Third Session, 42nd Parliament (2022)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, November 22, 2022
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 251
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
Office of the Auditor General, Report on the Financial Audit Work for the 2021-22 Fiscal Year, November 2022 | |
Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner, annual report, 2021-22 | |
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
| Proceedings in the Birch Room | |
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2022
The House met at 10:03 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers and reflections: Hon. B. Ma.
Introductions by Members
Hon. B. Ralston: Joining us in the members’ gallery this morning are two members of our Consular Corps here in British Columbia. Mr. Kohei Maruyama is the new consul general of Japan in Vancouver, and Mr. Allan Najum Litman is the new consul general of Chile in Vancouver.
The consul generals are here on their first official visit. They will be meeting with me over lunch later today. This afternoon they will be meeting with you, Mr. Speaker. The consul general of Chile will also be meeting with the Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation and representatives of the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.
British Columbia, I think all members are aware, has strong and deep relations with both these Pacific-facing countries. No doubt the discussions will include the recent meetings between our Prime Minister and the President of Chile on the margins of the APEC economic leaders meeting in Thailand, as well as high-level interactions with Japan at the G20 and other recent meetings.
Would the House please make them and their delegations feel very welcome this morning.
Hon. H. Bains: I’m very, very pleased to advise the House that in the gallery today is my constituent Donna Carlaw and her friend Mary Gawle. They travelled all day today, I think, and they’re here. Please help me give them a very, very warm welcome.
B. D’Eith: Today I’d like to welcome, as we all do from time to time, our constituency office staff. We all know how hard they work for all of us. I just wanted to have a shout-out to all of the constituency assistants.
Of course, I have two of my assistants here. I have Tara Cooke. It’s her first time in the House, and Alysa Huppler-Poliak, who I share generously with the member for Vancouver–False Creek; and Sunny Schiller, who isn’t here. I wanted to congratulate her on being elected as a councillor for the Maple Ridge council. And of course, the unsung hero, Sophia Kreuzkamp, who’s worked with many of our members. She has become quite the amazing fixer of many issues throughout our government caucus.
Please give them all a warm welcome.
L. Doerkson: It’s a great pleasure to introduce members of the North Island Woodlot Association here with us today. Howie Griessel, Nigel Ross, John Gregson, Ken Dodd, Sibylle Walkemeyer and Wolfram Wollenheit. Would the House please make them very welcome here today. Thank you for coming.
Hon. A. Dix: Representatives of Diabetes Canada are here today to meet with MLAs on all sides of the House. I want to introduce Russell Williams, the senior vice-president of Diabetes Canada; Joan King, their director of government relations; and Nafisa Merali, who is a board member. And we welcome them and look forward to meeting with them today.
S. Bond: I want to join the Minister of Health in welcoming the representatives that are here from Diabetes Canada today. They do an exceptional job when it comes to education, to research and to support. We know what a significant challenge this issue is not just across Canada, but particularly in British Columbia. I want to recognize the work done by Joan King and Nafisa Merali. We appreciate the efforts and are very glad to have you in the Legislature this morning.
Thank you for joining us.
Tributes
ELLEN GODFREY
Hon. M. Rankin: Today in the House is accomplished British Columbian Ellen Godfrey. I know she is rightfully proud of her son, Samuel, who has worked in this building for more than five years, serving with distinction in the offices of four of my colleagues in the executive council.
I know she’s also proud of her daughter, Rebecca, whose recent passing is a great sorrow for many. I extend my condolences to Ellen and her loved ones. Rebecca’s accomplishments will be well known to members of this House. Her book Under the Bridge won the B.C. award for Canadian non-fiction and is now being made into an eight-part TV series for Hulu.
Today, however, I ask the House to join in acknowledging Ellen’s accomplishments, her own accomplishments. She is the former president of the Vancouver Island Advanced Technology Centre, a former member of Canada’s council on science and technology, and she was on the board of governors of the Royal Roads University.
After obtaining her degree from Stanford, Ellen began her work career in the 1960s in the Canadian book publishing industry. She was involved in the founding and operations of three important Canadian publishing houses: New Press, House of Anansi and Press Porcépic.
Her work helped hundreds of Canadians see their work completed, published and shared with the world.
Later on, Ellen entered the computer business, becoming, in time, the CEO of Softwords, a computer software company based here in Victoria. Her work created many jobs and helped build the thriving tech sector we see around us today.
In the early 2000s, in this role, she did literal groundbreaking work in B.C., bringing broadband, high-speed Internet access to people across the north and remote Indigenous communities such as in the Na̠mg̱is Nation.
She’s also made significant volunteer contributions to many public and non-profit bodies, including most recently five years as public representative for the B.C. Medical Services Commission.
I would be remiss in not noting that today is also a day quite shortly after Ellen’s 80th birthday, celebrated last week.
Would the House please help me wish Ellen a happy birthday and join with me in thanking her for her enduring and remarkable contributions to our province.
Introductions by Members
R. Merrifield: I am very excited to have a constituent from Kelowna–Lake Country’s riding, but our shared community of Kelowna, in the House today.
I have known Loyal Wooldridge and his husband, Ian, for over a decade. A businessman, a philanthropist, an avid politico, Loyal and I were fast friends and attended debates and town halls with the now Prime Minister Trudeau, along with many events and task forces to support those in need within our community.
Loyal is a man of action and authenticity. He was always available for a coffee or debrief and was open to an alternate thought or position. That was before and after he became a city councillor in 2018. He is a champion of our city of Kelowna, a two-term city councillor, a businessman, a husband, an advocate, and I am so lucky to call him my friend. Would the House please join me in welcoming Loyal Wooldridge today.
Hon. M. Dean: Today we have students from Esquimalt High School visiting. They’re here with their teachers Tim Zemanek and Allyson Hoffman. I had the great pleasure of visiting with them and having a really interesting discussion with them just a couple of weeks ago. Would the House please make them very welcome.
K. Greene: I know that many of us here know that we are able to do this work with the support of our families, and I wanted to take a moment to honour mine. It is birthday month in my household, and I’ve missed a lot of birthdays. Won’t you please join me in wishing my husband, Trevor, and my kids William, Matilda and Sullivan a happy birthday.
Hon. L. Popham: I have the great pleasure to introduce a fabulous part of my Ministry of Agriculture staff today. My food system partnership unit and my Feed B.C. team are here visiting. I’m so proud of them. They bring me a lot of joy in their briefings. I’d like to introduce Martha Anslow, Elietha Bocskei, Christina Waters, Michaela Bub, Linda Dun, Zac de Vries, Taran Negra, Jennifer Walsh, Taylor Jeffery, Kristina Bouris, Stacie Irwin and Oleg Saldyga.
I’m really proud of all of the work you do, and I couldn’t do this without you. So thank you for everything.
I’d also like to just add one more thing. A couple of weeks ago, it was Remembrance Day, and I was unable to get back to my own constituency of Saanich South. My brother is the fire chief of Delta, so I thought I might as well go try and hang out with him. I gave the member for Delta South a bit of a heads-up that I would be there, and before I knew it, I had the most welcoming call from the mayor of Delta inviting me to officially participate in their Remembrance Day service.
Not only that; the member for Delta South asked me to walk with him in the procession and also to walk up with him to lay the wreath at the cenotaph in Ladner. When we got to the moment where we were to lay the wreath, the member handed me his wreath, and I laid it for both of us. I just want to say that that was very kind, and I want to thank him for his generosity of spirit.
G. Lore: I rise today to welcome ChrŸs Tei who is here with us. ChrŸs is a trans activist and executive director of the Rainbow Health Cooperative. Rainbow is a volunteer-based, not-for-profit cooperative with a mission to promote gender wellness through education. The Rainbow Health Cooperative is an important community resource here in Victoria, doing some really great work.
I thank ChrŸs and everyone on the team there for everything they do, so please join me in welcoming ChrŸs Tei today.
Hon. M. Dean: Watching today from home is someone known very well to all of us here in chambers, Elder Shirley Alphonse. Last week she received an honorary doctorate from Royal Roads University, which is in the heart of Esquimalt-Metchosin. I was very honoured to be able to pay tribute to her at a very special dinner at Hatley Castle last Thursday evening. We were joined by the then-Premier of the province of British Columbia on his last evening as Premier.
It was such an honour to be able to be there and to be able to pay tribute to Shirley and all of her work. I’ve known her for well over a decade. She’s done a lot of work here in this House. She has brought a lot of prayers and started our work off in a good way on so many occasions.
I just would like to take this opportunity to say HÍSW̱ḴE, thank you, Shirley, for your generosity, for sharing your wisdom and your knowledge and for helping to mentor me over all of these years.
I hope that everybody in this chamber will take this opportunity to show their appreciation for all of Shirley’s work.
A. Walker: Joining us shortly after the students from Esquimalt High School depart will be the school of Ballenas Secondary, with Jessylee Spence. If the House could give them a wave when they arrive and a welcome right now, that would be wonderful.
B. Bailey: Last week I walked into my office and overheard a very difficult conversation. A gentleman was on a call, and at times, he was very angry. At other times, he was incredibly, inconsolably sad. At no time was he calm, but calm is exactly what was happening on the other end of the call, and always does from this wonderful CA that I share with my friend and colleague from Maple Ridge. Will the House please join me in thanking and welcoming Alysa Huppler-Poliak to the precinct.
J. Rice: Today I’d like to introduce a constituent and the newly elected — I guess you could say re-elected, because he served in past years — area A director for the Central Coast regional district. Steve Emery comes from Denny Island, home of Shearwater. He has been there forever; I can’t remember how long. But he is a jack of all trades. He does everything for the community. He’s the president of the chamber of commerce. He’s newly appointed to our ferries advisory committee. We really, surely need his voice there. He’s in the House today, and I just hope the House can please make him feel welcome.
T. Shypitka: In the precinct today, we have Geoff Morrison. Geoff is a jurisdictional manager for B.C. for Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. He’s also the chair of the B.C. Oil and Gas Research and Innovation Society, which is an organization that promotes research aimed at improving the environmental performance and regulation of oil and natural gas activities. Geoff is here speaking to opposition to discuss the importance of the oil and gas sector and what it means to British Columbia. Would the House please welcome Geoff.
Hon. N. Simons: I want to take this opportunity to wish my partner, Slim Milkie, a very happy birthday. You all know him. He’s been around here a while. I just want to take this opportunity to wish him happy birthday.
I don’t know if he’s watching, but if he is, you’ll all get a critique later.
Speaker’s Statement
CHRISTMAS TREE IN ROTUNDA
Mr. Speaker: Members, you might have already noticed that we have a Christmas tree out in the rotunda.
This morning I had the pleasure of presiding over the delivery of our official Christmas tree. The tree’s arrival marks the beginning of the holiday season, and I want to say, on behalf of all of us, thanks to the Fleming family for donating those trees every year. This year the tree is 31.4 feet long. It’s a Douglas fir, so please enjoy.
