act, article 27 refers to: “States shall establish and implement, in conjunction with indigenous peoples concerned, a fair, independent, impartial, open and transparent process, giving due recognition to indigenous peoples’ laws…”
I’m just reading through the rest of the section: “…to recognize and adjudicate the rights of indigenous peoples pertaining to their…resources, including those which were traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used. Indigenous peoples shall have the right to participate in this process.”
Now, as the minister well knows, I’ve taken the opportunity to discuss with other ministers of the Crown, at various bill stages of various other bills — and estimates, with the Minister of Energy; in fact, in this minister’s Energy estimates as well — about the DRIPA action plan. We know, of course, that when UNDRIP was passed, there was a very high expectation placed on ensuring that all laws of British Columbia were consistent with the articles of UNDRIP.
I note that the actual reference to the articles of UNDRIP is set out in the discussion paper. In talking with other ministers of the Crown, in terms of the level of consultation required under section 35 jurisprudence, coupled with UNDRIP itself….
I would ask the minister…. Given the nature of this act in changing the framework around how low-carbon fuels will be dealt with in this province, including the input on fossil fuel–based inputs like natural gas, turning that natural gas into a cleaner, low-emission, no SOx, no NOx, no particulate matters, a much cleaner burning fuel…. I know that there are….
The minister, I’m sure, has been informed of one of the proponents. I believe one of the five First Nation communities, and just the communities that would have responded to this discussion paper, that we can talk to…. The member for Skeena, the member, myself spoke to this at second reading. We’ll get into that in a moment.
I’m asking the minister… I would assert that notification is not good enough, given the nature of the change under this act, given the impact on First Nations. Recognizing that they need to have the opportunity and the right, under article 27, for example, under UNDRIP, to participate in an open, fair, and transparent process, notification is not sufficient.
I appreciate that there is much to be dealt with by way of regulation, which has always been a challenge with this government. Parking that for a moment, I’m talking here about First Nations and their ability to have an opportunity to consider the impacts of this legislation, this new act, on projects they’re trying to do in this province in order to accomplish a lower carbon footprint future.
Why is it, at this stage, given the nature of this act, that only notification has been provided? Is the minister not concerned that there has not been appropriate, fulsome consultation on the nature of this act in light of and, in particular, with the requirements under DRIPA and the UNDRIP act?
Hon. B. Ralston: The member for Kootenay East made reference to the process by which this bill came about.
Initially, it was thought that it might proceed by way of a series of amendments to existing legislation. The legislative drafters determined that rather than have a series of amendments — a rather complicated and somewhat messy process — it was cleaner and more transparent to simply replace the previous legislation with new legislation incorporating all the proposed amendments. So that’s the process that we’re engaged in.
The bill itself does not change the basic scheme of the previous legislation or the way in which it operates. It makes — I expect we’ll discuss this — some amendments and extensions to the powers that are afforded under the previous act. So in deciding on the manner in which this bill would engage with the Declaration Act, it was decided that the method in which the ministry proceeded was the appropriate one, and those were the steps that were taken.
I would say that the First Nations Energy and Mining Council, in my experience as the Energy Minister, is very often the chosen agency of the First Nations Leadership Council, although I understand…. I’m not claiming that they represent everyone because representation is…. But a substantial representation and, certainly, a leadership organization. The First Nations Energy and Mining Council, in my experience, has the expertise in this sector to evaluate complicated proposals and legislation. That’s why they were chosen to be notified, and engagement was created.
E. Ross: Regarding that last answer, in terms of who the government chose to consult on this bill…. This has always been a question for every single bill that’s been brought in the Legislature per DRIPA. This government promised to consult on every single bill, law and legislation that passed through this House, regardless of the existing case law that was established in the courts of Canada and B.C.
To be clear, there was a roadmap in terms of consultation and accommodations laid out by the courts. It was very clear in terms of the direction that government had to take and, in response to that, the direction that First Nations had to take in responding to that request for meaningful consultation.
