Fifth Session, 41st Parliament

(2020) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, August 10, 2020

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 353

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Surrey Board of Trade Top 25 Under 25 Awards

J. Sims

Mudslide in McBride and community response

S. Bond

Sustainable aquaculture and First Nations shellfish operations

J. Rice

Rosalyn Ing

J. Yap

Affordable housing projects in Nanaimo

S. Malcolmson

Multi-use trails for transportation and tourism recovery

J. Sturdy

Oral Questions

Handling of personal health information

J. Johal

Hon. A. Kang

Hon. A. Dix

M. de Jong

Government plan for education system reopening

S. Furstenau

Hon. R. Fleming

Government action on homelessness and community safety

T. Stone

Hon. S. Robinson

Government action on homelessness and addiction issues

J. Thornthwaite

Hon. S. Robinson

Tabling Documents

Report pursuant to the COVID-19 Related Measures Act regarding Ministerial Order M256/2020

Report pursuant to the COVID-19 Related Measures Act regarding Ministerial Order M257/2020

Report pursuant to the COVID-19 Related Measures Act regarding Order-in-Council 449/2020, Attorney General

Report pursuant to the COVID-19 Related Measures Act regarding Order-in-Council

449/2020, Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor

General

Report pursuant to the COVID-19 Related Measures Act regarding Order-in-Council 451/2020

Report pursuant to the COVID-19 Related Measures Act regarding Order-in-Council 453/2020, Attorney General

Report pursuant to the COVID-19 Related Measures Act regarding Order-in-Council

453/2020, Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor

General

Report pursuant to the COVID-19 Related Measures Act regarding

Order-in-Council 457/2020, Attorney General

Report pursuant to the COVID-19 Related Measures Act regarding Order-in-Council

457/2020, Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor

General

Report pursuant to the COVID-19 Related Measures Act regarding Order-in-Council 459/2020

Statements

Clarification of remarks made during Bill 13 committee stage debate

Hon. D. Donaldson

Reporting of Bills

Bill 23 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2020

Orders of the Day

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 23 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2020

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development (continued)

C. Oakes

Hon. D. Donaldson

T. Wat

J. Sturdy

M. Morris

I. Paton

D. Ashton

M. Bernier

D. Davies

J. Rustad

D. Barnett

S. Furstenau

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 23 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2020 (continued)

MONDAY, AUGUST 10, 2020

The House met at 1:36 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. D. Eby: Some of the members will have a noticed a stranger on the floor. It is

our lovely daughter, Iva. She’s 11 months old, and this is her first time

being in the House — a little delayed for the presentation than we would

have liked but very glad that it’s finally happening. Up in the gallery are

our son Ezra and my beautiful wife Cailey, who makes it all possible for me

to be here and for us to have such amazing kids.

Thank you, Cailey, thank you, Ezra, and thank you, Iva, for coming to

visit.

Would the House please join me in making them feel very

welcome.

J. Yap: In the House, virtually, today to follow proceedings is my constituent

George Ing. He’s also here following the proceedings with his two

granddaughters, Nimkish Young Ing and Aisha Young Ing. They’ll be following,

through the streaming webcast, this afternoon’s proceedings. I ask the House

to join me in welcoming George Ing, Nimkish Young Ing and Aisha Young

Ing.

G. Kyllo: It gives me great pride to rise in the House today and give special

thanks to the Canadian Mental Health Association in the Shuswap. Both Dawn

Dunlop and Denise Butler do amazing work in providing services to the folks

of the Shuswap. I recently contributed some dollars to them through a

fundraiser, in which case I actually allowed my grandchildren, Nolan and

Siddha and Kylie and Hannah, to participate in shaving off my COVID beard

and cutting my hair. I am doing a bit of a comb-over today. There happens to

be a little bit of a short bang problem on this side, but it was all for a

great cause.

I want to give a special thank-you to all of the folks in the Shuswap

and across the province that contributed about $6,500 to help support the

work of the Canadian Mental Health Association in the Shuswap.

J. Sims: Joining me today is a family from Surrey-Panorama, Eka and Amer Sidhu.

They are the proud parents of Sia Sidhu and, of course, her young brother

Aryan, who is a future hockey and soccer star, or so he told me. I want to

thank the parents — I would say the very proud parents — of Sia, who is an

award-winner with the Surrey Board of Trade for her innovation and

creativity. You could tell that they were just absolutely glowing when they

brought her to my office, masked and, of course, properly socially

distanced. We really had an amazing visit.

Please help me welcome them to our proceedings today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

SURREY BOARD OF TRADE

TOP 25 UNDER 25

AWARDS

J. Sims: Every year the Surrey Board of Trade highlights 25 innovative and

creative entrepreneurs under the age of 25. As I scrolled through this

year’s list of 25 Under 25, there was a number that jumped out at me, and it

was the number 11. Among the winners was an 11-year-old named Sia Sidhu, who

was the youngest winner and who also happens to be my

constituent.

[1:40 p.m.]

Sia is a polite, well-spoken and focused young woman who dreams of

making a difference. At six, Sia decided she wanted to have a lemonade

stand. She raised $300 for the local care home. Since her first fundraiser,

Sia has sold ice cream, cream sundaes and hot dogs and most recently hosted

Sia’s Burger Shack.

Sia has learned the value of teamwork. She recruits friends and family

to help her execute her plans. Over the last five years, Sia has raised over

$17,000 for the children’s hospital. Last year $9,200 was earmarked for

muscular degeneration, a disorder that affects two of her cousins. Sia plans

to host a virtual fundraiser this year, and I look forward to supporting

her.

Congratulations, Sia Sandhu, the 11-year-old winner of the Surrey

Board of Trade’s Top 25 Under 25 Award. Your future is bright, and at such a

young age, you are making the world a better place. Thank you.

MUDSLIDE IN M c BRIDE

AND COMMUNITY

RESPONSE

S. Bond: It came without notice and literally shook Garry and Mabel Moore out

of their beds. Mud, water, rocks and dirt slammed into the home near

McBride, B.C. that they have lived in for 37 years. They said it sounded

like a freight train as the massive debris slammed into their bedroom wall

at about 1:30 in the morning.

Garry and Mabel instinctively knew that they would need to find a way

out. They used a log that was floating through their home to shatter the

kitchen window and climb out. Unfortunately, Garry received serious cuts

that required surgery as a result of him having to climb through the smashed

window, and Mabel broke a toe and was covered in bruises. We are very

thankful that there was no loss of life.

Once they had escaped their own home, the Moores worked their way

across a huge stretch of mud and slid down a steep embankment to ensure that

their 81-year-old neighbour, Joyce Godfrey, was safe. Joyce was sound asleep

when Mabel woke her up and told her that they needed to get out of the

house, worrying that a second slide might come down.

Garry, who is 70, and Mabel, who is 67, have lost every­thing,

and 81-year-old Joyce has lived in her home for 50 years and now has a yard

full of mud and debris. Other residents were impacted as well.

Mabel and Garry said they are so grateful for the support of family.

The McBride community have stepped up to provide the care that all of the

impacted residents need. Now work is underway to secure the necessary

resources, through disaster financial assistance, so that these families can

rebuild their homes and their lives. Nothing will replace the treasured

memories or items that were lost in those traumatic minutes.

The Moores can’t believe that they managed to escape the mudslide. As

Mabel said: “We’re together, and we’re still here. So that’s the main

thing.”

SUSTAINABLE AQUACULTURE AND

FIRST NATIONS SHELLFISH

OPERATIONS

J. Rice: Recently I had the pleasure of touring the facilities of Coastal

Shellfish, an Indigenous-owned, sustainable scallop farming operation on the

north coast. It’s an example of the kind of sustainable economy we can and

should be striving to build in B.C.