I also want to say that it was a team effort to hoist that tall tree — all the members from the Fleming family, plus Surjit Dhanota and his crew from the legislative building. They worked so well.
It looks so beautiful, so please enjoy.
I want to say thank you to each and every one of them for doing it.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
WOODLOT LICENCE PROGRAM
T. Stone: The woodlot licence program in British Columbia is sometimes referred to as a win-win-win for licensees, the government and the public. This is thanks to its ability to maintain community-friendly forest tenures, with licensees managing a small portion of provincial forest. It’s a unique opportunity that sees private citizens given the opportunity to be involved in the management of the public forest resource that we all hold dear.
Woodlot licensees operate well above the expected standard, striving to market logs locally and supporting local wood manufacturing. They are highly dedicated and committed and have worked very hard to gain the support of the communities within which they operate.
Unfortunately, their future operations and services — indeed, their livelihoods — are at risk. Licensees continue to voice concerns about crippling policies meant to mitigate issues that woodlots did not create in the first place, issues they are confident they can manage within their sustainable and small-scale operational unit.
They’re also concerned about the potential dismantling of the woodlot licence program for good. This lack of certainty is incredibly stressful for these family forest operators, and frankly, they deserve better. They deserve answers and hope and optimism for their futures.
It’s my hope that woodlot licensees will have their concerns heard and that they will receive the satisfactory and fair solutions that they are currently seeking.
Forestry, after all, is a vitally important industry across British Columbia, and the hard-working people in these communities deserve strong advocacy and a bright future.
CANNABIS CULTIVATION IN B.C.
AND REVIEW OF FEDERAL
LEGISLATION
B. Anderson: This may come as a surprise, but a lot of cannabis has historically been cultivated in the Kootenays. Cannabis production has subsidized the livelihoods of thousands of small businesses for decades in my region. While the legacy market included illicit activities, one could argue that cannabis, as a plant known for its medicinal properties, should never have been criminalized by Canada in the first place.
The Kootenays is certainly a region that has been disproportionately impacted by both cannabis criminalization and cannabis legalization. When Health Canada announced that it was reviewing the Cannabis Act, I wanted to take the opportunity to advocate for my community and amplify their voice.
I want to thank the dozens of people representing businesses, organizations and themselves that responded to my survey. Their words were thoughtful, well informed, and I am honoured to be able to include them in my submission to Health Canada.
I want to thank my constituency assistants, Anna and Sarah and also Corinne, Anna’s sister, who helped me do a lot of the heavy lifting right up until the deadline last night, so thank you.
Many people in the Kootenays are expert cultivators. I look at my friends Kelly and Josh of Dragonfly Earth Medicine, who have a regenerative cannabis farm that is heavily invested in helping people that are really sick, including kids.
I was grateful for the invitation by our Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General to join him for a tour of the Williams Lake First Nation. It’s the first vertically integrated cannabis facility. Chief Sellars was grateful for the opportunity to use cannabis as an economic opportunity for his community, but he was also clear about the challenges they faced.
When I walk around Kelly and Josh’s farm and I see Williams Lake First Nation, I see the future of cannabis cultivation in British Columbia. It provides a space for learning, healing, and connecting. There’s a huge economic opportunity for tourism. Just look at wine in the Okanagan.
I want to thank the minister for providing me with the opportunity to submit to Health Canada on behalf of my constituency.
JUNIOR HOCKEY LEAGUE IN KITIMAT
AND YOUTH CONDUCT AND
VALUES
E. Ross: Old-fashioned values. Before I became a leader, I was a basketball coach in my village of Kitamaat Village, and I had old-fashioned and strict rules for my players, because I believed those rules could put my players on a good path.
I feel bad for today’s generation because of what they face in our streets today. Crystal meth, cocaine and heroin are readily available. But what’s even scarier — fentanyl is readily available and mixed to create deadly cocktails.
When I was asked to support the new junior hockey league in Kitimat, I first wanted to know what was expected of the players that are recruited from all across Canada, including from First Nation communities. I was surprised to see that the players had to sign contracts. Here is some wording from some of those contracts.
“The board reminds the players that they are local sport heroes and must conduct themselves accordingly at all times, both on and off the ice. You are a Junior A hockey player 24 hours a day, seven days a week. No illegal drug use or alcohol consumption will be tolerated. The teams are 100 percent supported by local hockey fans, and therefore, we have to make certain that you are an appropriate role model for the community. Be smart, and look out for one another.”
It goes on, because a lot of these hockey players actually billet out the families all across B.C. “Billet family belonging should always be treated with utmost care. Players are expected to provide their own spending money for day-to-day expenses. Players are expected to seek employment, if possible, if not attending school, and players must notify and respect the billet family regarding their whereabouts.”
These may be old-fashioned values that come from a different age, but more than ever, we need these because of what our people are facing today. If we can build strong young people, in turn, we can build a strong society.
50th ANNIVERSARY OF
RIDGE
MEADOWS RECYCLING SOCIETY
B. D’Eith: Imagine having an idea to change society for the better and seeing that come to fruition. Now imagine seeing that same idea transform over 50 years. That’s exactly what we celebrated a few weeks ago, the 50th anniversary of the Ridge Meadows Recycling Society.
Now in 1972, no one recycled or even knew what recycling was. But committed volunteers, including society founders Bob Cordoni, Bill Archibald, Beryl Cunningham, Candace Gordon and Julie and Dave Koehn, forged partnerships with local manufacturers, developed a system to sort and ship recycled materials, promoted the idea of recycling to local residents and began collecting newspaper, glass and tin cans in a backyard shed in Hammond.
As collection grew and they opened their first depot beside the Cottonwood Landfill to continue educating community members about recycling, they really made an impact on the society. As time went on, this depot grew, and they added staff, including the addition of mentally challenged employees from the community.
The society also grew its volunteer base and continued to expand and provide award-winning, enhanced recycling services and other programs to the community. Now they are an integral part of the Ridge Meadows community, hosting Earth Day celebrations every year and spearheading the Repair Cafe, where residents can bring their broken appliances or stuffed animals to get repaired.
The celebration at Whonnock allowed the founding members a chance to reflect on the astonishing achievement of seeing a society grow and flourish for five decades, inspiring us all to do more for the environment.
Special thanks to all the past and current members, staff and volunteers and to friends like Linda King and Craig Speirs for their work with the society and executive director, Kim Day, and of course, Leanne Koehn, who is continuing her parents’ legacy, working and engaging community with the society.
CYPRESS PROVINCIAL PARK
AND LEGACY OF KATHARINE
STEIG
J. Sturdy: Cypress Provincial Park is not a big park by provincial standards, but it is a treasure. Located on the North Shore, bounded by Howe Sound, Mount Strachan and West Vancouver, it’s aptly described in the B.C. Parks literature as sitting like a crow’s nest high above Vancouver. When you’re atop the sky chair, especially at night, it’s pretty hard to disagree.
Both the park and its commercial controlled recreation area have seen rapid growth in visitation over the last few years. Hiking, skiing and snowshoeing have exploded, and the presence of all these visitors has had its inevitable impact.
But as a guardian and a steward of this precious place, there was Katharine Steig. In 1990, she played a key role in an effort to protect a stand of big, old trees above West Vancouver from being turned into just another golf course. The forest she helped protect eventually came under the stewardship of the Old Growth Conservancy Society, a group in which she was active until her death this past August.
Katharine was a founder and active member of the Friends of Cypress, an organization focused on maintaining the wilderness of this 3,000-hectare provincial park and surrounding area. The protection of Mount Strachan and Hollyburn as well as the preservation of Yew Lake were highlights of her tenure, as the group tried to keep the park’s focus on retaining this amazing natural environment located right on the fringes of the city.
The Friends also were involved in park planning, undertaking many enhancement projects, including signage, education, trail maintenance and improvements.
If I may, I’d like to quote a couple of verses from a poem her son wrote in memoriam, which I think sums her up well and seems to have a bit of a nod to Dr. Seuss.
You were loved by loggers and hippies alike,
by hikers
and skiers and mountain-bike types.
You even had respect from the
big businessmen,
though they knew not to get on the wrong side of
your pen.
Here’s to the way that you quietly spoke
with the city
people and politicians and park service folks
and taught them, when
they built their trails and roads
to leave room for the lilies and
gentians and toads.
We should all have such a legacy.
RESTORATION OF GUICHON CREEK
J. Routledge: I’d like to tell you the story of the little creek that could. It’s a true story about Guichon Creek, a severely damaged stream that runs through the heart of Burnaby and is being brought back to life.
In the early 1900s, it was a popular fishing spot. People swam there. But throughout the last century, it was dammed, urbanized, industrialized and culverted. It became a dumping ground for old mattresses and tires, and it became sterile for salmon and other species that once thrived there.
Fifty years ago the world-celebrated river conservationist and founder of World Rivers Day Mark Angelo, then a young BCIT teacher, rallied students, teachers and the community to rewild the creek. They began to collect truckloads of litter. They replanted thousands of trees along its banks, and by 2006, much of it had been restored. Salmon and trout were returning. Songbirds, herons, eagles, raccoons, otters and even sometimes a bear came back.
Today Guichon Creek south is beautiful and natural, but Guichon Creek north remains covered by concrete walkways and roads. The salmon still cannot navigate upstream to spawn. A precious few make it partway, and people with nets help them complete their journey. There is a plan to daylight the remaining 700 metres still covered.
Why do I call Guichon Creek the little creek that could? Because that’s what Mark Angelo calls it in a beautifully illustrated children’s book he wrote to document the restoration of what had been, as one Elder put it, her ancestors’ Safeway and Costco.
It’s a story of hope, of community solidarity — something, I would argue, that needs to be restored and sustained as much as this little creek.
Oral Questions
ACTION ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING
AND MANAGEMENT OF B.C.
HOUSING
K. Falcon: There is no bigger broken promise by the NDP than their promise to make housing more affordable. This government is now in their second term and have had over five years to implement their program.
So how are they doing? Well, B.C. now has the highest housing prices in North America, third highest on the planet. B.C. now has the highest rents in all of Canada under this NDP government, and we’ve got record homelessness and social disorder in virtually every community in the province.
But it’s not just their utter failure to provide any relief for working British Columbians. It’s also their total incompetence in managing the one Crown corporation responsible for delivering housing to those most in need, B.C. Housing. Under this Premier, B.C. Housing’s budget and debt ballooned to over $4 billion, but the results, not uncommon in this House, have gotten worse not better, with homelessness and social disorder at record levels.
Frankly, it is a disaster, which was confirmed in a damning report by Ernst and Young that this Premier tried to bury by quietly releasing it over the Canada Day long weekend. The report concludes that there has been total mismanagement of billions of dollars so bad that the Premier, then the Housing Minister, had to fire the entire board that today’s Finance Minister had appointed.