Now, for every single bill ever since DRIPA that’s been passed in this House, the same questions have been brought up in terms of meaningful consultation. I’ve brought it up a number of times before. Groups like the Leadership Council and the Energy and Mining Council do not represent rights and title. They do not represent communities. Rights and title are held on behalf of communities.
This Consultation is misguided. It’s misplaced. There are 203 communities in B.C. that hold rights and title that actually are supposed to be afforded meaningful consultation. But I do understand this government has no intention of actually fulfilling meaningful consultation as laid out by the courts of B.C. and Canada, so I’ll direct my question specifically to the First Nation communities that might have been sent notification, in terms of Bill 15.
Chiefs and councils are really busy entities. They deal with education. They deal with health. They deal with public works. They deal with every single thing that normally gets covered off by different entities in different jurisdictions. In this case here, Bill 15, the Low Carbon Fuels Act, 2022, is a highly technical, complicated bill. Unless you live in this world, nobody’s really going to understand it. It’s 42 pages long.
Can I ask the minister: in terms of the consultation of the 203 bands that the government sent notice to, were there any offers of capacity funding to go with this? First Nations councils are not educated in low-carbon fuels — or anything, for that matter — to that extent. Chiefs and councillors usually have to hire the expertise, whether it be consultants, lawyers or somebody that specializes in low-carbon fuels or the fuel industry in particular.
Were there any funding offers put towards the 203 First Nations so they could fully understand the ramifications of Bill 15?
Hon. B. Ralston: I thank the member for his question. This is perhaps a minor quibble, but I’m told there are 204 First Nation communities, not 203. I don’t think that’s really significant in my response.
The process was the notification letter, which went to all 204, and then there were some responses from the First Nations. I have some of them here, and I’ve asked staff to supply the others. The ones that I have been told responded were Tsawwassen, Musqueam and Gitga’at, and I believe there are several others.
The economic opportunities presented by this bill will come at the stage where there’s an opportunity to enter into what are called initiative agreements. That’s the agreement with the authority that would enable a project to earn credits, which is a considerable economic incentive.
I think you’ll recall that when we had our news conference, the refinery was going to finance much of the construction through credits that they had earned through supplying low-carbon fuels. The act that’s proposed will also enable the people or entities that are not suppliers to enter into discussions with the authority as well, which is a change which broadens the application of initiative agreements.
In terms of that process, there will be an opportunity to provide capacity dollars at that stage for individual nations who wish to pursue and explore the possibility of an initiative agreement. That’s what’s contemplated as the bill goes forward.
M. Lee: I appreciate the question from. the member for Skeena. To follow on with this, obviously, the question relating to capacity funding and the ability of First Nations to evaluate the nature of this new act is required up front, when this new act is being brought into place. The minister has just referred to section 15, the initiative agreement section. We certainly will be talking at length relating to that particular section, amongst others — by the member for Kootenay East.
We are in section 1 and definitions. Base fuels, for example, is a definition, as I understand, in speaking to some of these First Nation proponents the minister referred to…. What we hear is that of the 204 First Nations, three or five have responded.
When you look at the formula that’s set out under section 13 of this bill — which again, I’m sure the member for Kootenay East will be able to try and go through in detail — the mathematical formulas require outside input, I would expect. We require outside input, which is the reason why the minister has the ministry staff around him here today.
This is the kind of example, when I point to section 13, with the complexity involved with the technical nature of this 69- or 68-section bill, that requires the kind of support to enable a First Nation to evaluate the regulatory environment in which they are having to bring on new projects.
I would say to the minister that given the nature of this new act, the change in regulatory framework that’s being brought forward, the response form and the minister’s comments initially, when the minister referred to remote community electricity generation — that I appreciate that that’s been a long-standing issue in this province and for the various First Nations, the eight that the minister referred to in December. But there’s more at stake in this bill, in this act, than just that.
That’s an important area, but the nature of the focus around the notification and what’s there is important. I would say that paragraph 6 on page 3 of the discussion paper does refer to “providing the authority for the act to consider all uses of base fossil fuels in any energy source that is used in substitution for a base fuel and would enable, under the new act, to provide compliance credits for those shifting away from fossil fuel use.” This is what is relevant to the concern, in terms of the transition that is being made under this new act.