Coastal Shellfish came directly out of a First Nations–​led

struggle to protect the Great Bear Rainforest. Coastal First Nations knew

that to protect the Great Bear Rainforest in the long term they had to build

an alternative to the traditional extractivist boom-and-bust economy that

has dominated Canada for years. If we want to protect our forests, rivers

and oceans and have a thriving economy, we need sustainable industries that

respect environmental stewardship, Indigenous rights and local

communities.

Since 2003, local First Nations on the north coast have invested over

$25 million to create the first scallop aqua­culture operation in

North America and, likely, the largest operation in the world. They are

developing a brand-new industry in North America, and this year they were

poised to dramatically ramp up operations. While COVID-19 has sidelined

their planned growth, they still are optimistic about their future prospects

as North America’s leaders in shellfish aquaculture.

Today Coastal Shellfish employs around 60 people in Prince Rupert and

surrounding communities in their scallop farm and processing plant. This is

a huge turning point for Prince Rupert, which has been losing fishing and

processing jobs for decades. In fact, Coastal Shellfish is now operating out

of the old Canfisco fish processing plant, which ended operations four years

ago, putting 580 people out of work.

[1:45 p.m.]

I hope this initiative acts as an example of the type of sustainable

industry that can make B.C. a beacon of sustainability around the world and

help our economy recover during the pandemic.

Thank you to the Metlakatla Development Corp. and all the coastal

First Nations communities that made this project possible. I’m proud of what

you’re doing on the north coast.

ROSALYN ING

J. Yap: I rise today to speak about the life of an incredible community member

and constituent, Dr. Rosalyn Ing or Roz to those who knew her. On July 23,

Roz suffered a fatal stroke at the age of 82. Although she’s no longer with

us, her legacy will live on.

Roz was from the Opaskwayak Cree First Nation in Manitoba. She endured

a traumatic childhood, surviving the horrors of the residential school

system. Despite this challenging start at life, Roz was resilient. She did

not let past misfortune prevent her from achieving success.

Roz met her husband, the future Lt. Col. George Ing, when she served

as a fighter control operator with the Royal Canadian Air Force.

After raising two sons, Greg and Ted, at the age of 48, Roz went back

to school. Roz was ardent about education, believing that it is paramount

for strengthening ourselves and our communities, particularly for Indigenous

people. She earned her bachelor’s degree in social work and a master of

education, and in 2001, she received her PhD from UBC in educational

studies.

Roz spent 11 years researching the lasting impacts of the residential

school system and then proceeded to teach at the Native Education Centre and

at UBC. Roz also supported the work of the Truth and Reconciliation

Commission. Roz took it as her duty to mentor, inspire and empower young

people to achieve their potential. In 2012, Roz received the Queen’s Diamond

Jubilee Medal for her work in Aboriginal education.

Rosalyn Ing’s remarkable story is one we all can learn from. With

enough determination, resilience and passion, it is possible to move past

whatever hardship and adversity we may face.

We mourn the loss of a truly inspiring person. We also celebrate her

exceptional accomplishments and contributions. The world is a better place

because of Rosalyn Ing.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS

IN NANAIMO

S. Malcolmson: Last month the new residents of Nanaimo’s newest affordable housing on

Uplands Drive began selecting their units. Twenty-eight townhomes are being

built right now, just the final finishing touches being put in place by the

Nanaimo Association for Community Living. These are homes that are going to

change people’s lives. They’ve got group kitchens built in, a social lounge

and the infrastructure for people to gather for weekly meals.

The tenants selected…. Many of them are essential service workers.

Most of them are developmentally disabled adults living alone. This is how

they describe…. These new homes are going to change their lives. They said:

“It’s a realization of a lifelong dream.” A home of their very

own.

Smiles, tears of happiness and joy, and enthusiasm were common

occurrences for the tenants during their unit selection meeting. One person

said: “I think it’s going to be really good. I like the fact that I can be

more independent, that there’s a social group, that I won’t be lonely. There

are going to be people around all the time, and I like that.”

This is the culmination of years of work by the Nanaimo Association

for Community Living. They’re doing this, together with the province of

B.C., with a $5 million investment. They describe it as a project that began

with a dream, a request and an openness to possibility.

Looking forward, just in the next few months, at the 880 affordable

housing units that are going to be starting construction or are already well

underway in Nanaimo…. Next we’ve got 23 units at Rosehill, built with

M’akola and Vancouver Island Mental Health Society. Next, 74 units open on

Estevan, built with the United Church. Next, 159 low-income seniors units in

Buttertubs Marsh, built together with Nanaimo Affordable Housing.

Altogether, it’s going to have a huge impact on our community, and

every one built with a fantastic community organization that’s leading the

way and changing lives in partnership.

[1:50 p.m.]

MULTI-USE TRAILS FOR

TRANSPORTATION AND TOURISM

RECOVERY

J. Sturdy: Beyond the bike lane debates of urban British Columbia, right across

the province, connecting communities with a safe and healthy alternative to

the car to get into town, to school or to work can be as simple as a

metre-wide, crushed-gravel trail that provides a real alternative to the

skinny shoulders of the deep-ditch provincial highways.

Rural commuter trail development and maintenance is a bit of an

orphan. Traditionally, mountain-bike trails are most often conceived of and

built by local groups like the Squamish, Whistler and Pemberton Off-Road

Cycling associations in the case of the Sea to Sky. Reflecting their

membership, these groups often focus on building and maintaining downhill

excitement and the climbs needed to service them.

Multi-use trails connecting communities, regional districts,

municipalities and First Nations are complicated by jurisdiction and

bureaucracy. Even for groups like the Pemberton Valley Trails Association,

with decades of experience, the task can demand skills and resources that

would challenge any community group but that are made even more difficult

without a consistent funding model.

Enter an opportunity for a COVID recovery program that could support

these worthy groups and leave a lasting provincial community legacy. A

coalition has come together to form trails for a COVID recovery task force.

The task force is a working group within the Mountain Bike Tourism

Association. It is supported by Indigenous Tourism B.C., Destination British

Columbia, the Tourism Industry Association of British Columbia, the

Adventure Tourism Coalition and the Outdoor Recreation Council. They’ve

developed a plan for economic development and employment opportunities

targeting communities and tourism across the province.

Local trail societies can form the framework on which coordinated

trail development would improve and expand transportation and recreation

networks throughout British Columbia. These organizations are raring to go,

with shovel-ready trail projects that will support our beleaguered tourism

sector and that will also leave important alternative community

transportation infrastructure right across this province.

Let’s strengthen the trail network in British Columbia, because trails

build community.

Oral Questions

HANDLING OF

PERSONAL HEALTH

INFORMATION

J. Johal: The opposition has documents that show that the private medical

information of British Columbians is being accessed by Americans. This is

against the law.

Shockingly, more than 5,000 files containing information from medical

exams to prescriptions to contagious-disease information are being viewed by

Americans, with the blessings of the B.C. government. Donald Trump has shown

nothing but increased hostility towards Canadians but now has access to

these files and can use them for whatever reason the U.S. sees fit,

including barring British Columbians entry to the United States.

Can the Minister of Citizens’ Services, who was specifically asked in

her mandate letter to safeguard the personal information of British

Columbians, tell us why she has allowed this to happen?

Hon. A. Kang: Thank you to the member opposite for asking my very first QP question

during the COVID-19 period. I’m answering this question virtually, from my

office in Burnaby.

British Columbians must have the utmost confidence that their

information is secure and protected. This is one of the passions that I have

in my job. Our government is committed to continuously strengthening our

privacy protection. I can assure the member opposite that we are doing our

utmost best during COVID-19. Whatever we are doing here is not an uncommon

practice throughout Canada.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a supplemental.

J. Johal: I asked a very specific question. For the record, the minister did not

answer. In many ways, she has sloughed this question off. I don’t think she

understands the severity of this situation. This is a significant breach.

There is no dispute, quite frankly, that this is happening.