Given his complete failure as a Housing Minister, the damning report on B.C. Housing and the ongoing effort to try and bury his own mismanagement, how can anyone trust this Premier to deliver the housing that people need?
Hon. M. Rankin: We acknowledge, in this House, that there is a housing crisis. That is why this week we’ve introduced historic legislation, the Housing Supply Act, that will allow us to work with local governments to create the housing that is desperately needed in so many parts of this province.
This government has done an enormous amount to create new housing. We have spent $7 billion. We’re on target to spend $7 billion over ten years in order to create new housing that’s desperately needed. B.C. Housing is probably the largest developer, if you will, in the entire country. We are tackling this crisis head on, such as with the Housing Supply Act, such as with the amendments to the Strata Property Act yesterday.
We’re also trying to get speculation out of the market, and that is why we passed the speculation and vacancy tax, which has created 20,000 units so far in this province. The hon. Leader of the Opposition believes that tax is unfair. He said: “These are not speculators. These are people that have a second property…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members. Members.
Hon. M. Rankin: …and they’re being forced to pay…an additional cost.”
We disagree. We think that’s one step among many that needs to be taken, and we’re going to continue to work aggressively in that direction.
Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.
K. Falcon: Just like in health care, they like to talk about how much they’re spending, not the results they’re not getting. The mismanagement at B.C. Housing under this Premier is staggering, especially when you consider they’ve only built 9 percent of the 114,000 homes they promised to build within ten years, and they’re halfway through their mandate already in that ten-year period.
The Ernst and Young report paints a very clear picture of an organization in chaos. B.C. Housing is poorly managing its signature $2 billion HousingHub loan program, contracts being awarded without any criteria and a lack of just a basic paper trail. We’ve got a board that sat silent while the CEO personally authorized $115 million in property acquisitions without the necessary approvals.
That’s right. The NDP-appointed B.C. Housing board allowed their CEO to personally approve more than $115 million in property acquisitions without any discernable due diligence. All of this incompetence happened under this Premier while he was Housing Minister, and he owes the public an explanation.
Given the fired board, the chaos and the mismanagement, will the Premier do the right thing and order a full independent and transparent audit of the mess that he has overseen at B.C. Housing?
Hon. M. Rankin: I entirely disagree with the characterization offered by the member. We have a highly talented CEO, Allan Seckel, who will be no stranger to the people on that side of the aisle.
I need to remind the House what CMHC said. We are making up for lost….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members.
Hon. M. Rankin: This government is making up for lost time after years when the former government didn’t build the houses that people need.
Here’s what the CMHC said. They said that more than twice the number of homes are under construction than when the opposition leader was Finance Minister.
We are on track to deliver the promises we made for 114,000 homes. We are delivering that. We have completed 36,071 housing that is under construction or in approval. I mentioned the 20,000 units that are now being made available thanks to the speculation and vacancy tax making them now available in the market.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
Hon. M. Rankin: We’re in year 4 of that ten-year plan, and we are on target to deliver what we said we would do.
I would remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that when the B.C. Liberals were in power…. They came and cancelled every NDP affordable housing project when they got the ability to do so in 2001.
Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.
K. Falcon: A lot of words from the Housing Minister. Unfortunately, none of them answered the questions that I was asking.
We now have a Premier who believes he’s Mr. Competent, but the real truth is that the Premier’s entire time as Housing Minister was marked by chaos and dysfunction. He tried to bury the damning Ernst and Young report on the Canada Day long weekend — sound familiar? — and chose to fire the incompetent B.C. Housing board, which they appointed, on a Friday night in July a week later.
The turmoil didn’t end there. Nearly 20 senior executives have departed from B.C. Housing under this Premier’s watch, within just two years, with little to no explanation, including the CEO, the vice-president of operations, the chief development officer, the executive director for homelessness, the executive director of finance, just to name a few.
Losing 20 senior executives in any organization over a two-year period would be shocking in the extreme. In an already deeply troubled organization like B.C. Housing, it is stunning.
My question to the Premier: will the Premier acknowledge the mess that he has overseen and order a full independent and transparent audit of B.C. Housing today? Will he do that?
Hon. M. Rankin: We commissioned a report. We examined it. We are taking action. A new board is in place under the leadership of Allan Seckel, a very eminent British Columbian who worked with distinction in this government previously.
The rest of Canada is envious of B.C. Housing and the extraordinary accomplishments that they have made.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
Interjection.
Mr. Speaker: Okay. Member, you’re wasting your precious time. Come to order.
Thank you, Member.
Minister will continue.
Hon. M. Rankin: B.C. Housing is on track, as I said, to spend $7 billion over ten years to address the housing supply crisis in our province.
I was in Cranbrook earlier last week and met with the mayor of Cranbrook, who was anxious to work with B.C. Housing on problems that their community is facing. I’ve had conversations with people across British Columbia praising us for the work that B.C. Housing is doing in their community.
Do we have a housing crisis in British Columbia? Yes, we do. Do we have the people to do the work? Yes, we do. We’re proud of the work they’re doing for British Columbia.
MANAGEMENT OF B.C. HOUSING
AND ATIRA PROPERTY
SERVICES
T. Stone: Does this government have an accountability problem when it comes to how they’re spending money on housing with terrible results? Yes, they do.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.
T. Stone: The Ernst and Young report is actually a part of a damning string of reports for B.C. Housing. It’s evidence of a housing program in chaos.
Thanks to a whistleblower, the opposition has acquired leaked documents of another audit, a damning audit that was covered up by this Premier. Another accounting firm, this one BDO, was retained to do a financial review of Atira. Now, Atira is B.C.’s largest non-profit housing provider, with an annual taxpayer-funded budget of $41 million.
That review outlines severe financial mismanagement and a complete absence of oversight. It shows that Atira has been making financial decisions with draft budgets, not actual final budgets, that had “incorrect, incomplete or misleading information.”
This report was covered up at a time the Premier was also pouring hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ dollars into a housing program that was in absolute chaos, without basic oversight and with worsening outcomes. The Premier chose to bury the BDO report detailing this financial incompetence.
Will the Premier do the right thing today and order a full, transparent, independent audit of B.C. Housing and Atira?
Hon. M. Rankin: Well, we did initiate a review of B.C. Housing to look at their organizational capacity and financial systems and controls and to make sure that they were appropriately supported to deliver on a very much expanded budget and mandate since the NDP came to power. The report was commissioned, an independent review was conducted, and the work is underway to implement those changes.
There were 26 findings and 44 recommendations made across 44 themes — governance, strategic planning, business integration, human resources, program design, project administration processes — and there were suggestions for efficiencies that could be made. Those efficiencies are being gained.
This is a Crown corporation that is subject to the same oversight, the same accountability and transparency rules of other Crown corporations.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members.
Hon. M. Rankin: The fact of an independent review should not be news to this House.
I reiterate. B.C. Housing is doing extraordinary work to address our housing crisis head-on. They are respected across this province for the work that they’re doing, and I stand behind them entirely.
Mr. Speaker: Opposition House Leader, supplemental.
T. Stone: Well, Ernst and Young says that B.C. Housing is in complete chaos. BDO comes out with a different report and says that there are no financial controls, no financial oversight within B.C. Housing with respect to its largest housing provider, Atira. And the entire board of B.C. Housing is fired, without any explanation whatsoever, within the two years that the current Premier and then Housing Minister was in charge of oversight.
This incompetence is at every single level with respect to B.C. Housing and their providers. The Premier had to know about the catastrophic state of finances at Atira. After all, the Premier stood alongside an Atira board member to launch partisan attacks in the by-election that elected the Leader of the Opposition.
The BDO report found “ineffective board oversight” and “assumptions that budget overages will be covered by B.C. Housing.” In fact, the B.C. Housing whistleblower revealed that there was a constant stream of pressure coming from senior B.C. Housing executives to ignore the BDO report and keep shovelling taxpayers’ money toward Atira.
B.C. Housing funds Atira’s $41 million annual budget. But get this: just 7½ cents of every dollar that Atira invests actually goes to client services. And this month, despite repeated calls for transparency, Atira’s CEO gallingly refuses to disclose her taxpayer-funded salary.
There has been a stunning misuse of taxpayer dollars at Atira, with no oversight and no accountability. The Premier must order a full, independent and transparent audit of B.C. Housing and Atira.
My question to the Premier is this. At minimum, will the Premier at least stand up today and disclose the taxpayer-funded salary of the CEO overseeing Atira — again, an organization that is clearly in absolute disarray and failing the very people that it’s supposed to be helping?
Hon. M. Rankin: As I said, an independent review was commissioned. There has been great growth in B.C. Housing as we expand and implement our aggressive housing policy. We have taken steps to ensure, through the independent report, that better governance arrangements are in place.
That’s nothing new. They have an implementation plan that is in place, and we’re working with B.C. Housing to figure how we can best respond to the recommendations that were made. That comprehensive implementation plan will include a workplan for 2023, and that’ll be completed sometime in the next few months.
We want to ensure, on behalf of British Columbia, that B.C. Housing has the tools necessary to respond to the enormous new demands that are made upon them, with oversight and decision mechanisms that do the job.
We have a great deal to be proud of in B.C. Housing. They’re going to continue to do the work that’s necessary, because we know they’re a part of the solution to the housing crisis we all face.
INCOME AND DISABILITY
ASSISTANCE
RATES
A. Olsen: My question is to the Premier. Will he raise the provincial rates for income and disability assistance to above the poverty line?
Hon. N. Simons: I thank the member for the question, very much. Obviously, the issues of inflation and poverty are important to us as a government. You’ve seen the action that we’ve taken over the last couple of years.
We had the largest single increase in income and disability assistance rates in the history of the province. We’ve taken a number of other affordability measures to reduce the impact of inflation and rising cost of living, which have been well received by people in the sector. We’re always looking at ways of reducing the impact of higher prices on people and always looking for ways of reducing poverty in this province.
I would point out, as well, that between 2016 and 2020, we raised over 104,000 children out of poverty during that period of time, and we’re going to continue to work on that.
Mr. Speaker: House Leader, Third Party, supplemental.
A. Olsen: I understand what the previous government’s approach to poverty reduction had been. I’m trying to get an understanding of what our new Premier’s approach to poverty is going to be.
The housing measures announced yesterday by the Premier don’t actually guarantee any affordability at all. The annual income for disabled people in British Columbia, even after what the minister just noted, is a dismal $16,000. That’s currently $10,000 below the poverty line.
Even under this so-called progressive government that we have here, the rates continue to languish. In the increase last year that the minister just mentioned, the increases have almost been entirely erased by inflation.
It’s heartbreaking, really. We have condemned those with disabilities to live in poverty in this province. We can’t fix housing without an intersectional lens. The executive director of B.C.’s Homelessness Services Association said these rates “fall short of what’s needed for people to find housing.”