To the minister: what is in mind here, in terms of the input on natural gas, when there is a proponent group that is looking at working for a project in this province? As the member for Skeena and I spoke to at second reading, we understand that there are projects that are going forward, under consideration, with major partners in Prince Rupert, Prince George and, with the Musqueam, co-located and near the Vancouver Airport Authority. We’re talking about cleaner aviation fuel, cleaner marine fuel, for example — the ability to do that.
What is the impact on the change, under this new act, on a project like that, which uses natural gas as the input fuel source, runs it through the plant, and generates a lower-carbon fuel on the outside of it, on the output side — which, again, would have low sulphur oxides, low nitrogen oxides, low particulate content — much lower than many other so-called lower-carbon fuels that are being utilized in this province today?
Hon. B. Ralston: The member has made reference to base fuel. What is meant by base fuel is a fossil fuel. Fuels made from fossil natural gas will be treated as fossil fuels.
The projects that the member has referenced…. YVR was proposed, or Prince George or Prince Rupert. The understanding is that they would be powered by renewable natural gas, which would make them eligible for initiative agreements and credits under the act. I understand, though, that that proposed project is basically a business concept that’s at a very high level, so I think that distinction should be made clear at this stage.
M. Lee: I appreciate the response. The minister does have some awareness of this clean energy plant, which is a patented technology which is already being utilized, as we understand it, in a plant that’s situated in Alberta.
So it is more than just a business concept. It is certainly a proposal. It is certainly a plan that proponents are moving forward with and getting third-party support with, like Fortis, Air Canada and even discussions with B.C. Hydro, as I understand it.
The funding of these three plants is $1.2 billion, $400 million per plant. The economic significance to First Nations in the North, in the Prince Rupert area, to the Prince Rupert Port Authority for clean marine fuel…. Prince George is situated in the industrial-complex heartland of our province and what’s connected to that municipal area, including with First Nations. Then, of course, in the Lower Mainland, in Vancouver, with Musqueam, being another proponent-type project with the Vancouver International Airport…. We know that there is much opportunity to go forward.
As I understand it, this project, for example, is to be built in two phases. The first takes natural gas and converts it into diesel that is deemed to be higher in carbon but is very low in sulphur oxides and nitrogen oxides. It may not meet the government’s target of a low-carbon-intense fuel under this act, the way it’s defined. Again, I know there are carbon intensity definitions and utilization, carbon intensity record. There are a number of technical considerations about the fuel itself.
But if built, in phase 1, it would require the proponents — as the minister just suggested, I believe I heard — to purchase carbon credits. For this proponent group — again, for three projects, $1.2 billion, three different sites…. It would require the proponent groups on these three different plants to invest in buying carbon credits instead of investing in the building of phase 2.
The second phase of each of these plants would enable these plants to make a low-carbon fuel, diesel, which would meet the government standard of a low-carbon fuel under this new act. The new legislation proposed by the government would discourage investment in this fuel project, making it difficult to build more renewable fuels.
This is the concern of the First Nations that the member for Kootenay East, the member for Skeena and myself have been speaking with. We know there has been — as of last week, on the day after this bill was tabled on the floor of the House — a meeting with ministry staff. But that’s how long it took to get to that process.
There was, again, a discussion paper, at a high level, distributed in the middle of January, a response form that was due by the middle of February, a submission that was made, as I understand it, a few hours before the deadline. As the member for Skeena said…. First of all, notification is not good enough. That’s what I’ve suggested. These First Nation proponent groups were not informed directly.
Now, I appreciate what the minister said about the First Nations Energy and Mining Council. The member for Skeena responded about that. The other point I would make is this. Clearly, if the First Nations Energy and Mining Council had been aware of these projects, perhaps they would have included them in their submission to government. I doubt they would not be supporting a project of this major significance when we’re all trying to get to a better, cleaner future.
In that, I would ask the minister to clarify the impact of this new act on these projects. As we understand it…. There may be other provisions of this act that impact the project in a way that does not make it economic. The concern is how this new act will treat the input, natural gas. Under the current statutory regime here in this province, this project could go forward in a cost-effective way. This new act, by bringing it forward, will make this project uneconomic.