The government’s handpicked contractor, NTT, has confirmed that

Americans are accessing the private medical information of British

Columbians. They have confirmed that 5,000 files, though it could be higher,

have been made available to people located in the United States. That means

their private medical information is subject to the Patriot Act. Whether

they have cancer or a prescription for medical cannabis, that information is

now available to the Trump administration.

Again, to the Minister of Citizens’ Services, whose one job was to

protect our information: why are Americans being allowed access to our

private medical information?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. A. Kang: When it comes to cyberattacks, cybercriminals are becoming

increasingly sophisticated. That requires ongoing vigilance and updating

technology to continue to fend off these attacks.

In British Columbia, the office of the chief information officer

provides government with strategy and leadership in IT security. Our staff

of experts have systems, to protect our network, that operate 24-7. This

includes firewalls, intrusion prevention systems, antivirus software and a

vulnerability scanning program.

The government notifies the OIPC on a monthly basis of all suspected

or actual privacy breaches that may have occurred in ministries. In the rare

event that a suspicious privacy breach is suspected, the OIPC is practically

notified and as soon as possible. We are going to continue to work with the

OIPC and all of our partners in British Columbia to make sure that our

information is secure.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a second

supplemental.

J. Johal: The minister just went through various security protocols. Quite

frankly, every single one of those has failed. This is not a security breach

in the sense that it’s coming from within the system. It’s coming from

without, outside. This is a contract that this government signed. Why has

this minister forgotten that?

Now, with this government being so inept when it comes to protecting

our private medical information, it’s not just the Trump administration that

now has access to it. It’s not just the Americans. Documents obtained by the

opposition also show that people sitting in India, in clear violation of

B.C. law, also have access to British Columbians’ private medical

information. “My shift time is over in India. Could you please reassign this

to some resource in a Canadian time zone to take care of this?”

Again to the Minister of Citizens’ Services, who is failing

spectacularly at protecting our private information: can she tell this House

why not one but two countries have access to our personal medical

information?

Hon. A. Dix: I just want to put it in context, because I think if people listen to

the question of the hon. member, they really wouldn’t understand what we’re

talking about. In 2011, the previous government contracted out services, IBM

Canada services, to support people working in health care. In 2016, the

previous government decided to put that contract out for tender, and the

winner of that contract was a company called NTT Canada. That contract was

awarded after I became Minister of Health, in March 2018. The transition to

the new contract occurred on July 29, 2020, just a couple of short weeks

ago.

There were some concerns at the beginning of this transition, as one

might expect — after all, approximately 150,000 people in health care and

about 80,000 machines are serviced — about delay times, which were too long

on July 30, way too long. Those delay times, in terms of responses to

services, are down to a little over two minutes.

During the transition, NTT did ask some of its U.S.-based contractors

to support Canadians. But I just want to be clear that they were providing

technical support only. They had no access to, nor did they store, personal

or health data. In fact, it’s part of the contract that NTT Canada has to

operate consistent with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy

Act.

I think if the member is interested in the substance of the issue,

which is a significant one with respect to health information, I would be

happy to arrange a briefing for him and the opposition so that they can look

thoroughly through the question. I would say that I don’t…. It’s in trying

to raise these issues in this way, with partial information, that we work

hard to get at the truth. But I’m absolutely prepared to share all of the

information necessary with the hon. member so that he can be satisfied with

the answer.

M. de Jong: Thanks to the Health Minister for that remarkably selective

description of the history of this. The transition that he describes began

last year and, by all accounts, has been a disaster, which has given rise to

this situation in the first place. Thousands upon thousands of operational

problems have led to the company, which this government contracted with,

making the decision….

Interjection.

[2:00 p.m.]

M. de Jong: You know what? Maybe the Premier wants to answer the question, because

someone over there had better answer for a serious breach of security of the

privacy of individual British Columbians, which so far the minister whose

job it is to do that has been unable to do and the Health Minister has been

unable to do.

The company that this government contracted with made the decision to

send files and provide access to personal health information to individuals

located outside of Canada, in the United States and apparently also in

India.

Surrendering personal records or access to personal health records is

an offence under our privacy protection legislation. It is an offence, and

it is an offence that needs to be investigated.

My question to the minister whose job it is to protect the privacy of

British Columbians is: has that investigation been commenced, has she made

the required request for the retrieval of the information, has she notified

the Privacy Commissioner, and has she notified the British Columbians whose

personal health records have gone to foreign agencies?

Hon. A. Dix: As noted, this service, this important service in support of British

Columbia health authorities, had previously been contracted out. This was

the result of a formal contracting process. A new contractor took over on

July 29. At that time, there were 3,995 incidents that were still open — the

previous contractor had been IBM — and 7,237 service requests. Since NTT

took over on July 28, there have been 12,464 new incident tickets, and

11,127 of them have been resolved.

There’s no one currently — no American people — supporting the

Canadian operations currently working on the issue. But I would be happy to

give the opposition a full briefing on the question. If the opposition has

concerns and specific issues to raise, I’d be happy to look into them in

great detail.

We obviously take the privacy of health records extremely seriously.

We worked through these processes methodically. I think it’s fair to say

that on July 30, there were long delays in getting access and getting

response to service requests in the health authorities. As a result of that,

significant action was taken, and now the delays have gone down. The

response time delays for service requests have gone down to 2.4

minutes.

But that said, it’s a significant issue. So what we’re doing is

responding to that issue in the way the member would expect. If the members

have concerns, I’d be happy to provide a full briefing to them from the

provincial health services authorities. They have an obligation, as does NTT

Canada, to follow the laws of British Columbia embedded in the contract. The

health supports they received were for Canadian services and Canadian

responses.

I think that the member…. What I’m saying to the member is that there

are clear responses to the questions, and we’d be happy to provide

them.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Abbotsford West on a supplemental.

M. de Jong: The Health Minister can try to minimize this all he wants. What we

know for a fact, because the company acknowledges this, is that a minimum of

5,000 files, caught up in operational difficulties, were transferred and

access was granted to individuals located outside of Canada, in the United

States and in India, contrary to British Columbia laws. If the minister is

now saying that you can provide IT support in the health sector of the sort

being contemplated here and being dealt with here without having access to

the actual files, he’s wrong or severely and seriously

misinformed.

I know the minister and the government have been watching. The

President of the United States hasn’t exactly been whistling love songs in

Canada’s direction lately. He characterized Canada as a security threat only

two weeks ago. He continues to attack our number one industry in British

Columbia, softwood lumber, that the Premier said he was going to solve three

years ago. And now his security agencies have access to personalized health

information from British Columbians. If the minister doesn’t think that

those security agencies will make use of that intelligence in any way that

they deem appropriate, then I think he is being seriously naive.

[2:05 p.m.]

Will the minister confirm that by surrendering personal health records

to Americans, the very ability of British Columbians, whose records have

been improperly surrendered, to gain entry into the U.S. may be

compromised?

Hon. A. Dix: The member makes a series of assertions. If those assertions were

accurate, then the concerns he raised would be accurate as well. Certainly,

those concerns are my concerns. I’d be happy to review any information that

he believes that he has.

What we know from our side and has been confirmed from our side is

that no such information has been shared to the United States. I know that

this is the time when making grandiloquent speeches about the President of

the United States is a popular thing to do in Canada, but my focus is to

ensure that health services are delivered in an effective way.

As you know, and as the member knows, and as I’ve acknowledged, there

were issues around response in this system — this internal system which

supports 80,000 machines and 150,000 people in the regional health

authorities in the PHSA — and improvements have been made over the last

number of days. It’s one thing I’d say — that all of the issues that have

been dealt with were reviewed, consistent with the protection of personal

information of British Columbians in the Freedom of Information and Privacy

Act.

The health authorities, I think, take the health information and

protecting the health information of British Columbians very seriously. They

assure me they’ve done so in this case, and I’m happy to review any

information the member has.