The Premier must start by recognizing that raising our assistance rates is a necessary part of our housing strategy. Will the Premier raise the income and disability rates to be above the poverty line?
Hon. N. Simons: I do, actually, appreciate getting questions on this issue, because it’s important that we keep these issues in front of the public of B.C., and we know that the previous government is uninterested in this.
As a matter of fact, the demonstrated actions of our government have indicated quite clearly that our interest is in reducing poverty in this province. We have a poverty reduction strategy. We have measured our successes. Our successes are considerable, but there is always more work to do.
Absolutely, the issues that the member raises are of concern to us, all of us as members of the government caucus. We’re proud to continue to work on finding ways to reduce poverty. That may include rates. It may include other benefits, tax benefits that have been rolled out over the last number of months.
The work continues. The work is an essential core of our government’s philosophy and our interest in reducing poverty in this province.
FIRE AT WINTERS HOTEL AND
MANAGEMENT OF B.C. HOUSING
AND ATIRA PROPERTY SERVICES
S. Bond: Housing and homelessness have never been worse in this province than under the Premier’s watch. Record high wasteful spending with record low results.
The failure to act on the concerns with Atira raised in the BDO report had devastating consequences.
The BDO report found: “Staff look for ways to reduce the pressure on cash flow with other downstream consequences.” Let those words sink in. That means cutting corners.
On April 11, the Winters Hotel, operated by Atira, burned down in a deadly blaze that tragically killed two people. Media reports and freedom-of-information documents show that prior to the deadly Winters fire, fire extinguishers were empty and had not been replaced by Atira.
How can the Premier possibly justify the unconscionable decision to bury a report revealing that Atira was cutting corners just months before the deadly blaze occurred?
Hon. M. Rankin: Certainly, we empathize with the situation that was just raised by the hon. member. There is no cutting of corners or anything of the sort. That issue is under investigation.
I can say to this House entirely that there are changes that are being made in the governance arrangements of B.C. Housing. I’ve described them before.
More will be coming as we implement those changes to an organization that has grown exponentially since this government came to office and decided to take the housing crisis seriously.
Mr. Speaker: Member for Prince George–Valemount, supplemental.
S. Bond: There wasn’t cutting corners? The fire extinguishers were empty, and that wasn’t all. There were multiple failures at the Winters Hotel. Not only were there not working fire extinguishers; the building sprinklers and fire alarms weren’t working at the time.
The minister can speak about being empathetic. There were no working fire extinguishers or alarms.
There is absolutely no accountability or transparency. How on earth can anyone take this Premier at his word when he buried a report and, at the end of the day, people died?
Will the Premier today do the right thing? Will he commit to a full independent and transparent audit of B.C. Housing and Atira? British Columbians deserve that to be done.
Hon. M. Rankin: Reports have been released. There are certainly issues that are deserving of serious scrutiny and investigation. That is exactly what’s going on. It’s clearly unacceptable for fire extinguishers and fire alarms to be not functional.
We obviously accept that, and that needs to be dealt with head-on. But there’s no effort to cut corners or to somehow deprive the public of information about this important issue. That is what we’re investigating. That is what the people of British Columbia have a right to understand, and that’s what we’ll get to the bottom of.
COMMENTS BY B.C. HOUSING OFFICIAL
M. Bernier: We’ve heard of all the problems with B.C. Housing today, but there’s another reason why the NDP is nowhere closer to building the 114,000 homes that they promised.
Stephanie Allen is B.C. Housing’s vice-president of strategic business operations and performance, appointed by this NDP government, and has a history of radical and controversial claims.
Last summer she accused politicians and the city of Nanaimo of hate crimes against the homeless.
This July — this July, just a few months ago — Allen compared owning a home to owning slave: “The original real estate investment was enslaved Africans. God bless everyone trying to find a home in these stolen lands as capitalism collapses under the weight of its greed and selfishness.”
You’ve got to pause and think about that for a second. This is the second in command for B.C. Housing. A senior executive making decisions for B.C. Housing comes out with a quote like that.
I wish I was done. This person makes $245,000 a year making decisions — $245,000 a year — but also came out and said: “I’m not sure how we get out of housing in a climate crisis without limiting capitalism.”
This person is focusing on radical politics rather than delivering on the $4 billion that’s needed to be spent to help our much-needed people in British Columbia.
The Premier’s failed to answer questions so far today. Here’s an easy one. Does the Premier endorse the statements of this B.C. Housing executive?
Hon. M. Rankin: I should start by saying that it is not this government that appoints the individual in question. It is the CEO who made that appointment, the former CEO.
If you’re asking if this government accepts the statements that you’re attributing to that person — which of course, I’m unaware of — of course we do not.
MANAGEMENT OF B.C. HOUSING
AND TERMINATION OF
BOARD
P. Milobar: It’s unfortunate that the Premier refuses to defend any of his track record.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
Let the member ask the question. Members.
Member, continue.
P. Milobar: Time and again, time and again, the public….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Please continue.
P. Milobar: Time and again, the public and the opposition have been calling on the Premier to stand and account for his track record and his history of handling the B.C. Housing file. Time and again, he has refused to answer and refused to take any accountability for his lack of action and his failures on this file.
We’ve heard about the Ernst and Young report, which resulted in the firing of the board and resulted in 20 senior executives realizing that they should probably get out while their reputations were still intact.
We’ve heard about the BDO report, which was buried by the Premier when he was the Housing Minister, that spoke about the shortcomings at Atira — the lack of oversight, the cutting of corners and how that impacts what happens at the Winters Hotel.
The minister can say that there was no cutting of corners. I think the average person out there is thinking that non-functioning fire alarms, non-functioning fire sprinkler systems would be a cutting of corners. That’s a cutting of corners that led to a fire that resulted in death.
There is no accountability from this government whatsoever with the consistent mismanagement of B.C. Housing and its lack of results.
So a very simple question today to the Premier, because this has been refused to be answered all along, a very simple question. Why was the board of B.C. Housing fired?
Hon. M. Rankin: When issues were identified at that Crown corporation, an independent report was commissioned. A number of recommendations were made by Ernst and Young in order to improve financial management and governance arrangements of that board, an arm’s-length Crown corporation.
Those changes are underway. A workplan will be finalized in the weeks to come.
Those changes respond to the extraordinary growth of the work that B.C. Housing has had to do, as we step up to do the work that was never done under the former government. That is delivering homes for British Columbia.
We are on track to do the 114,000 units that we promised to do — 36,000 underway, 20,000 with the speculation and vacancy tax….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, please.
Hon. M. Rankin: With the bills that have been announced this week, the expansion of housing supply in partnership with our municipal partners, we believe, will be able to address the housing crisis head on for British Columbians.
[End of question period.]
Tabling Documents
Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour of presenting the Auditor General’s report on the financial audit work for fiscal year 2021-22 and the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner’s Annual Report, 2021-2022.
Petitions
R. Leonard: I’m presenting a petition of 152 names, requesting the non-emergency medical travel assistance plan, also known as TAP, to be expanded from covering travel costs to registered specialists to further include referrals to general practitioners with specialists when people have to move out of their communities to seek medical attention.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading, Bill 37, Energy Statutes Amendment Act.
In the Douglas Fir Room, Committee A, I call committee stage, Bill 42, Provincial Sales Tax Act.
In Section C, the Birch Room, continued committee debate on Bill 41, Workers Compensation Amendment Act.
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 37 — ENERGY STATUTES
AMENDMENT
ACT, 2022
(continued)
D. Davies: I’m happy to be back again, continuing my remarks on Bill 37, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act.
I mentioned a couple of things yesterday in my….
[J. Tegart in the chair.]
Interjections.
Deputy Speaker: If members could quietly leave the chamber if you’re not staying.
D. Davies: Thanks, Madam Speaker.
I’m glad to have the opportunity to talk on this bill. I talked quite briefly yesterday. In fact, I think I just kind of got a bit of an introduction on, speaking about what this bill does and the support that we have around always looking to improve services and to improve things that make our province tick.
As I mentioned yesterday, the Oil and Gas Commission, I would say, is kind of dear to me. I live in Fort St. John. Of course, that’s where the Oil and Gas Commission was headquartered some 25 years ago by the NDP government. A good decision then. I don’t think we will argue that.
I think what we need to look at, though, is how this could impact…. I mentioned, very briefly, yesterday about the unintended consequences around what this bill could possibly do. Of course, I also live in the heart of the oil and gas sector, predominantly natural gas. There’s not an awful lot of oil, but there is oil — but certainly, the heart of the natural gas industry here in British Columbia. It’s an industry that contributes billions of dollars, as has been mentioned by my colleagues previously, into the provincial revenue stream to support the incredibly important things that we all need — health care, whether we look at health care; or making sure our roads and infrastructure are up to par.
We have a group of school kids coming in.
Welcome. Just to let you know, we’re in the middle of a bill debate on the Energy Statues Act, so listen along. There’ll be a test on it later.
Deputy Speaker: Member.
D. Davies: Oh. Yes, I think there’s an introduction coming here.
Deputy Speaker: Yes.
Hon. K. Conroy: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
Hon. K. Conroy: On behalf of the member for Parksville-Qualicum, I want to also welcome the second group from the Ballenas high school. I just have a bit of information for the students here.
Your teacher, Mr. Wyllie, is known to me as Roman. I’ve known him since he was born, actually. I was there on the day of his birth, so I have all kinds of dirt on him. So if you would like to talk later, we could have a great conversation about Mr. Wyllie’s life.
They’re all shaking their heads yes.
So you’re here today for the discussion in the House on legislation. The member is speaking in response to the legislation that was introduced. It’s the Energy Statutes Amendment Act, which is critically important to the province.
You’re going to hear the member from the opposition providing his views on the bill, and if we get to it, we’ll actually have the minister stand up and finalize his comments on the bill. I’m not sure if we’ll get to that in the time you’re here. But it’s great that you’re here to see democracy in action. Welcome to the Legislature on behalf of all of us.
Deputy Speaker: Member, you may continue.
Debate Continued
D. Davies: Thanks, Madam Speaker.
Thanks, Minister, for that introduction as well.
As an industry that does contribute billions of dollars into the provincial revenue, as I mentioned, it’s extremely important that we embrace British Columbia’s resource sector. It doesn’t matter what it is — whether it’s forestry, our mining, our fisheries or the natural gas industry. These are all extremely important pieces of what makes British Columbia tick, providing the money for the things that we all want.
We want good health care. We want a good education system. We want our infrastructure kept up. We want our vulnerable taken care of. And these are all important things that I worry, with Bill 37, could have some unintended consequences regarding what the impact could be on the investment atmosphere here in British Columbia.
British Columbia is a leader in the world on natural gas extraction, the most environmental ethical extraction in the world. Other jurisdictions around the world actually look to British Columbia for how we do it and how we do it well.