The Chair: Minister, noting the hour, I’m going to ask you to move the motion and respond after lunch.
Hon. B. Ralston: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:48 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); P. Alexis in the chair.
The committee met at 11:04 a.m.
On Vote 32: ministry operations, $25,308,645,000 (continued).
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. We’re meeting today to continue consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Health.
S. Bond: I would like to start this morning with visitor restrictions in long-term care. I’m wondering if the minister can…. I’m going to just outline a concern that has been expressed to us.
According to the BCCDC, social visits have resumed in long-term care. However, we have heard, obviously, stories that visits are being limited in some long-term care homes due to staffing shortages among those who enforce visitor guidelines.
First of all, let’s start there. Can the minister confirm that that is an issue?
Hon. A. Dix: Social visits have resumed in long-term-care homes in B.C. It is the case, however, that to visit in long-term care, one has to be fully vaccinated, which means twice vaccinated in this context. Secondly, you have to have a rapid test at the front door. It’s being done and managed in such a way as to assist people to get through, but nonetheless, that’s often a 15-minute process at the front door. So some care homes are asking family members and families and friends to schedule visits in order to be able to manage that situation at the front door.
We have, of course, invested significantly in supporting care homes — the $143 million directly to contracted providers, the more than 6,000 staff people who’ve been added through the HCAP program and through our supports to visitations and infection control. So those are the rules in place.
There are, as the member would understand, practical considerations sometimes at some care homes that have led some of them, especially at certain busy days of the year, to ask people to schedule their arrivals so that there’s not congestion at the front door. I think the member would agree that the rapid testing and the vaccine screen continue to be important ways to protect residents in long-term care.
S. Bond: Has the minister or the ministry monitored the number of long-term-care homes that are being impacted in this way? Could he provide me with a sense of how many long-term-care homes are in the position because of staffing shortages — that there is not easier access? No one is denying that we need to have the screening procedures in place. But has the minister monitored the situation, and can he give us a sense of how many long-term-care homes are in this position?
Hon. A. Dix: The visitation in long-term care, the social visitation, is on. There are these restrictions, which are that one has to be rapid tested — and one would expect that — and have, obviously, a negative COVID-19 rapid test. In addition, of course, one has to be vaccinated.
These tests do have some impact. Equally, there are still cases of COVID-19 in care homes that affect both residents and staff. There are. That can affect certain care homes, including and especially those under outbreak. Those affect staffing in care homes at different times.
But that said, visitation…. It’s not the BCCDC that says it; it’s what’s happening. Visitation is happening in long-term care with those appropriate restrictions to protect people — not just residents but family members and staff themselves — in order to ensure that we can have a significantly more social atmosphere in long-term care.
To talk about staffing issues, we have massively invested in staffing in an unprecedented way, and we’ve overturned a decade of policies that stopped people being paid unfairly in long-term care, and that has made a huge difference.
But we still have a pandemic on. These changes, these limits on visitation, which mean you have get a rapid test, do cause, sometimes, problems at the front door. They just do. If 20 people arrive at once and each needs a 15-minute rapid test, that causes problems. That’s why some care homes with less capacity at the front have asked families and friends to schedule at times.
We’re looking at open visitation policies, and we continue to support it with the most significant investment in seniors care the province has ever seen.
S. Bond: The minister can continue to cite — and I would use the word — “massive” for every single question that I have asked him related to the challenges in health care. The fact of the matter is we have wait-lists. We have long-term-care patients that are in acute care beds. We have issues in long-term care and in the health care system.
The question I asked the minister was: “Is his ministry monitoring the number of homes that are limiting visitors because there is a staffing shortage?” Not just my words. There have been stories shared in the media by families who feel desperate. And I’m sure that the staff in long-term care, who have done everything possible that they could do during the pandemic and more, are feeling frustrated too. We do know this — that social isolation makes a difference as well. We know that there has been an enormous impact as a result of social isolation during the pandemic.