GOVERNMENT PLAN FOR

EDUCATION SYSTEM

REOPENING

S. Furstenau: Children throughout B.C. will be going back to school with in-class

learning in under a month. This short timeline makes it challenging for the

necessary conversations to happen between parents, teachers and government

about what classes will actually look like and what preventative measures

will be taken.

The education of our youth and the benefits of in-class learning can’t

be overstated, but there are a number of unanswered questions. A primary

concern of teachers and parents is that in many cases, the class sizes are

simply too big to allow for safe physical distancing in classrooms.

Moreover, not making masks mandatory, like other provinces are doing, is

creating a lot of worry.

My question is to the Minister of Education. Will he consider delaying

the restart of school to provide a plan to British Columbians that has

funding for smaller class sizes, more support for teachers and other

necessary measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19?

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question.

The plan that we’ve developed in British Columbia, which is an update

of a plan we developed in May of this year, was done with safety being the

paramount priority for all students, staff and teachers in a school

building. It was done under the direction of our provincial health officer.

It was done in close collaboration with all of the K-to-12 education

stakeholders. We announced that on July 29. School districts are busy

preparing things like timetabling, implementing the health and safety

guidelines and ordering supplies that are funded by government to make

schools’ restart safe.

I understand from the member’s question that parents are anxious to

have information, and primarily information that comes from local sources.

The connection they have to their local school communities is their primary

point of contact and what’s of most interest to them and their families. I

can tell you, and I can tell the member, that school districts right now are

busy working within those health and safety guidelines, organizing their

schools around the advice that was given to us by Dr. Bonnie

Henry.

We have a safe, strong plan here in British Columbia. It’s built on

sustained investments in the education system that we’ve made from day one

as a government. We’ve invested, for example, $450 million to make class

sizes in British Columbia the smallest they’ve been in a generation. That

means an average of 18 students, for example, in kindergarten; 19 students,

typically, in primary grades; and 22 students in high school

settings.

[2:10 p.m.]

Those are the basis and the result of profound investment that this

government has made in schools. That was made much prior to the pandemic,

but helps us and stands us in good stead during a pandemic — to have smaller

learning environments, more one-on-one attention by teachers.

We’ve organized the safe return to school on a number of principles

that were developed by public health. We are working with a steering

committee in British Columbia on an almost daily basis now to make sure that

we make the best use of the time we have between now and September 8. Also —

you’ve heard the Premier speak about this last week — we are working with

those very same partners about how to start school in the best way

possible.

This is not a normal September in the sense that kids return to their

last year’s classroom. They need the time and space to have the learning

teams, the administrators, the teachers and support staff very familiar with

the health and safety protocols and the organizational layout of a school.

And then we’ll be in a position to safely, and on a staggered basis, welcome

students back to school.

So we’ll have more details about that. Those are conversations that

are active and ongoing right now. But those are also discussions that have

arisen at the steering committee that we’re very conscious of and that we’re

working through with all of our education partners.

Mr. Speaker: House Leader, Third Party, on a supplemental.

S. Furstenau: That was a lot of information. I take it, as the minister pointed out,

not considering a delay to the start of the school year.

As he notes, there’s a lot to consider with the restart of schools.

Many parents rely on school not just for kids’ education but also for child

care, and before- and after-school programs are crucial for many working

parents. So if we expect people to go back to work, they need to know that

their children will be taken care of.

As we’ve noted, the back-to-school plan requires more clarity, and the

steering committee has yet to discuss, as far as we know, the before- and

after-school programs. Meanwhile, many care centres usually care for

children from multiple schools. While the province has been talking with

teachers and school administrators, we haven’t heard about what additional

supports there will be for early childhood educators. The last time the

government website was updated on information for early childhood educators

regarding COVID-19 was June 2, 2020.

My question is again to the Minister of Education. For children to go

back to school in the fall as normal, then parents need to feel assured for

the safety of their child. Will there be a plan presented that encompasses

the entire spectrum of the education system, including before- and

after-school care?

Hon. R. Fleming: I think perhaps the member misheard me. I very clearly said that the

steering committee is working on how we have a welcome-back-ready school

community in every part of the province — taking the time to do exactly

that.

So those are under discussion. We’ll have more to say about that

shortly. We’re working with principals and vice-principals. We’re working

with school district leaders, teachers and support staff on exactly that.

Parents will have information on what week 1 of school will look like in

short order.

On the question of organizing the kinds of supports — before- and

after-school child care, specifically — that the member asks for, I think

it’s good to see districts and providers out there serving parents, trying

to assess what the demand looks like. For those before- and after-school

child care operations that are on site, they’re looking to coordinate that

with the school community.

So that’s ongoing work that’s happening right now. I can’t give the

member specific answers today on which child care operations have developed

their plans exactly. But you can see, around British Columbia, that they are

serving parents just to see who is interested in resuming those kinds of

services. We expect that before- and after-school care will continue to be

there for families in their school communities. That’s what districts are

working on coordinating right now with many partner organizations that

deliver those services.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

HOMELESSNESS AND COMMUNITY

SAFETY

T. Stone: After three years of this government, we have a report on the number

of homeless in Metro Vancouver. The 2020 Homeless Count in Metro

Vancouver report shows that, overall, the numbers have increased

between 2017 and 2020. In Richmond, there are 21 percent more people

experiencing homelessness today than three years ago. In Surrey,

homelessness is up 7 percent. It’s up 21 percent on the North Shore. And in

Burnaby, it’s up 80 percent over the last three years.

[2:15 p.m.]

My question to the Premier is this. When will the Premier stop passing

the buck; when will he show some leadership, and when will he accept

responsibility for the fact that, under his watch, the situation with

homelessness is far, far worse today than it was three years ago? That only

serves to fail the most vulnerable citizens in our province. It fails small

businesses and, ultimately, it’s failing neighbourhoods right across this

province.

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the member opposite for the question. We certainly

inherited a significant challenge around homelessness and unaffordability in

housing. We’ve been working diligently since we formed government to make

sure that we had a plan in place. We have a ten-year plan, $7 billion to

invest. Homelessness continues to be a challenge, because you can’t fix 16

years of bad in three short years.

However, I can say that we have housed well over 2,500 people in our

supportive housing program in the last three years. We certainly have more

to do, and that’s why we have a ten-year plan. We’re working diligently to

make sure that we have the supports to make sure that people continue to be

housed.

With our supportive housing program, we’ve done, certainly, some

research and analysis, and we’ve discovered that well over 90 percent of

people continue to stay housed because we’re bringing in those wraparound

services, and we look forward to continuing to deliver for the most

marginalized in our communities.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson on a supplemental.

T. Stone: Well, Audra of Audra’s Image and Wellness Spa in Kamloops had this to

say to me the other day: “Only a week ago, one of my clients was walking to

my spa and had to step over and around two people with needles in their arms

on the sidewalk at 2 p.m. in the afternoon on a weekday. She was horrified.

I could go on and on about the vomit and urine and needles and drugs I have

found at my door daily. My husband and myself are worried for my safety, and

I’m worried I will lose clients and ultimately lose my business.”

It’s time for the Premier to get real about what’s actually happening

in this province under his watch. Homelessness and overdoses are up.

Encampments are bigger than ever before. The government’s warehousing of

people in hotels is an unmitigated disaster. Entire neighbourhoods are left

to deal with daily break-ins, surging property crime, needles in playgrounds

and threats to their personal safety. This is tearing communities apart in

every corner of this province. Even the Premier said recently: “It’s not

just Victoria and Vancouver where there are challenges with homelessness.

It’s Nanaimo, Smithers, Kamloops, Kelowna, right across the

province.”

Again, my question to the Premier is this. When will the Premier admit

that homelessness, encampments, addiction, related crime...? All of this is

much worse in B.C. today than it was when his government assumed power three

years ago. And when will he step up and provide the needed 24-7, on-site

supports that the most vulnerable citizens, the most at-risk citizens in

this province need in order to get better?