But with that does come a lot of oversight, which is important. We do need to hold all companies accountable. It doesn’t matter what sector they represent. But we also need to see and have that balance.
My worry is, and I’ll talk in a moment about some of the issues that stand out to me in Bill 37, where we start getting this layering of red tape, red tape, red tape, red tape, oversight, oversight, red tape. It’s just overwhelming. We start to scare off people who want to invest in a safe jurisdiction such as British Columbia.
We must know that we are not the only ones that are competing, especially now. We’ve seen Europe, as an example, completely upturned right now on getting a reliable source of energy. In fact, they can’t. They are crossing their fingers that it’s going to be a mild winter across Europe because there is a shortage of energy.
Of course, we all know that energy shortage comes because of the tyranny that’s happening right now in Russia, with the unsanctioned war that’s happening in Ukraine. Europe has taken — and I’ll talk a little bit about Germany, specifically — the stance that “we do not want to import energy from Russia,” because they know, in turn, it does go to supply revenue back into that regime, which isn’t being used well right now. It’s a good decision. And in turn, because of that decision, it opens up an incredible opportunity for us here in British Columbia to look at….
We have natural gas. I come from Fort St. John. I’m in the heart of the Montney play. There is an abundance of natural gas throughout the entire northeast. We have the skills. We have the infrastructure in place. But what we’ve seen over the past few years is tail-lights heading to Alberta of companies that have decided it’s too risky to invest in British Columbia. We’ve seen tail-lights of companies heading to Texas.
So we need to know that when we are looking at any resource sector — specifically, I’m talking about the natural gas — we are competing on a world stage to have our resource delivered to countries around the world that are trying to do better. Those countries, for the longest time, are China and India, and India is going to be an up-and-coming force to be reckoned with, as their population is growing. The middle class is growing, the desire that they need for cleaner energy, to get off dirty-burning coal — China as well.
Unfortunately, because they cannot access cleaner energy sources, such as B.C.’s. natural gas, LNG when it’s shipped off — I’ll talk about that in a second — to Kitimat and turned into liquefied natural gas…. They cannot get this, and they are seeking. They’re asking us, as is Europe, as is Germany. We had the chancellor here — not here but here in Canada — recently. The question was clearly asked: “Can you help us out?” Unfortunately, the answer wasn’t a yes.
That really worries me in a few pieces. Again, it shows that British Columbia and Canada are not necessarily open for business when this opportunity is knocking on our door. As we have seen our competitiveness deteriorate over the past four or five or six years…. In fact, I would almost safely say that we’re probably one of the most uncompetitive jurisdictions on the continent, I would certainly say, when it comes to natural gas.
It worries me that Bill 37 will just add another level, another layer, of this red tape, of this more uncompetitiveness that we need to be looking seriously at. Where is that balance? As I mentioned, I think we’re over that balance now, because we have become uncompetitive.
One of the pieces in this bill that we will certainly be asking about during our committee stage, in the coming…. Well, I guess we’ve only got a couple days left, but soon. It’s going to be around the establishment and how the bill will hold people and entities accountable. That’s one thing that this bill does. In fact, the bill enables regulators to more easily hold accountable entities whose action may result in orphan wells.
If you don’t know, for the listening public and folks that are in the gallery, an orphan well is basically where a company is just bankrupt or can no longer further sustain, and they walk away from a well. They walk away from a producing well. Often that’s been left up to the province to clean up. I do commend the minister for developing the orphan well program, which has been quite successful in cleaning up a number of these orphaned wells. I think that is a step.
I think there are other ways that we can be looking at, and we need to find out, during committee stage on Bill 37, what these other opportunities are. Right now what we could be looking at is people that might have a small stake in a company, as a shareholder, that could, ultimately, at the end of the day, be held accountable, solely accountable.
Now, when you start talking about what that does to an investment perspective, talk about sending shock waves. Who is going to want to be investing in British Columbia’s natural resources when they know that even if they’ve got this much of a stake in said company, they’re going to be responsible for this, even though they might not have any decisions being made or any say in those decisions?
These are questions that we definitely want to get to on Bill 37. Again, we support the modernization of the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission. I would even say we support the idea of changing the name to B.C.’s Energy Regulator, because I think it does capture it more.
As I mentioned to the minister at the start of my remarks, if we are not looking at bills and legislation to make them better, then we’re not needed here. That is one of our main roles that we need to do in this place. And as we move forward into committee stage, those are going to be the questions that we’re going to be looking at. That is definitely one thing that we do worry about. What this new piece…. Folks that are investing in companies and, again, making us more uncompetitive, adding more layers of red tape.
The bill also looks at the up-and-coming hydrogen industry that is in British Columbia, which is very exciting. I think everybody in this House agrees that this is new technology that is coming on board. Obviously, we understand that hydrogen is very clean. We’ve seen it already used in different applications within B.C. Transit and other places.
I’m very lucky. As I mentioned briefly yesterday, there is a proposed project happening right now in my riding up in the far northeast in Fort Nelson. It’s a great partnership between the town and Fort Nelson First Nation, and to be moving that forward…. I think it’s a great thing that hydrogen is being recognized by the province and being put into this as we move forward on to probably some exciting times.
As my colleague from Kootenay East mentioned yesterday…. He took us down a bit of an education, and I was very enlightened. I did not know the multiple levels of hydrogen. Some are better. Some are worse. Some are in different applications. That was very enlightening for me. I’m going to have to find out what they’re planning on doing in Fort Nelson now as they move forward.
This bill seems to be a lot of talk about the hydrogen industry which, again, also we’ll have to ask a few questions about. Is this the government’s plan to turn solely that direction, or is this just being added? Again something that we need to be looking at. When we are looking at trying to attract investment into British Columbia and the ability and the opportunity that British Columbia has to make a difference in the world in regards to cleaner energies that the world needs.
We also recognize the importance of what this bill does by also appointing First Nations, Indigenous communities having a representative at the table. This is absolutely something that we support. I think it’s a big step forward in reconciliation. It’s a big step forward, as we’ve seen some challenges — and I know the minister is very aware of the challenges around permitting, especially up in the northeast — so hopefully this is a step forward in making that process more open and transparent and understanding by companies.
What we have seen…. There will be some questions definitely around what this looks like, this appointment. We’ll be very interested in looking at…. Right now in the northeast, we have many projects that are stuck in permitting. One of the things that I hear all the time from industry is everyone is fully supportive of the reconciliation. Everybody, every industry out there is supportive of it, but moving forward, they don’t know the framework that they need to be taking to move forward in order to get these permits.
Up in the northeast, folks have been in limbo now for a better part of half a year. A half a year when you’re looking at projects to get moving forward is very valuable. And it goes again to the competitiveness and that challenge that we see here in British Columbia of industry looking at other jurisdictions that, I will say, embrace the resource sector, other jurisdictions that are open for business — while always, though, keeping in mind that they need to be doing it right. They need to be using their best practices. Again, British Columbia is a leader when we’re talking about best practices in extraction of any of British Columbia’s resources.
The theme that I’ve been talking about, on Bill 37, is really on the competitiveness. It’s around certainty: certainty for not only the companies that are looking at an opportunity in British Columbia, but certainty for the thousands of British Columbians that work in the resource sector, the thousands of British Columbians that, up in my riding, rely on the natural gas sector; the certainty that they know that they can continue to provide for their families, that they can continue to move forward and have a job that will sustain them and their families well into the future.
These are big challenges. That, unfortunately, we’ve seen over the past few years, has been slowly deteriorating, as I’ve given you some examples.
I guess we have also big questions around, now, the new Premier, on what his angle is. Does he support the natural gas sector, or does he not?
We’ve seen a number of very interesting references over the past little while. Of course, Anjali Appadurai has really become well known in the province. She is opposed to LNG, very openly; opposed to the TMX; opposed to mining; opposed to fossil fuels, generally speaking. So when we start seeing people from within the government’s own party, the NDP, and the new Premier coming out and saying that she would make a wonderful MLA, we wonder where the direction and the future of British Columbia’s resource sector is and is going. When we start hearing little things like that….
Not just us in this House. The investment people, companies around the world, watch us very closely, watch things that are happening here, before they make their decisions on whether they are willing to invest in British Columbia and whether they are willing to invest in British Columbians.
As we move forward, in concluding, we need to really make sure that we are asking the right questions in committee stage on Bill 37, finding out where the government intends to go regarding this bill, regarding British Columbia’s incredible energy sector that, really, employs thousands of people, that pays for our education, pays for our health care, pays for infrastructure, pays for everything.
This is what worries me. I look forward to committee stage. With that, I’ll take my place.
T. Halford: Before I begin my remarks, following my colleague from Peace River North, I will give a very special shout-out to a little viewer at home, who is probably sleeping in my bed right now because she is home sick. She’s probably wishing she’d gone to school, because her mom, I think, has put this channel on. So she’s probably saying: “I feel okay, and I can go back. I don’t need to see dad right now talking about this.” But Sasha, I hope you get better, and I will call and check in at lunch. Make sure you wash the sheets before I get home.
I will say this: very privileged to be in a House with members that serve areas of this province that give so much to us in terms of the resource sector. I represent the community of Surrey–White Rock. Before I was elected, I spent a number of years working in the oil and gas sector. I will say that one of the advantages of working there is getting to tour beautiful parts of this province that we don’t usually get to see.
That is up in my colleagues’ ridings, whether it be Peace River North, Peace River South or other areas, going to check out Stikine and Kitimat. Going to those areas and seeing the investment made and how the birth of that investment…. Just take, for instance, the work that my colleague did when he was chief of Haisla and had a vision to support the people of his community through the resource sector. I got to see the work that he did firsthand. It wasn’t work over months. It was work, over a period of years, that he put into this.
Not only is his community better for it, not only is the province better for it, but I think the nation is better for the work that that member put in, in getting LNG to success in British Columbia. We are all indebted to that member for his service on that. I think we can all agree on that. I will say that we all look at the resource sector, I think, differently in terms of where we reside, but the one thing that remains true is that we all depend on it. We do.
I remind folks that, especially this time of year, everybody does have some form of pipeline coming into their house to heat their home. Natural gas doesn’t magically just appear in our fireplaces or on our stove. It comes from an area, and it travels to get to your house. It’s such a matter of convenience for us to have that there, but I think that, for a lot of us, we do not take into consideration the amount of work and the benefit to have that there in our province and in our nation.
I can see firsthand how that work was done. Like I said, I travelled many times up to my colleague’s riding of Peace River North and met with people that were employed by the sector. I met with people that were able to purchase houses, purchase vehicles, go on trips, and provide for their child’s education through this sector.
In terms of Bill 37, I think it’s important that all members of this House realize the impacts that the resource sector has on our individual constituencies. This bill expands the Oil and Gas Commission in its role in regulating oil and gas to also regulate hydrogen. Its name is therefore changed to the B.C. energy regulator.