My question to the minister was a straightforward one. Has the ministry monitored the number of long-term-care homes where visitors are being restricted because of staffing shortages? Meaning that residents, who absolutely deserve and desire to be with family and friends, at times are not able to do that because of a staffing shortage.
Hon. A. Dix: Obviously, health authorities have regular calls with care homes in their areas to see what issues have developed. We’re also, of course, regularly in touch with industry associations such as Denominational Health and B.C. Care Providers. The issues raised by the member are not seen as widespread concerns at the moment.
In addition, though, and as an additional protection, we put in place an appeal process for people who have concerns. We put that in place in mid-February 2021 during a previous period of the pandemic. There have been a total of ten appeals expressing concerns since February 2021, and I’ll certainly make information about that appeal question available to the hon. member.
S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for that answer. I’m going to switch topics. I’d like to talk about the flu season now. Obviously, seniors, we know, are disproportionately impacted by the flu. So I’m wondering if the minister can share with me what the ministry’s modelling shows about the expected impact of flu this fall on seniors, in particular. But the impact of flu now that many of our public health restrictions have been lifted.
Hon. A. Dix: For the member’s edification, behind me is Dr. Brian Emerson, who many people know is the deputy provincial health officer and has done enormous work during the pandemic. He’s the person who ends up being responsible for writing all the orders and responding to groups, and he has done simply an exceptional job. He’s an outstanding public health officer and public servant.
With respect to flu in the fall, as you know, we made a change last year, for the first time in B.C., to go to a universal free flu vaccination model. We obviously are going to be procuring adequate vaccine to support that, and are, in the coming year. That’s an important step. The last two years have been relatively low years in terms of influenza both here in B.C. and around the world, but there are no guarantees.
We know that when respiratory illness season comes, we need to prepare across the health care system (1) by ensuring as many people as possible get their flu vaccine; (2) by maintaining and increasing COVID-19 vaccinations, on the COVID-19 respiratory side; (3) we need to prepare and have a plan, as we have in each year of the COVID pandemic, to deal with the acute care impacts of patients both with COVID-19 and the flu in respiratory illness season. All of those things are being prepared.
I think it’s critical to remind people every day of the need to get their flu vaccine. We’ve made it easier. We’ve changed the policy so that there are not financial impediments of any kind to getting that vaccine. I think those changes are very positive.
Our public health teams monitor influenza every day. We know this because, of course, we’ve been providing public-informed information about where it stands.
We have been fortunate in the last couple of years, but we have to take the precautionary principle and prepare. That means that this fall, with the continuing COVID-19 pandemic and always the potential for influenza, we have to both prepare our health care system and we have to generally, for all citizens, prepare to use that precautionary principle this fall, not only as a health care system and as a society but in our own individual lives.
S. Bond: I would also extend our thanks to Dr. Emerson and to all of those public servants and health care professionals who literally went above and beyond the call to ensure that British Columbia had a strong response.
Perhaps the minister can just confirm for me, then, that the funding of the flu vaccine will continue this year. As I understand it, I think that the…. Did the federal government not cover the previous year, in terms of the provision of those flu shots? That would mean that the provincial government is now going to fund the universal application of flu shots.
Hon. A. Dix: No, the member is quite wrong. The one contribution we got from the federal government was the provision of the high-dose Fluzone in long-term care, which was only a portion of it. The overall flu campaign…. We’ve always funded the overall flu campaign.
We obviously had bought a lot more flu vaccine in the last couple of years, in preparation for the potential of a COVID-19–flu double attack on people’s health in B.C. We’ve also transformed the system, as the member will know, by making flu vaccination much more a pharmacy-based initiative. In fact, the vast majority of flu vaccinations given in B.C. last year were from pharmacies. But the principal funder for that program, the universal program, is the provincial government, and we’ll be funding it.
With respect to the federal government, I wouldn’t expect any change on the high-dose Fluzone. It will continue to be provided in long-term care and assisted living and to vulnerable Indigenous seniors, for example, in the coming year, as well, regardless of what the federal government does. With respect to that, I believe it’s their intention to continue to provide such supports, but we’ll be funding that in any event.