Hon. S. Robinson: We’ve canvassed this series, these kinds of questions, for quite some

time. Homelessness has been a significant challenge in this province for

many, many, many years, well before we formed government. Frankly, it’s

because the provincial government — historically, the B.C. Liberals — didn’t

do what they needed to do on this file, and we have started to make

progress. We’ve absolutely started to make progress.

In fact, there was an

article recently in the Times Colonist ,

where the reporter went and interviewed Ross and Shelby, two people living

in the Travelodge. This is what the

article had to say about Ross and

Shelby: “Since moving into the building, each has received long-overdue

medical care from on-site nurses and doctors. Shelby had painful abscesses

in her teeth fixed, and Ross has been put on anxiety medication…. ‘We’re not

doing illegal activities anymore,’ said Ross, adding that their reliance on

street drugs has dramatically reduced. ‘We are absolutely becoming people

who are trying to make change….’”

Their long-term goal, the long-term goal for Ross and Shelby, is to

get clean, to stabilize and perhaps move into a building where they can

become resident caretakers. They have an opportunity to settle.

[2:20 p.m.]

I don’t want to minimize the impact and the challenges and the

concerns that local businesses have been experiencing long before we became

government. There certainly has been challenges around homelessness. That’s

why, as part of what we do, B.C. Housing goes out and meets with these

businesses to address their concerns, to meet with neighbours to address

their concerns, to bring people together so that we can help people find

their path, find their life again.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

HOMELESSNESS AND ADDICTION

ISSUES

J. Thornthwaite: It is very clear that this government has no comprehensive plan to

deal with homelessness or the underlying mental health and addictions that

fuel this crisis. Instead, the government continues to warehouse people,

hoping the crisis will just solve itself.

Ali of Downtown Florist on Davie Street says the situation has put

everyone — those in need, him and his employees, his customers and all

visitors to the neighbourhood, all of them — at risk. I’m quoting what he

said. “My wife and I can no longer leave only one person at the shop, as we

fear for the other partner’s safety.” This is outrageous.

When will this minister admit that warehousing people without 24-7

supports is a complete failure?

Hon. S. Robinson: It continues to be very disingenuous for the members opposite to

suggest that people are without support. In fact, their own colleague, a

colleague from Richmond South Centre, points out, in her community, that our

program delivers these sorts of services. She points it out in a letter to

the editor. Again, I read this into the record some weeks ago. But it just

seems that the members don’t want to believe it, because they didn’t come up

with the idea. They didn’t initiate it.

We took action. We are in 30 different communities delivering supports

for people. The member for Richmond South Centre, again, reminds everybody

in her community that this is an opportunity to build housing that matters,

that this supportive housing matters to people. She talks about how it is

important that people have a sense of belonging, that people have a place to

lay their head, that we continue to work with people.

I know that there are members opposite that have acknowledged the

value this has in their communities. The member for Parksville-Qualicum also

acknowledged — certainly to me, I think it was, in estimates not too long

ago — how grateful she is to have this kind of housing with the supports in

her community.

I know that the members know that that’s, in fact, the case. I think

that’s really, frankly, quite disappointing.

Mr. Speaker: The member for North Vancouver–Seymour on a supplemental.

J. Thornthwaite: Minister, everything has gotten worse under your government. You

cannot hide from your own record. You used to say you had all the answers.

Now you’re in government, and everything is worse. Homelessness is up.

Community disorder is up. Break-ins are up. Vandalism is up. Assaults are

up. Open drug use and drug paraphernalia in parks and playgrounds are up.

Calls to police are up. Overdoses are up.

In fact, May and June saw the highest number of overdoses ever, under

this government’s watch. Paramedics reported that on June 26, they revived a

record 131 people from dying of an overdose on that one day, under this

minister’s watch. In July alone, they answered over 2,700 overdose calls.

That’s 87 overdoses each day.

Even the NDP Vancouver mayor admits that it’s worse than ever under

this government. When will this minister finally admit her failures and get

on with a comprehensive mental health and addictions strategy that actually

gets people well so that businesses and residents can get on with their

lives?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, in case the member has forgotten, we are living in a pandemic.

Those who are most vulnerable…. We took action right away, because we knew

the kind of risk that they were under.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, the minister has the floor. Thank you.

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m sure that the members opposite would appreciate how important it

was that we reduced the shelter space, that we made sure that people were

able to physically distance. That’s exactly what we did. The impact of that

has had significant challenges on those most vulnerable and in communities

right around this province.

We have also taken very significant action to lease hotel space so

that we could continue to house people as best we can. Again, we are

continuing to deliver on services. There’s absolutely more to do. I look

forward to continuing to make sure that people have their needs met so that

communities and businesses can also have the opportunity to

flourish.

But we are all in this together, and we all have to work together in

order to address these significant challenges.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: I have the honour to table reports from the Minister of Public Safety and

Solicitor General and from the Attorney General regarding certain regulations

made, which are required to be laid before the House pursuant to the COVID-19

Related Measures Act.

Statements

CLARIFICATION OF REMARKS

MADE DURING BILL 13

COMMITTEE

STAGE DEBATE

Hon. D. Donaldson: During committee stage of Bill 13, on July 15, 2020, the Attorney

General, speaking on behalf of myself due to technical difficulties with my

virtual connection, advised the member of the opposition that the new

section 117.1 of the Water Sustainability Act had been reviewed by the

Privacy Commissioner.

I would like to make a clarification on this point for the record. As

per the required process for developing legislation, ministry staff

consulted with the privacy, compliance and training branch within the

Ministry of Citizens’ Services, which advised that there were no concerns

with the proposed legislation and that consultation with the Office of the

Information and Privacy Commissioner was, therefore, not

recommended.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 23 — WORKERS COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT,

S. Chandra Herbert: Pursuant to the resolution of the House of July 29, 2020, I rise to

present a report regarding Committee of the Whole proceedings on Bill 23,

intituled Workers Compensation Amendment Act 2020, which took place on July

31, 2020.

Committee of the Whole on Bill 23 reports the bill complete without

amendment.

The results of the division taken by the committee under

section 15 of

the aforenoted resolution of the House are attached to the

report.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Later today.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call third reading of Bill 23.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 23 — WORKERS COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. H. Bains: I move third reading of Bill 23.

Mr. Speaker: The question is third reading of Bill 23, Workers Compensation

Amendment Act, 2020.

Division has been called. Pursuant to the sessional order adopted

on June 22, 2020, this division will be deferred until 30 minutes prior

to the end of this sitting day.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call the estimates of the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural

Resource Operations.

[2:30 p.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS,

LANDS,

NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS

AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Chouhan in the

chair.

The committee met at 2:31 p.m.

On Vote 29: ministry operations, $489,126,000

(continued) .

J. Rustad: This afternoon we’re going to go through a number of MLAs that are

going to be asking questions. We’re hopeful that we’ll keep things

fairly tight with short questions and, hopefully, short answers. We’d

like to be able to get through as many of my colleagues’ questions as

possible.

With that, I will turn it over to the member for Cariboo North to

continue the estimates debate.

C. Oakes: Thank you for the opportunity to raise some concerns from

constituents from Cariboo North.

This past year, since spring freshet, has been a significantly

challenged one for much of our region. So my first question is around

flooding. We certainly appreciate the significant efforts of the B.C.

Wildfire Service. From 2017, the work that they’ve done on the ground

has been significant, with FireSmart and such, in our communities. It’s

been wonderful.

I’m wondering why the policy has changed where B.C. Wildfire

Service no longer will protect people’s private properties when a flood

occurs.

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thanks for the question from the member for Cariboo

North.