This legislation presented also expands regulatory…. It requires that one of the board members be a deputy minister and that another be of First Nations heritage. The bill also enables the regulator to more easily hold accountable those entities whose actions result in orphan sites, abandoned wells. It’s something my colleague spoke about just moments ago.
Now, we fully agree with the actions to help develop the hydrogen industry in British Columbia. One question I think we would want to canvass with the minister — I assume we would do this at committee stage, if we are fortunate enough to get to committee stage — is: is it clear? Is the minister focused on a green hydrogen industry?
British Columbia’s existing oil and natural gas industry is very important, and while this bill is extensive, we also have some concerns we would also like to raise on how amendments might unintentionally discourage investment in B.C., reducing its competitiveness and, instead, leading to increased investments in other jurisdictions like Alberta.
Through my previous life, I was fortunate enough — I know some members of this House have done this as well — to go to other jurisdictions, whether it be Asia, the United States or the U.K., and meet with potential proponents of investing in B.C. One of the things they will ask is about credibility: “Is it a jurisdiction where…? Are we going to go there, and are the goalposts going to move? Are they going to change the rules when we get there? Are they going to say one thing and then, when we plant our flag, it’s now something different?”
I do understand that industries and governments evolve and take different shapes, and administrations do change. At the end of the day, I think investors have been consistent in saying that they just need to know what the playing field is. That’s how they make the decisions. Whether they agree with it or they don’t agree with it, they just need to know what the parameters are. If those shift and shift often and shift sometimes dramatically, well, that gives, I think, pause to whether or not B.C. is a place that people can invest in.
Several of its elements, particularly provisions for the working interest participants and liability for directors and officers, could impact investment, certainly in British Columbia. The proposed approach could fundamentally alter the balance of risk for the regulated community in the province, which may have ramifications that at present aren’t well understood.
Again, this comes back to my comment that I just made. Taking all this into consideration, investors are looking for certainty. They’re looking for certainty of the regulators; they’re looking for certainty in government. One of the first things I think that we would be concerned with is how the provision of assigning responsibility that is not proportional to ownership could lessen investment in British Columbia.
The current proposal suggests that the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission can hold WIPs entirely responsible for obligations under a permit in the context of an orphan site, regardless of the ownership, Chair. Again, this is something that my colleague spoke about just moments ago. I think this would fundamentally change how risk is balanced among partners. The requirements could reduce a company’s willingness to become an investor in British Columbia. Certainly, that would have ramifications on employment and financial contributions.
Another concern that we would highlight is that the absence of due diligence defence could deter capable directors and officers from acting in such capacity in B.C. This may happen because the potential cost for which directors and officers would be liable represents a substantial personal loss. These provisions should be clearly qualified by allowing for a due diligence defence.
Also, an operator’s insurance limits could be exhausted if no clear provision for due diligence defence is made. As a result, companies may choose to conduct operations outside of B.C.
Further, we must base security for landowner compensation on risk and corporate health. Legislative amendments should be flexible to allow scrutinization to be administered by the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission as the province’s regulator for the oil and natural gas sector.
Now, we do understand the central intent of the proposed legislative amendments, which is to continue ensuring the industry fulfils its environmental and financial obligations. It is important, however, that any legislative amendments enable regulations that are fair and provide continuing investment certainty in the province’s oil and natural gas sector. I’m hopeful that this bill will reach committee stage and that we will have a chance to canvass these issues with the minister.
As I stated before, I had the privilege of working in the oil and gas sector for eight years. One of the challenges that we see in B.C., and I think we’re currently experiencing it, is as you go through a change of leadership at any level, primarily the change in the Premier’s office, I think that there’s a chance for opportunity. There’s also a chance for angst and uncertainty. I think the resource sector is experiencing that right now with the change that we’ve seen within the last number of days.
The world events that have happened over the last year have shown us how important it is to have a level of independence when it comes to the energy sector. We’ve seen issues. For instance, the explosion that happened in Prince George a few years back and how that altered and how close we were to having an absolute crisis when it came to natural gas.
It also speaks to the partnerships that we have, whether it’s in Alberta or whether it’s in Washington state, and how complex…. When you look at the natural gas sector in British Columbia — you look at the projects, and you look at what’s in the ground now — I think people will be amazed. It’s almost like you look at a maze when you’re looking at the map of British Columbia and the connections and how natural gas is transported through British Columbia.
I do speak to the uncertainty. The fact is that we have a Premier now that has made comments about ending the reliance on fossil fuels. Although some of those comments, I think, were made, in a way, to try and ease some of the angst that came through the leadership process, what it does is layer on extreme anxiety for those that are looking to invest in British Columbia. That is a problem. When we look at what happens when statements get made, whether they’re on TMX and whether they’re on LNG….
There are a lot of people in this province that feed their families through the resource sector. A lot of those families are in Peace River North. They’re in Peace River South. They’re in Stikine. They’re also in Surrey. They’re in Langley. They’re in Kamloops. They’re in Chilliwack. They’re in Maple Ridge. They’re there. Those jobs are well-paying jobs. They’re jobs that, I think, for the most part, that people have gone and sought an education specifically to do that work.
I think part of it is now is that there is an element of uncertainty in terms of whether this is now going to be a government that is going to allow that work to continue. We’ve talked about…. I know that the Third Party has brought up phase 2, in terms of LNG Canada. I think that there have been conflicting comments made by this government in terms of their support or lack of support for phase 2.
What does that do? Would LNG Canada have made an FID knowing that this government was going to blink on phase 2? I don’t know the answer to that, but it’s an element of uncertainty.
I think, at this time, as we see conflict in the world…. As I said, how important it is to have energy sustainability in our nation, in our province…. We are blessed with the resources that we have. But it’s important that we show that sector that we stand behind them.
They have to do their part. They have to make sure that they are upholding the laws, that they are meeting the standards set forward by the regulators, whether it’s the Oil and Gas Commission, whether it’s the environmental assessment office and that they are living up to their ends of the bargain.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
I think that we have a long way to go in making sure that we show investors that B.C. is indeed open for business. How do we do that? I think one of the ways we do that is we be consistent. Like I said before, I think what the sector needs to know is where this government stands. Does it support the resource sector? Does it support development or not? And I think that’s the one thing that investors will always say: “We just need certainty.”
I think what we’ve seen…. We saw it in question period yesterday. The Premier was asked a direct question from the Leader of the Third Party, and it wasn’t a direct answer. I think those questions will come more frequently as this uncertainty kind of hovers over the Premier’s office in terms of whether or not this government supports the resource sector.
I will conclude my remarks there. I appreciate the time, and I know I’ve got other colleagues that are eager to speak. With that, I will take my seat.
Interjection.
T. Halford: With that, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to adjourn debate.
T. Halford moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of the Whole (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. K. Conroy moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:49 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 42 — PROVINCIAL SALES TAX
AMENDMENT ACT,
2022
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section A) on Bill 42; R. Leonard in the chair.
The committee met at 11:17 a.m.
On clause 1.
P. Milobar: Given the way the sections are, I’ll have quite a few questions on the front-end sections, likely.
I guess, first off, just so we can get a better understanding of the development of this bill, I’m hoping the minister will be able to provide us with a timeline of when the bill was first being discussed, including representative dates around when it would have gone to cabinet and when it would have, ultimately, had cabinet agree that this bill should move forward to the Legislative Assembly.
Hon. S. Robinson: I do want to introduce a number of staff who are here to help me, help us, through this committee stage. I’ve got Doug Foster on my left, and behind me, I’ve got Steve Hawkshaw and Brian Murata, who have worked diligently on this.
To answer the member’s question, we’d all been hearing about the opportunity for Vancouver to be a host city for FIFA. When the city of Vancouver put themselves forward, we started exploring with them, at their request, ways to help them fund this opportunity. It really wasn’t until it was awarded in June that we, in earnest, began to explore this opportunity to help them with the costs.
It was at their asking that we accelerated the conversation so that we could have the legislation that’s before us that would help pay for the significant costs that come with hosting such an event.
P. Milobar: Obviously, there are cabinet confidentialities involved. So I’m not asking, with this next question, for the minister to convey any of what was discussed and the thoughts of cabinet, in general, or the vote or anything. It obviously was approved by cabinet to come forward in this form, and that’s fine.
What was the date that cabinet had that discussion and decided that this bill met the threshold and the test to be brought forward?
Hon. S. Robinson: I want to let the member know that cabinet agendas are also part of cabinet confidentiality. What I can share with the member is that We had some preliminary conversations, as Vancouver put itself forward to be a potential host city for FIFA.
So there were preliminary conversations. It really was when they were awarded — I believe it was June — that conversations began in earnest and activity started to really take place to deliver this for the city of Vancouver. We have this opportunity to raise the resources necessary to deliver on a commitment to host a number of FIFA games, which I know everybody is really excited about.
The work began in earnest this last summer and until we’re here, at committee stage of this bill.
P. Milobar: This feels a little like déjà vu. I asked similar questions on a previous bill, and eventually the minister did provide a date. So let me try this a different way, then.
Could the minister please let us know on what date the bill, as it stands in front of us, was finished being drafted and signed off by the minister?
Hon. S. Robinson: The bill got signed off in October.
P. Milobar: Again, it was introduced on October 31. Could we have a little more specifics as to when? There’s accuracy that’s, I think, important as we move through this bill. So was it October 30? Was it October 3? What was the timeline?
Hon. S. Robinson: We had to do a little bit of digging. I wasn’t prepared to provide specific dates about sign-offs, but we were able to track it down. October 25 is when it got final sign-off.
P. Milobar: Thank you. The reason I’m asking these questions is because they lead into my next question, then.
Our preliminary discussion with Indigenous leaders that were dealing with the proposed Olympic bid was…. This was on their radar screen, but they never actually had the province bring this up as a potential funding source for the 2030 Olympic bid.
The reason that’s important: this was drafted now and ready to go on October 25. It was actually on October 27 that the government said they would not be partnering on the Olympic bid with the Indigenous groups. It was partly due to financial risk — and financial exposure was the reason given — yet a very major funding source was never, apparently, discussed or calculated into those decisions.
Was the prospect of Bill 42 taken into the calculation and the risk assessment by the government, then, when they said no to the Indigenous communities around their Olympic bid?
Hon. S. Robinson: I think it’s important to get on the record that these are two completely separate things that we’re talking about. The member is pulling them together, and they are very distinct.
In our assessment of the 2030 bid that the member is referring to, we could see no clear business case for the province that would make it a viable games. I think if we’re going to host anything, you want to make sure that it’s successful. That was very important, I think, to us: to make sure, if we were to do that, that it would be successful.
I also want to remind the member that we’re already hosting FIFA. This tool helps pay for the costs of FIFA over a number of years, and we’ll be certainly having conversations with the city of Vancouver about over how many years we need to have the MRDT in place in order to generate the revenue needed to successfully host the FIFA games. You can’t do another MRDT on top of this special-events MRDT for yet another games a couple of years later, because there wasn’t the capacity to do that.