In addition to that, of course, we’ll just continue to do our flu vaccine program.
S. Bond: Certainly, we agree that the utilization of pharmacies is an important part of what needs to take place in communities. In fact, I think one of the reasons the minister has referenced is the uptick. The increase in uptake of flu vaccine is probably partly due to the fact that it was more locally available. You can stop by your local pharmacy. I certainly saw, in my community, that there was a great deal of use of pharmacies. That’s why we urged the government to consider a similar process when it came to COVID vaccinations.
I’m wondering if the minister agrees that enhanced flu vaccines offer additional protection for seniors.
Hon. A. Dix: It’s the reason why, in addition to the 45,500 doses of Fluzone HD for seniors that were provided by the federal government in those long-term-care and assisted-living settings, we added to that 10,700 doses of Fluzone HD for seniors who are otherwise vulnerable as well, for a total of 56,200 Fluzone HD vaccines last year.
In addition, this year, we’re committed to purchasing two million doses of influenza vaccine, which is significantly above our utilization last year. But we have to, I think…. We need the potential. Last year, about 1.4 million influenza vaccine doses were administered in B.C. But we’re committed to buying two million.
As you know, in a flu year, when there is less influenza, there’s a stop once you get to a certain point in terms of the uptake of influenza doses, but we believe we need to have adequate influenza vaccine and that we need to continue to use the enhanced influenza vaccines in particular settings and particularly in long-term care and assisted living and in other places.
S. Bond: I am sure the minister has heard this concern, and I certainly have — that there are seniors in community that would like to take advantage of an enhanced flu vaccine. Is the government contemplating making enhanced flu vaccine available to all seniors, not just those who are more vulnerable or those who are in long-term care?
Hon. A. Dix: The reason that the strategy’s in place, the two million doses that we’ll be purchasing of influenza vaccine…. The high-dose vaccination is really for congregate settings. There’s absolutely…. I don’t need to explain this at length here — the extra risk for those living in congregate settings from the transmission of influenza and, of course, other respiratory ailments, including COVID-19. That’s the reason the policy is in place, why we’ll be purchasing adequate supplies of Fluzone to deal with the additional risk people face when living in congregate settings.
S. Bond: Is the minister aware that other Canadian provinces and many other countries use enhanced flu vaccines to protect their seniors?
Hon. A. Dix: The province purchases a significant number of vaccines every year. I am aware that other jurisdictions may have different formulas for the mix of things that they purchase as part of their influenza immunization programs. Ours is guided by the advice of our immunization committee in B.C. and by public health.
In B.C., that means more than a million doses of the basic flu vaccine, which is for most adults. There’s also a pre-filled version of this. There are vaccines targeted at children from two years to 17 years, which are intranasal vaccines. There’s the TIV Fluad 65-plus, which is for people 65 plus, of which we’ve purchased 600,000. Then we’ll be purchasing close to 60,000, with the federal government’s cooperation, of Fluzone, focused on people in congregate settings.
The 65-plus vaccine provides better protection for people 65 plus. The Fluzone high dose is what’s provided in congregate settings, based on public health advice in B.C.
S. Bond: Obviously, we’ll be watching with interest as we reach the fall, ensuring that seniors and British Columbians are as well protected as possible. I’m assuming there will be a campaign around the flu vaccine, as we have seen in the past.
I’d like to raise the issue of antipsychotics in long-term care. It was very difficult to read a report that suggested…. Let me just read the statistics, as I read them. Despite the goal of 18 percent, in 2021 the percentage of long-term-care residents taking antipsychotics, without a diagnosis, was 27 percent. I understand that the ministry’s response — or, at least, rationale, in part — to that was that the issue was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The minister knows that the use of antipsychotics without a diagnosis of psychosis has the possibility of impacting frail seniors’ ability to move. It potentially makes them sleepy and confused. That is a significant concern. So can the minister explain how and why rates increased from 18 percent to 27 percent, in the use of antipsychotics without a diagnosis, during the pandemic?