The B.C. Wildfire Service personnel have been deployed as usual

this year. There’s been no change in policy. I believe the member will

probably come up with an example that she wants to bring to my

attention. The deployment of the Wildfire Service personnel has always

been based, and most recently based, on recommendations in consultation

with emergency management B.C. and the local governments.

C. Oakes: We did receive a policy change during this flooding season. But I

will go to a specific example to demonstrate the change that has

happened.

Spring freshet began very early in the Cariboo. Nazko specifically

is an area that has been ground zero — in 2017 with the wildfires, 2018

with the wildfires. Since the wildfires, we’ve experienced significant

flooding year after year.

At the end of March, Chief Alec, the Chief of Nazko, came to my

office to request specific assistance with the flooding that they were

very much concerned with and, specifically around COVID-19, ensuring

that we were very much prepared for the inevitable flooding that would

occur during the freshet. We received several challenges.

First, it took a significant amount of time to get back from the

province to the Chief. First, it appeared that there didn’t appear to be

concerns about freshet this year. Then we found out, actually, that the

flights to look at the snowpacks actually didn’t occur because of

COVID-19. But the people on the ground certainly knew freshet would

happen and certainly knew that there would be challenges.

[2:40 p.m.]

We put in a request to get a sandbagging machine, and again, one

of the challenges we received was that we couldn’t receive a sandbagging

machine until flooding actually occurred.

The challenge is that we knew we needed to prepare. We don’t have,

in some of our remote areas, the amount of people necessary. We

appreciate that when the weekend hit and the flooding did occur, as

people on the ground predicted, living in Nazko, that we were able to

get the B.C. wildfire crews out there.

The challenge in our remote areas is that it often takes many

hours for these crews to get out into these areas. The difference was

that…. The change now is that when flooding occurs in our communities —

and B.C. Wildfire Service is now the agency responsible for doing the

flood protection — no longer are private properties

protected.

You know, I look at Grand Forks, or I look at any place across

British Columbia that has experienced flooding. One would imagine that

when flooding occurs, the province and public safety would step up and

actually help community members resolve that. At that point, we were

advised that B.C. Wildfire Service…. The policy has shifted to where it

doesn’t protect private property. The private property owners were on

their own for flood protection.

We were certainly able to access, eventually, sandbagging machines

and sandbags, and we appreciate that. This was prior to the EOC being

set up through the Cariboo regional district, because, again, Nazko is

ground zero and usually occurs before some of these programs are put in

place. But it still leaves Nazko in a very precarious

situation.

The question is why…? Does the province protect private property

from flooding and wildfires? That’s the first. Well, I’ll leave it

there, and I’ll see what the minister says.

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: There’s been no change to policy in how we deploy B.C. Wildfire

Service personnel when it comes to floods and wildfires. We respond

based on recommendations from EMBC and from local governments in

specific situations. The river forecast centre was able to operate

smoothly this spring on modelling around the spring freshet, despite

COVID-19. We’ve added crews in the Cariboo this year.

As I said, the protection of private property through flooding and

wildfires…. Those priorities are set by EMBC. Our stance hasn’t changed.

In fact, on wildfires, the member might be aware that just last week we

had a tactical evacuation due to wildfire in the Interior, specifically

in order to protect lives and private property.

C. Oakes: I’m still trying to get a clear answer from this minister. When it

comes to flooding, does the B.C. Wildfire Service have the ability to go

and protect private homes? What I think I heard the minister say is that

it’s up to EMBC whether private homes are protected. If that is the

case, my question is….

When we heard that private homes were not going to be protected

this spring freshet, we did put in a request, because we have both Team

Rubicon in the Cariboo region and the Canadian Rangers. Both came to my

office to offer their assistance. They’re very well equipped. They are

well trained. They are here in our communities. They are here, ready and

willing to protect the citizens and to protect our property.

If the province isn’t willing to step up and provide the necessary

protection that the people in the Cariboo deserve…. If that decision

was, in fact, made, then, through EMBC not to protect private

properties, why did the government not sign off then on the ability to

have volunteer agencies within our community that were waiting for the

government to sign off — to say that they could actually go in and help

private properties with the flooding?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Once again, the priorities about deployment of the B.C. Wildfire

individuals, depending on floods and wildfires and around private

properties, is set through EMBC, so those questions are best addressed

to the Minister of Public Safety. Of course, EMBC and local governments

set those priorities, so if there’s private property that is needed to

be protected during a flood — I think that was the specific question

from the member — then the deployment of our personnel would be

dependent on EMBC and local government priorities.

As far as the signing off — I think that’s the way the member

described the involvement of rangers, and I’m not familiar with the

other organization, Rubicon — we haven’t heard of that request. If there

was that kind of request, that sign-off would be through EMBC, so

questions are best directed to that ministry on that

question.

C. Oakes: I’m deeply disappointed with the minister’s response and the fact

that there appears to be tiers of priority in the province of British

Columbia. I think it’s disgusting that government would suggest that

whether you are…. Everyone should have equal access to public safety in

the province of British Columbia. It shouldn’t be determined that one

person gets one access to certain priorities. “Oh, you might get some

protection for flooding; but you live somewhere else, and you

don’t.”

The fact that there are services and agencies on the ground in our

communities willing to step up and help and the only way that they can

do that is if this minister signs off on it is, I think, tragic. I think

every constituent…. You know, I would encourage the MLAs who are

watching this to ask yourselves: how would you feel if some of your

constituents might have access to public safety protection in your

communities and others won’t, depending on who’s prioritizing and who is

making those recommendations?

I did ask EMBC, and, yes, we get guided to you, Minister, because,

as I mentioned before, before states of emergency get put in place and

before emergency centres are put up through the regional district, we

rely on your ministry to put those things in action. Nazko was prior to

the local emergency office being put in place, through the regional

district.

It’s deeply disturbing, and quite frankly, it’s not good enough

that you point fingers and provide lip service for people who pay taxes

and who should have access to the exact same services as anywhere else

in the province.

I will go, because my time is limited. The other challenge that

we’ve had with over 200 areas that have been impacted this past year by

spring freshet…. Many of our main highways have experienced landslides

because we did not have proper preparation prior to the spring freshet.

So we had significant road damage.

[2:55 p.m.]

Now we’re in a situation where so many of our communities are

relying on poor service roads as their main roads in and out of their

communities. Most of our communities are ranching communities, and on

our core service roads, the cattle liners will not bring the cattle in.

So now we have whole communities that are impacted by the fact that we

can’t get cattle from ranch back to communities or we can’t get cattle

out to range and we can’t get food in to these communities. What we

get…. Well, it’s a forest service road. Then it gets turned over to the

Ministry of Transportation, but it still has forest service road

standards.

The two organizations…. We need some leadership, and we need some

of these organizations working in coordination to make sure that these

communities aiding the economy is able to continue. It’s a significant

impact on not just the agricultural sector. The mining sector, the

forest sector, all of these folks, and the people, quite frankly, who

live in these communities are now competing on forest service roads as

their main highway, all because the government didn’t put resources in

prior to spring freshet. Now we’re in the challenges that we

are.

What type of coordination is being done on the ground between,

obviously, the Ministry of Transportation, the Ministry of Forests,

Lands, Natural Resources and the Ministry of Agriculture to make sure

that the significant challenges that we’ve experienced in the Cariboo

from 2017 right through to now gets resolved? Quite frankly, it keeps

getting worse under this minister and under this government. Our

citizens are tired of, year after year, being second-rate citizens and

not getting the necessary resources put on the ground. Now their lives

are significantly altered.

What kind of cross-coordination is happening, instead of everyone

pointing the finger, like the minister did earlier, and saying that it’s

somebody else’s minister’s responsibility?

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you to the member. She asked a number of questions; I’ll

start with the coordination. Yes, we coordinate under the auspices of

emergency management B.C.