While this legislation was being undertaken specifically for FIFA, it can be used for other opportunities. That’s why we’ve written the legislation the way we have. Should there be another opportunity for Vancouver or other municipalities to do a global event that has benefit for the entire province in some significant way, there’s a tool for them to use, but the room for this, in this new tool, was already taken up by FIFA.
As well, there’s an Invictus Games coming along, and now I understand there’s a Grey Cup. That was also in the mix. There are lots of events that are happening, and the capacity for also doing a successful Olympic bid just wasn’t in the cards for the timing when it was requested.
P. Milobar: The minister mentions Grey Cup. I’ll get to the confusion this bill has created later, with the only reference to international events buried in the very back page. That actually wouldn’t qualify, based on the minister’s legislation.
Again, did the government then, not run any potential revenue numbers on what a bill like this would mean in relation to a 2030 Olympic bid? In other words, the minister has said that there was no viable financial path for the Olympic bid, yet we’re dealing with a piece of legislation that was very clearly known by government ahead of the no given to the Indigenous-led Olympic bid.
Were there any calculations done at all? Was there any revenue projection modelling done on what this bill could mean to an Olympic bid, moving forward?
Hon. S. Robinson: The member needs to recognize that the scope and scale of these two different events are like night and day. The analysis that we have for FIFA is around $240 million to $260 million or $270 million. Half of that is Vancouver’s cost, and this tool can help them with their cost.
Our very, very preliminary analysis…. This is very preliminary. It’s over $2 billion to host the Olympics, so the scope and the scale are like, I’ll say, Mutt and Jeff. Just the contrast to what is needed in order to host a successful Olympic Games is way beyond anything that an MRDT like this could possibly deliver.
P. Milobar: Well, the minister, in her answer there, recognizes that even this is not intended to pay for the full cost of the FIFA event. I recognize that. I’m not asking if this was modelled to see if it would pay for the full cost of the Olympics, but it’s a revenue source. The question was around modelling it to see if there were a revenue source that could help offset some of the risk.
Frankly, the answers, to this point, from the minister have shown a very clear willingness to work with Vancouver on the FIFA bid — that’s understandable — but a lack of recognition of the rest of the province. These international events are supposed to be a provincewide benefit. Now, my riding actually would have had Olympic events at it. They would have had Sun Peaks. They would’ve had Kamloops. They could have been a designated area. Whistler could have been a designated area. They would have had Olympic events.
Depending what happens with this, Vancouver — and the municipalities around it, whether or not Richmond agreed to go into this, or Richmond agrees to go in with an Olympic bid — would have played a part. There are a lot of hotels in Richmond. In fact, the airport is in Richmond.
There are the training opportunities. You could have made a case for municipalities to stick their hand up and say: “I would like to be a part of it.” In 2010, Kamloops hosted training. Lots of cities hosted training. Sun Peaks and Kelowna hosted training events. Those cities could have made a case for having to be part of this as a provincewide designated area to help host the Olympics.
I guess the question to the minister is: why would the government not have looked at this through a lens like that to see if there was some way to help offset some of the economic risk, if that were the sole reason for saying no to an Olympic bid?
Hon. S. Robinson: A lot of considerations were looked at as part of the desire of the four nations to host an Olympic bid. We looked at the whole cost. That was very significant. More than $2 billion is what it would cost — more than that; again, very high level, ballpark. We expect it would be more than $2 billion that would be the final cost of hosting an Olympics.
We were already committed to FIFA. That decision had already come to pass. It was already awarded to us, and we had an obligation to follow through and to make sure that we could deliver a successful FIFA experience.
In talking with the Minister of Tourism, there’s lots of interest in hosting community events all around the FIFA opportunity, so that the member’s riding in Kamloops can have their own party and gathering. In fact, I would say that today I saw that the mayor of Port Coquitlam is hosting a whole bunch of FIFA watching parties in his community, so already getting into the spirit of FIFA. There will be, certainly, lots of opportunity right across the province for communities to get involved as we host this international event.
The other thing that the member…. I don’t know if he’s not recognizing it or what part isn’t clear. It’s that by having this tool, this additional MRDT, the room for the MRDT over the next number of years will be taken up by FIFA, because it has to generate revenue to help cover the cost. So we can’t build on top of that some more MRDT for another event, because FIFA is in 2026. It’s like the space for that is being taken up.
That doesn’t preclude…. Again, the way we’ve written this bill is that there is opportunity to do this again. Should there be a significant event that is wanting to be hosted by whoever in this province, there’s a tool available for communities to use. We recognize that there are communities that want to be host to international events, and we want to work with them to help them participate in that.
P. Milobar: Well, again, I fully understand that there can’t be a layering. However, it was the minister that mentioned the Grey Cup, which actually doesn’t qualify for this bill whatsoever. The minister also referenced the Invictus Games, which would not qualify for this because of a stacking of events, given the time frame that the Invictus Games are at and the location.
My question, though, is really around…. Again, this is actually to do with section 1, because it’s about designated major event accommodation areas and the definitions. I fully understand FIFA, but unless there’s another 60,000-seat stadium — given the Surrey election results, I don’t think that’s going to happen between now and 2030 — in British Columbia I’m unaware of, there’s only one stadium that FIFA will be played at in British Columbia. That’s in Vancouver.
That’s totally understandable. I’m not taking away from Vancouver making this request, looking to cover the cost with this request. I understand that. But that’s one designated area. The Olympics would have been in multiple designated areas that could have been defined throughout this province, because it’s an event that was going to be in multiple municipalities.
Is the minister saying, by her answer a couple times now, that this wouldn’t have worked for the Olympics because FIFA is taking the space in Kamloops, in Sun Peaks, in Whistler, in Kelowna, in Richmond and other cities, or is this strictly, at this point, a Vancouver — depending on negotiations with the Metro area — type of tax?
Hon. S. Robinson: Again, the member suggests that this tool for a 2030 potential Olympic Games would have helped with the $2 billion-plus price tag of hosting the Olympics. Because there is already a commitment to FIFA, there’s not enough runway to actually raise the revenue that would be needed to help offset some of these costs.
That doesn’t mean it can’t happen beyond 2030. We just need more runway. There wasn’t enough runway in order to make those a successful games. That was really the main rationale, given that we know that Olympic Games — we’ve done it before, in 2010 — cost a lot. It cost a lot here in British Columbia. We paid for it for a long time.
We want to be prepared when we host these international games, and we want them to be good games, want them to be successful games. It was with that in mind that we made the decision that we wouldn’t pursue a 2030 bid, because the risks were significant, the costs were significant, and we had already made a commitment to FIFA around hosting those games. The fiscal capacity to generate revenue to help pay for the games that the city needs was already identified, and this would be the tool. But there wasn’t another way to do it for the city of Vancouver.
I appreciate that the member recognizes that other communities would host events for an Olympic Games. That was part of the suggestion or the idea. But the ability for those communities to raise the revenue that they would need…. It’s still not enough. Vancouver wouldn’t be able to generate the revenue they needed. There again, not enough runway.
Right now before us is a tool to help the city of Vancouver generate the revenue it needs to host successful FIFA games. I know that Kamloops and other communities will also get in the spirit, hosting all kinds of watch parties, making sure that much of the province can participate and enjoy the festivities that go with watching a game that the rest of the world really loves.
P. Milobar: Well, these questions, though, are not about whether communities will be watching the World Cup in 2026. I think that’s a given. They’re already doing it right now, as the minister said. They’re also not going to receive any of this money from the MRDT to host those watch parties or anything else. Vancouver is not going to, through this MRDT, suddenly start shipping money off to Kamloops so you can have a big screen up in the town square. That’s not what this is designed for.
The minister has said there is simply not enough runway for this to have been an effective use for the Olympics, yet the minister at the beginning of all this said they didn’t actually model the MRDT for the Olympic bid and the First Nations bid that was there.
It’s not just four nations. In the Kamloops area, there were another four nations that were working through the process of agreeing and consulting with the Vancouver four nations around the bid, or with Sun Peaks, tying in with Kamloops. The Neskonlith, the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc, the Little Shuswap were all in discussions about how this would work and be of benefit to them in their areas as well.
I guess the question around the designated recipients and all of that and the designated major event areas…. With the backdrop of UNDRIP and DRIPA, will Indigenous communities have sign-off on whether the MRDT is applied, as well, within their traditional areas, or is this strictly municipally led requests and approvals?
Hon. S. Robinson: I first of all want to note that I did not say that no modelling was done. Modelling was done. I think it’s important that the member understand that we did do some modelling that was at a very high level because we only had limited information. As a result, we were only able to model what we knew at the time, and we took a look to see, again, at a high level. That’s how we got to more than $2 billion — through modelling. So that work was undertaken. I think the member needs to…. I hope that he understands that and appreciates that.
The member’s question specifically was: if a First Nation wanted to host in their community, what would they have to do? They would have to work with Canada in order to get the authorities needed in order to have an MRDT.
The Chair: Noting the hour, Minister.
Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 41 — WORKERS COMPENSATION
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2022
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section C) on Bill 41; M. Dykeman in the chair.
The committee met at 11:16 a.m.
On clause 1 (continued).
G. Kyllo: At the end of day yesterday, there were a number of requests that we had of the minister, one of which was the provision of the cross-jurisdictional scan with respect to the seven primary items that are set out in Bill 41. I was wondering if the minister has that information ready for me.
Hon. H. Bains: Yes, I do. I’m glad to share that information with the member.
There was another request that was asked, which was the consultation under the NDA. That is another document that I would provide to the member.
Now, I just want to explain the jurisdictional summary table. At the top you will see all seven areas of improvement that we’re looking at and where B.C. is. Then you look at all the other jurisdictions. A tick mark is suggesting that they have those areas already in, but B.C. is nowhere in any of those. I think it just shows that.
The consultation paper is straightforward, and it’s the names that were asked about, who we met and when. That information is self-explanatory.
G. Kyllo: I do appreciate the provision of the information that the minister has provided. Just a couple of questions. One is with respect to the NDA list. One of the other questions I raised yesterday was whether the minister was able to share those organizations that were reached out to for consultation but refused to sign an NDA. That was just another part of that initial question with respect to the NDAs. So if the minister is able to provide that for this House, it’d be much appreciated.
Then with respect to the cross-jurisdictional summary table, I’m just having a chance to have a look at it now. The table has been provided, basically, as a check mark on all the different items. It doesn’t actually set out what the current rates are. For example, with respect to the CPI rate on other jurisdictions across Canada, there’s no actual information here as far as what the actual rates are for the increases for disabled workers.
I’m assuming the minister was provided with a bit more fulsome information than just simply a yes-or-no answer with respect to the cross-jurisdictional scan. I just wonder if the minister has any additional detail that might be provided.