Hon. A. Dix: This is an important question and one that, overall, I think we’ve made progress on over time in B.C., but the pandemic has had a profound effect, and did have a profound effect, on health care workers, for obvious and significant reasons. The requirement, in many cases, to limit mingling between floors and wandering has led to different approaches in long-term-care homes.
The seniors advocate, in commenting on the increase in the use of antipsychotics in the past period, in the COVID period, thought that the number would be higher. That is what it is. It’s too high, as far as I’m concerned. She expects it to come down, and I expect it to, too.
There’s also a universal program of training for health care workers, on issues of dementia. This reflects, I think, broader needs, in long-term care, of changing the way long-term-care homes are structured. There’s the idea of dementia villages — which, of course, the member will know that we’re both promoting and funding — most notably, soon in the Comox-Courtenay area. They’re so important.
The number did go up. It went up, clearly, because of the pandemic, which was very unfortunate. It’s a major test of the quality of long-term care that it come down. I expect it to, and we are working hard, between care providers — both B.C. care providers in denominational health and health authorities — to see that that happens this year. It needs to happen, and I believe all evidence is that it will happen.
S. Bond: It does need to change. I am appreciative of the fact that there are actually performance measures in the service plan related to this. I will just read to the minister what it actually says as a performance measure: “Potentially inappropriate use of antipsychotics in long-term care.” It’s hard to read, much less imagine how families and staff are managing through that.
I would like to ask the minister: has the ministry met its target in any year since the goal was set? That was, I believe, in the 2019-2020 service plan.
Hon. A. Dix: They’re pulling the appropriate document, and then I’ll answer that question, perhaps in association with her next question if she wants to proceed, or we can wait and get the appropriate document.
S. Bond: Well, I can provide the answer for the minister and the ministry. The answer is no. In fact, in 2021, B.C.’s rate was 6 percentage points higher than the national average of 21 percent.
With that in mind, when I look at the baseline and the target in 2021, it was 19 percent, and the 2022-23 target is 18 percent. As I noted, the number at least, in 2021, was 27 percent, so the target has not been met at all since the target was put in place. I said I was appreciative of the target being in the service plan.
Can the minister, then…? Knowing that the targets have been set, that they have not been met, that we saw an increase during the pandemic, what specific steps are being taken to ensure that we see a decrease in the percentage of long-term-care residents that are taking antipsychotics without a diagnosis of psychosis?
Hon. A. Dix: The reason it’s a service plan target is that it’s a high priority for care providers, for care workers, obviously for families and residents in long-term care and for health authorities. This work of meeting the target, which obviously…. You’ll see this number come down because of COVID, but we want to see it come down to the target.
Then below the target is work that health authorities are doing with care providers, both with the choice of training I described and the work we have to do now that we’re changing, a little bit, the social aspect of long-term care — or quite a bit, both with external visitation and internally.
We’ve resumed, for some time now, internal social events that allow people to move around care homes more again. This circumstance, in the COVID pandemic, was beyond difficult for people living in long-term care. The inability for many people who would ordinarily wander to be able to even wander in these circumstances during periods of lockdown was significant, and it had an impact.
It is a high priority for us. That’s why we’re setting the target. When we don’t meet the target, that is a public matter. It will continue to be a target and a high priority, and I expect significant improvement by next year.
S. Bond: I believe the minister feels the priority that issue is as much as I do. I certainly don’t doubt that. It needs to be a priority. It is devastating to think that our numbers are higher than the national average, significantly. It is, again, not a reflection on the men and women who work to care for vulnerable seniors.
I think all of us know that one of the legacies of COVID for us — for me, specifically — will be the images of frail elderly British Columbians trapped on the other side of a glass window from the people that love and care for them. Many of us experienced that; I know the minister as well.
I want to ask a question about hours of direct care for long-term-care residents. In looking at what’s happening across the country, I noted that the Ontario government is increasing the hours of direct care for each long-term-care resident, and the average will be four hours per resident-day.
The government of Alberta has recommended increasing it up to 4.5 hours over the next four years, so they have a plan for incremental additional hours of direct care.