When we anticipate a freshet challenge, we coordinate with the

Ministry of Agriculture staff, Environment staff, Transportation staff,

local government, First Nations. We have a $3 million capital budget for

forest service road projects in the Cariboo in the coming fiscal. We’re

spending $784,000 on operations or maintenance on forest service roads

in the Cariboo. We prioritize and support connections to communities, as

part of protecting from road failures, with the Ministry of

Transportation and with forest service roads.

As far as the member’s statements about being disappointed in the

response — she used some terminology I’d call tiers of priority — I want

to remind her that the policy hasn’t changed with the deployment. It’s

the same as when she was a member of cabinet. If the member had a

problem, she could have raised it then. Obviously, she didn’t. The

policy remains the same, because it’s working.

C. Oakes: Just maybe in closing, there has been a change in the policy on

how it is working on the ground. I do strongly encourage him — I know

that the minister is from the north — and would just ask that he refresh

and talk to the folks on the ground on how things are working, that

there have been some changes. Ultimately, at the end of the day, I just

want public safety for all of our citizens. When we have other agencies

like Team Rubicon and the Canadian Rangers willing to step up and help,

I think we should be seeking them.

My final comment — it’s not a question, just maybe a comment: I

continue to have significant challenges and concerns about the approach

that the government has taken around the spruce beetle. I think we’re

going to be in significant challenges. I understand the speaking points

that the minister raised earlier, but I think it’s far more pressing. I

would ask the minister to double down and look at what’s really

happening on the ground, the same as with the Douglas fir.

Just on permitting, going from FrontCounter in our community, a

lot of the permitting has been moved to Williams Lake. To go from 60

days to 180 and up to 200-plus days under this government is

significantly challenging for our region and for our economic

development.

Finally, we’re getting calls from folks who are getting bills for

water licences in the agricultural sector. They get their bills for the

water licence year after year and don’t even have their permit yet. It’s

great that the government wants your money, but we’re just not getting

the permitting done.

With that, I’ll pass my time over to my next colleague.

T. Wat: Thank you to the minister for giving me this opportunity to ask a

question that the Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture refused to

answer. She referred me to the minister here.

[3:05 p.m.]

Two years ago on February 1, 2018, this minister, together with

the Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture, signed an OIC to include 21

Chinese-Canadian heritage sites in the Chinese Canadian Heritage

Properties Regulation. These 21 sites were chosen from a list of 77

places nominated by British Columbians in 2015.

I would like to ask the minister: will he tell the House why he

made the decision to include the 21 places in the Provincial Heritage

Register back in 2018?

Hon. D. Donaldson: The 21 heritage sites were selected after a public engagement

process with affected communities — in this case, going back to the

Chinese Historical Wrongs Consultation Final Report that

recommended legacy initiatives. The evaluation process followed a

values-based model, ensuring that the evaluators reviewed the nominated

places based on how they represent the overarching heritage values of

the Chinese-Canadian community in British Columbia. The evaluation was

guided by a contact statement that provided a

summary of history of the

role of Chinese Canadians in the development of British Columbia. That

was in answer to the question of why those 21 heritage sites were

chosen.

[3:10 p.m.]

To finish off on this answer, I want to make sure the member

understands that our staff is fully aware that the heritage registry

didn’t reflect the full scope of B.C.’s history, so the program has made

an effort to rectify that. This is one of the measures being

taken.

T. Wat: Thank you, Minister, for your very detailed explanation of why you

made that decision. I certainly applaud you for continuing the work of

the former government. It happened I was the Minister Responsible for

Multiculturalism. You already cited why you did so. It’s because formal

recognition of these historic places builds awareness of our shared

heritage.

As I said, I really applaud the minister for doing that. But

unfortunately, two years later, on February 2 of this year, after I was

so pleased that this minister continued the legacy initiative started by

the former government, the minister, who is responsible for the heritage

act, decided to repeal the Chinese Canadian Heritage Properties

Regulation, overturning his own initiative to include these 21 Chinese

heritage sites.

I’d really appreciate if the minister could enlighten this House

as to why he overturned his own initiative.

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Sorry. I apologize for the delay. We just wanted to make sure that

we had an accurate answer to the member’s question.

Specific to the question about the OIC, what we did is we repealed

the requirement to seek an OIC every time we sought to recognize the

cultural heritage of a cultural community. It was an administrative

change that removed the specific OIC for the Chinese-Canadian

recognitions and instated a new power that allows government to record

all provincially recognized historic places on the registry, including

Chinese-Canadian ones, without having to seek an OIC each

time.

What this did was make it easier to recognize the heritage value

of places and delegated that ability to staff rather than having to come

with an OIC every time.

T. Wat: Given the time limitation, actually, I’m not happy with the

minister’s response, because I have one final question. But I would like

to put it on record that I will send all my questions in written form to

the minister. Hopefully, the minister can respond to me as soon as

possible, because I’m supposed to ask this question. But given the

limitation of time, my colleagues also have a lot of questions that they

want to address to this minister.

If, according to what the minister said, this is only an

administrative kind of arrangement…. I did look at the website, and I

see the provincial historic places of British Columbia. I see that there

are 59 B.C. heritage sites there. I wonder how many Chinese heritage

sites are in this 59. Are the 51 that we recognized two years ago there

or not?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ll see if I can get an answer to that quickly, and if not, I

will respond in writing. I can commit to doing that, to the member. But

let’s see if we can get an answer quickly on it first.

J. Sturdy: I have three questions for the minister — quite different

ones.

The first one is around Mount Meager and the Meager massif. The

minister should be aware that in 2010, there was the largest rock

avalanche in Canadian history, dropping 50 million cubic metres of

material into the Lillooet River. This has resulted in tremendous

amounts of sediments making their way down the river. We have what

they’re calling a sediment slug that is making its way down into the

more populated areas of the valley.

[3:20 p.m.]

It’s depositing, the estimates are, something in the neighbourhood

of 400,000 cubic metres a year of material into areas that are protected

by dike-protective structures. The area 4 piece, which is a particular

concern, run from Miller Creek, down the Lillooet River and then to

Pemberton Creek and protects the bulk of the improvements in the

Pemberton Valley.

This was upgraded in 2003 to a one-in-200-year protective

structure. Well, because of the sedimentation in the river, the

aggradation, we are finding…. The estimates now, based on cross-sections

done recently, are that this one-in-200-year protective structure is now

a one-in-50-​year protective structure.

There are obviously significant concerns that this adds

tremendously to the flood risk in the Pemberton Valley. What I was

wondering…. Two things to the minister.

One would be: would the minister commit to a monitoring program

for the Meager Massif? We do understand that there is significant

potential for additional debris flows, which could exacerbate the

situation. So the monitoring is an important component.

The second part of this question is: would the minister commit to

supporting and funding a sediment removal program for certain sections

of the river to try and bring back that same one-in-200-year protective

structure?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes, I’m quite familiar — as much as a minister can be — with the

topic the member raises in his own constituency, because he has

oftentimes talked to me about it.

[3:25 p.m.]

I’m going to provide some answer and also further clarification.

When the member talks about the monitoring program and “commit to a

monitoring program,” I just want to make sure that he’s asking about the

monitoring program around further potential slides on Mount

Meager.

On sediment removal, EMBC has been leading that public engagement

process around that and leading that process. I know there have been

public meetings in the member’s constituency. Much of it has to deal

with the amount of sediment that is continually coming down and our

ability to manage natural elements and natural processes.

The understanding I have is that at public meetings, it’s been

presented, through EMBC or scientific data, that we don’t have the

ability to remove enough sediment to make a difference because the

sediment buildup is so frequent and so robust. EMBC, as I said, is

leading this, because it has to do with public safety around where

buildings are being located, and working with local government on

that.

As far as the monitoring, now that the member has indicated to me

through nodding that it is the monitoring program on the actual mountain

to determine the risk of potential slides coming, I’ll just get back to

him on that part of the question.