Again, just as an example, when we’re talking about increasing rates for those workers on permanent disability, I know that the current rate in British Columbia is CPI less 1 percent. When we look across Canada at the other jurisdictions, there’s no actual reference to what the rate is. It’s just a check mark, so it’s hard to make a determination where B.C. would actually stand.
It’s not necessarily just a yes-or-no response. It would be having a look at what the actual rates would be in other jurisdictions across Canada. If the minister could provide any additional detail or if he has any additional information with respect to what’s happening across Canada….
Hon. H. Bains: Two questions he asked. One was the NDA — whether we approached someone, and they refused. There was no such organization.
When it comes to the jurisdictional cross-check, I think we will have that information once we get to that section of the bill, and we will provide you that information at that time.
G. Kyllo: Okay. Thank you very much. We can certainly obtain the information as we go through the specific clauses of the bill.
The other question that was raised towards the end of the day yesterday was the actual magnitude of the cost. In the minister’s response, he initially had indicated that the financial impact was one of the considerations, one of the criteria by which the minister determined which particular suite of changes were going to be brought forward in Bill 41.
Later, the minister clarified that it wasn’t necessarily looking at the financial impacts of each of the individual recommendations, but once government had made a decision on the suite of changes that would be brought forward in Bill 41, then WorkSafeBC was requested to provide an impact of the gross or the aggregate cost of all of those. The minister provided the information a number of times — that the cost magnitude was seven cents per $100 insured.
The question that I’ll ask yet again is: what is the actual dollar figure attached to? When the minister references this seven cents per $100, I’m certainly assuming that WorkSafeBC would’ve had a look at the total cost associated with all of the different changes that are set out in Bill 41. Once they actually determine the total gross aggregate cost, then there is a whole series of other calculations that would be undertaken to determine what the impact may potentially be on WorkSafeBC rates.
Now the minister shared in his response yesterday that some of the rates would be smoothed over five years. Some may not have a direct immediate impact. I just want to ask again: can the minister share with this House the actual dollar-figure costs associated with the changes that are set out in Bill 41 as well as the ongoing incumbent liability that will be associated, again, with some of the changes that are set forth in this bill?
Hon. H. Bains: I think in order to answer that question, we need to put things in context. One of the people that was hired by WCB to the commission and recommendations, and what can be achieved with the surplus in the accident fund, Mr. Bogyo…. I was going over, and this is what his report says: “The accounting for workers’ compensation insurance funding, reserves and liabilities is complex. As one stakeholder said, ‘There are 20 people in the world who understand how WorkSafeBC funding works, and 18 of them work for the Board.’” So it just shows how complex the way they calculate their funding, their liabilities.
I think, again, to put that in context, there’s no actual cost tomorrow — that they write a cheque to somebody because this is how much it’s going to cost tomorrow. They have assets, and they have liabilities. That’s how their funding formula works.
When they say it’s 100 percent, it means assets versus liabilities are equal. But they are at 130 percent. That’s their requirement, and that adds to the liability. But over the years, because of a good return — a good market return of the investment — they were hovering around 150 percent. So there’s an additional 20 percent in the accident fund — they call it a surplus in the accident fund — which is utilized over the years to subsidize employers’ premiums.
I just had a quick look at it this morning. It amounts to about $3 billion, since they started to subsidize employers’ premiums, going back to 2006, 2007. To put things in perspective again, in the last five years, it amounts to about $1.4 billion. So I think those are big numbers. But they have a surplus in the accident fund, and they are able to utilize that over a longer period of time.
And how they calculate cost is…. When they talk about one-time total liabilities, they are talking about how a one-time change in total liability represents the increased lifetime value of all the existing claims in the system. Roughly, there are 50,000 to 60,000 of them as a result of the Bill 41 change. So they are looking at…. When they talk about cost, they’re talking about liability, because it goes against the liabilities. And liabilities calculated past claims and future claims over the lifetime of their claims. So there’s no way to put a cost….
The member asked yesterday: “What would the cost be in the first year or tomorrow? Will they be writing a cheque?” The answer is very complex. What I’ll do is, I’ll try to get that answer from the board so I make sure that I give you the right answers when it comes to the liability. What is the actual liability they will have been incurring, adding up?
I was interested to see what impact it would have on the employers’ premiums, and I was told it was seven cents. They have money in the accident fund to choose rate smoothing, and there will be no immediate impact on the premiums because next year’s premium will remain $1.55.
G. Kyllo: I appreciate the minister’s response. The minister indicated that financial impacts were one of the considerations in contemplating a number of items that are actually set out in Bill 41. It’s hard for me to understand that a decision of the magnitude that the minister is contemplating with the bill that’s before us — that the only number that the minister gave consideration to was a single number provided by WorkSafeBC of seven cents per $100.
We do know that some of the changes in the bill, like, for example, the provision of interest on outstanding amounts if there are workers that are due compensation from WorkSafeBC…. If those amounts are outstanding for over 180 days, one of the provisions is that there will be payment of interest on those.
That is a number that will be finite and that WorkSafeBC would know very quickly by just having a look at any outstanding amounts over 180 days and what the interest costs might be, associated with those payment, with those compensation premiums. So for the minister to indicate that many of these are ongoing liabilities that will be incurred over years…. That’s not the case with all of the changes that are set out in Bill 41.
Again, this is important. We are hearing from industry associations that the changes that are proposed and set out in Bill 41 could have a cost magnitude of upwards of $800 million, which is a staggering and very significant and substantial number. I certainly hope that the minister was provided or at least had the inquiry to get some additional information and didn’t base his decisions solely on a single seven cents per $100 of insured value.
I’m just hoping the minister might be able to provide a bit more context around it. Was it solely the single number of seven cents per 100 insured value? Was that the only inquiry that the minister made in determining and assessing the affordability and the financial impacts of Bill 41?
Hon. H. Bains: I will repeat that I will try to get the information that the member is asking for. I was concerned about the impact on the employer premiums, and that’s what my interest was: to make sure that the cost of the premium is manageable. I was assured that it is. It’s seven cents, and there are sufficient funds in the accident surplus that they can use to smooth over a number of years.
Again, the numbers that the member are mentioning, given by association…. I can’t confirm those numbers, whether they’re right or wrong. But again, we need to read that in that context that I just read. The one-time change in total liability represents the increased lifetime value. That may be what they’re talking about, lifetime value of all the existing claims in the system, and there are 50,000 to 60,000 of them, as a result of Bill 41.
That’s the best I can do here today. But I’ll try to get that information, how you put the total dollar value to the liability. It is not like a cost and they’re writing someone a cheque next week because that’s how much the total cost is. It goes against the liabilities. So is the decision that they make to give subsidies to the employer.
Despite the $3 billion subsidy, or offsetting the rate that they were able to do over a number of years, our surplus in the accident fund continues to be very healthy. So they are in a very good position to assure us that these changes are manageable, because of a healthy surplus in the accident fund of seven cents, which could impact the premiums.
The other question. The member said there will be interest. Well, yeah, but that would be a one-time liability, and then it will be ongoing. No one knows how many of those claims will be over 180 days going forward. They will have some actuarial folks sit down and look at those things. But they probably have, because that’s how they came up with seven cents overall.
I will try to get that information for the member. That’s the best I can do today.
G. Kyllo: It’s concerning that the minister made his determination on the content of Bill 41 solely on a number provided by WorkSafeBC of seven cents per $100 insured value. I would certainly have expected that the minister would have had further inquiry to understand the full magnitude of the cost.
The minister’s last response. When it comes to the interest that will now be paid to workers that have had compensation claims delayed for a significant amount of time, that is a finite number, and that has nothing to do with the actuarial that the minister referenced.
To think that the actuaries will somehow have a look at what the actual amount of outstanding compensation claims are on the books, I don’t see that. That’s more of a function of the actual accounting, in the accounts payable department. That will have a look at what the delay is on some of these compensation claims, and there will be an actually finite number.
It’s apparent that the minister does not have the gross aggregate cost. He did reference in his response that the ongoing future liability of these changes may be upwards of $800 million. The minister says that he has no ability to actually determine if the number that the employers association provided is accurate or inaccurate.
It also is apparent that up until this point, at least, the minister has not made any inquiry with WorkSafeBC, to even make the smallest inquiry. Look, industry associations are concerned. They’ve identified a suite of changes that the minister is presenting that could have an impact of upwards of $800 million. Yet the minister has not made even the smallest inquiry to WorkSafeBC, to even ask WorkSafeBC.
Can you verify? Are these numbers accurate? Are they inaccurate? What is the real number? It’s very surprising for a minister of a Crown corporation with the significance of WorkSafeBC that there’s been such nascent inquiry into the cost magnitude.
Let me maybe ask the question this way. The changes that are represented…. The minister has indicated that the financial impact is seven cents per $100 of payroll. Is that a finite number? I can’t imagine that that number is finite. Maybe I’ll ask the minister: was there a range that WorkSafeBC provided? Could be as low as six or could be as high as nine, or was it just a finite number? Has WorkSafeBC indicated that the only impact for this next year will be just a flat seven cents per $100 of payroll?
Hon. H. Bains: I was given seven cents. It’s the cost implications of this bill, and it’s not to impact the premiums next year, because next year’s premiums are already decided. They will remain the same as this year, $1.55. Then again next year, like every year, the board will sit down and look at the injury rates, the return on their investment, back-to-work successes and therefore the cost of claims, and then they determine the rate for the following year. They will consider this package, how they would build that into going forward, because I’m also advised that there is a fund sitting in the accident fund that they can utilize to smooth over a number of years.
Again, I think it’s something that I was assured was manageable. It will improve the benefits and rebalance the system that we are trying to do on behalf of the workers and, at the same time, will not have a huge impact on the employer’s premiums.
G. Kyllo: It was interesting. I was certainly surprised by the timing of WorkSafeBC’s announcement to actually freeze rates for employers for 2023. I think many employers were quite happy to see that WorkSafeBC came out and actually announced a rate freeze for fiscal 2023. To the minister: is that typical, for WorkSafeBC to announce a rate freeze in the last week of October of every year, or is this timing different than it has been previously?
Hon. H. Bains: This timing is exactly what they do every year. They do consultation over the summer, and during the time that they make the announcement, they do it every year at the same time. I can tell you it’s not a rate freeze that they did this year. If you go back, if I’m looking at the rates here, going back to, say, 2017…. The rate, when we formed government, was $1.70 in 2016. In 2017 it was brought to $1.65, and then in 2018 it went to $1.55. In ’19, $1.55; in ’20, $1.55; ’21, $1.55; ’22, $1.55; and continuing next year, $1.55.
The Chair: Minister, could you move the motion?
Hon. H. Bains: Looking at the clock, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The Chair: The committee stands adjourned.
The committee rose at 11:44 a.m.