In British Columbia, our average is 3.4 hours of direct care per resident-day across all of the health authorities. What was interesting to note for me was that the goal of 3.36 hours is maintained through all three years of the service plan. There is no plan — according to the service plan, at least — for an incremental increase in the hours of direct care.
Can the minister describe his thinking, his plan to increase hours of care in long-term-care and assisted-living residences, and specifically, does he intend to at least match, if not surpass, the standard that is being set by other provinces?
Hon. A. Dix: I think what I’ll do is…. I know the member understands the significance of reaching 3.36, a target set by the government in 2008 as the minimum standard in long-term care, a target they failed to achieve in 85 percent of care homes by 2017, so we’ve made changes. The member is right to note we’ve made very significant changes through direct investment and by investing in long-term-care workers.
In Fraser Health, we were at 3.05 when I became Minister of Health; we’re now at 3.56. In Vancouver Coastal Health, we were at 3.03 when I became Minister of Health; we’re now at 3.57. In VIHA, we were at 3.13; we’re now at 3.50. In Interior Health, we were at 3.23; we’re now at 3.56. In Northern Health, our baseline was 3.36, and we’re at 3.55. That was the only one that was close.
The total has gone from 3.11 to 3.55 in the third-quarter of ’21-22, which is ahead of other provinces right now and reflects the commitment of the government to address this long-standing injustice that had been allowed to linger for too, too long.
So that those listening to us understand the difference, for every resident, in terms of direct care, between what it was and what it is, in terms of a week, it’s about three hours plus of direct care a week more than was taking place before.
We are going to continue to look at making progress in meeting that 3.36 standard, which is no small act. It was a number that was set by the previous government and not achieved. We’ve achieved it, and now we’re well above it at 3.55.
I appreciate other provinces may be making announcements and promises to do things. This is what we said we would do and what we’ve delivered.
I might note that the number of facilities prior, as I became Minister of Health, who were under 2.9 — which is, compared to today, like 40 minutes a day less care per resident in long-term care — were 75. There are now zero such facilities. There were 88 less than three. There are now zero such facilities.
We’ve made good progress, and we’re going to continue to do so.
S. Bond: I seem to recall from my work that the baseline was actually 3.11 in 2016-17, so progress has been made.
My question to the minister was…. I understand that a target has been set. My point was that as we look across the country and we look at aging demographics, other provinces are adjusting to actually look at incremental numbers that range, in fact, to four hours and 4.5 hours over the next four years.
My point to the minister was that he has a service plan that reflects the same target, 3.36 hours, for three years in the service plan. Is there any contemplation…? No one is arguing that the baseline is…. There has been improvement. Is the minister and ministry and the government prepared to look at what other jurisdictions are doing and build into their service plans incremental increases?
On that note, if that is the case, I’m assuming there is work being done. The minister has promised a health human resources strategy. One would assume that you would link the impacts of increased hours in long-term care and direct support to residents to that plan and do an analysis of what the staffing implications are of moving to four — or in the case of Alberta, 4.5 — hours not tomorrow but over the next four years.
What is the minister’s overarching plan with regard to direct care for long-term-care residents, and what are the staffing implications of an increased number of hours?
Hon. A. Dix: Well, in fact, of course, while 3.36 remains the target in the service plan, we’ve achieved 3.55 in the Q3 forecast, which is no small matter. The difference between that, of course, as the member would know, would be, in the course of a given week…. The difference between those numbers is an hour and 24 minutes of care a week. That’s the difference between the two amounts.
The difference between where we were, which is 3.11 provincewide, and where we are, 3.55, is, for each senior, multiple hours a week of better and more significant staff care. It’s meeting our obligation to seniors and meeting our staff standards, which we had failed to do for 11 years before that. Those were choices too. We’re going to continue to make choices in favour of improving care for seniors and meeting that test.
That’s why already in place is an HCAP program, which has succeeded in adding thousands of people to long-term care, and we’re going to continue. A key part of our health human resources plan is to add and be able to add health care workers — treat them with respect, pay them a living wage, negotiate with them in good faith, not take away their labour rights, not lay them off at a whim but continue to support them. That’s going to continue to be the view of the government.
I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.