J. Sturdy: While I recognize EMBC has some part to play in this, some of this

is very much a maintenance program. Yes, there is a tremendous amount of

material that needs to come out of the river, but there are areas that

are acute and can make a difference in terms of overtopping existing

structures. So I think it’s important that we continue.

What I could take from what the minister said is that we are just

going to abandon any strategy to mitigate some of these challenges. That

would be alarming to the people of the Pemberton Valley. I think the

minister would well understand that. I’ll look forward to getting

additional information in the future — perhaps a briefing from

staff.

The second issue I’d like to raise is the one of Crown land lease

rates for residential properties. Specifically, in the Paradise Valley

and the Squamish Valley, we have received numerous complaints about the

exorbitant rent increases or lease rate increases for these properties

over the last number of years.

The government, as the minister well is aware, has limited private

property owners to CPI as a maximum increase to rents, essentially, but

it doesn’t hold itself to the same standard. What we’re seeing are

situations where leasehold properties are seeing — it’s very, very

significant in some cases — massive increases in lease rates. I wondered

if the minister would consider limiting any increases to CPI as they do

to other private property owners.

[S. Gibson in the chair.]

[3:30 p.m.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you, Chair, and welcome to the chair.

Going back, first off, to the previous question around sediment

control, I commit to discussing with staff the topic raised about acute

areas that could potentially receive attention. I’m not saying that the

situation is being “abandoned,” using the member’s word. I’ll commit to

that and ensuring that the member is involved in those discussions

around acute areas needing attention on the sediment load.

As far as Crown land lease rates, our staff are aware of the

situation the member has described. Of course, impacted tenure holders

have the ability — as all impacted tenure holders have — to appeal their

property assessment with the B.C. Assessment Authority to reduce the

size of the tenure area or dispute the rent by following the process

outlined in the Crown land disposition price resolution procedure, which

I think the member is focusing his question on.

Our lands branch is reviewing our pricing and looking at the

pricing methods and how we calculate rents for tenure holders on Crown

land used for residential purposes, to better reflect affordability.

That work will be done in the next six to 12 months.

It will also include the impacts I believe the member was alluding

to under the consumer price index, under the Residential Tenancy Act,

which is

an act not under our ministry. We believe it’s under the

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. That review will also bring

into account the changes under that act and how that could make a

difference on it to better reflect the pricing.

[3:35 p.m.]

J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister for that answer. An interesting twist to

this is that when the tenant appeals to the assessment board, the only

circumstance where the tenant is actually appealing the assessment

versus the owner or the landlord appealing the assessment…. Just

recently in one of these situations, the appeal was not successful. When

they went to appeal that application, it’s only the landlord or only the

owner that can appeal, and the FLNR has declined to appeal on behalf of

the tenant. It is a complex circumstance and difficult for the tenants.

I’m sure that they, as a philosophy, would like to see government hold

itself to the same standard that they hold other landlords

to.

The last item is one…. I apologize if we’ve covered some of this

last week. It’s with regard to First Nations licensees in the Sea to Sky

forest district. I’ve spoken to numerous licensees — the

Sḵwx̱wú7mesh forestry, Tsetspa7,

the Líl̓wat — and they’re all having

the same problem. They point out that the large licensees in the

province don’t invest a nickel in this region because this region is one

of the highest cost producers in the world.

They have numerous concerns about fibre recovery zones, about the

remote locations which do not get additional costs. Tsetspa7 actually

has a camp that costs them $5 a metre, give or take, and none of that is

considered in stumpage fees.

Then, of course, generally, the stumpage fees — the complaint here

I have is that the recent coast appraisal manual changes have

intensified the distortion of the system.

Again, I recognize we may well have covered much of this for the

coast, but one question or suggestion that I was asked to forward….

There is a tremendous amount of uncertainty, and there may be delays

around getting fibre to market. It may be a function of fires. It may be

a function of water, low water, to be able to remove, especially down

the Harrison side, or get the logs from the sort to market. There are

potential delays, and there’s a high level of uncertainty. So it may be

some time between when the budgets were created and the cutting permit

was submitted, between that time and the time that the product actually

gets to market.

The question, on behalf of these First Nations licensees, is: will

the government or will the minister consider aligning the stumpage fees

with the cutting permits? For as long as that cutting permit is in

place, can the stumpage rate be maintained at the level it was when the

cutting permit was issued?

We have situations where we might see a cutting permit issued, yet

the logs don’t get to market for six or eight months for a variety of

different reasons, after which point the stumpage rates could have

changed significantly and made the block uneconomic. They do recognize,

of course, that this can go both ways. But they would very much like to

have this one piece of uncertainty removed from the equation.

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, I’m happy to report that lumber prices are at a near-record

high right now. I think the spot price was $648 today. That, combined

with the lowering of stumpage rates July 1 — 18 percent on the coast

year to year and 35 percent in the Interior year to year — has

definitely made it more attractive for harvesting activities, because

the mills have a demand for their product. That’s making a difference

around the province.

As far as the specifics on the suggestion that the member relayed

on behalf of his constituents, I think he described it well when saying

it cuts both ways. Yes, there’s a three-month time between how stumpage

is calculated. In some cases, that benefits those who are harvesting,

and in other cases, it doesn’t benefit them. So for some, the stumpage

is too high. For some people, the stumpage we charge in the province

they see as being too low.

We’re not going to be changing the process at this time,

especially in light of the litigation that’s underway under the softwood

lumber dispute. The risk that changing in the manner that the member

presents would create in investigation by the U.S. Department of

Commerce could be very detrimental to the industry.

The Chair: Member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky, there is another member

who would like to ask some questions, but please proceed.

J. Sturdy: Thank you to the minister. I think they just would like to be able

to budget with certainty — and the variability of the

problem.

The Chair: You may return to other queries later.

M. Morris: In the last 18 months, nearly 600 people in Mackenzie have lost

their jobs due to mill closures and shutdowns that we have up there —

that, while nearly a million cubic metres of wood is leaving annually

for communities outside of Mackenzie. So it’s pretty frustrating for the

folks in the town to have a log yard right there, and all the logs are

leaving town.

In a letter I got back from the minister or from the minister’s

office about a month ago, it stated that the Minister of Forests, Lands,

Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development is well aware of the

situation in Mackenzie — and I’m glad to hear that — and is working to

find solutions to support the forest economy there.

I’m wondering if the minister can go over anything that he’s done

recently. This is a train that’s been coming down the tracks now for a

couple of years. I’m just wondering if he can relate to us and the

people in Mackenzie that are watching this as to what he has done and

what he is doing to help the folks in Mackenzie maintain the forest

sector there.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you to the member for Prince George–Mackenzie. Yes, we were

both at that Mackenzie Matters rally a year ago. We know the frustration

of workers who are losing their jobs and, at the same time, seeing logs

leaving their area. Of course, the accurate number is 750,000 cubic

metres over five years, leaving the area. Nonetheless, that’s a

difficult pill to swallow when you see a mill being shut and the logs

going elsewhere — in this case, benefiting jobs in other communities,

like Prince George.

The member well knows that this isn’t, as he described it, “a

train coming down the tracks in the last couple of years.” Tying fibre

to local mills was something that was in legislation before the B.C.

Liberals changed that legislation back in 2003, which has a direct

impact on the logs leaving Mackenzie to other mills in other

communities. That was a change made under the previous

government.

As far as what’s been done lately, there’s a long list, but I’ll

just focus on a couple of items that have assisted in the Conifex mill

restarting — 160 direct jobs there. That restart was July 6, I believe.

The ability to restart was due to great work done by ministry staff for

that area — for instance, a chart area reallocation process that enabled

more fibre to be accessible at an economic level for Conifex.

The continuing log-cost-driver initiative that’s been ongoing for

the last number of months will be making an impact as well, but our

staff are working. That’s an example of something that’s happened

recently that’s made a difference for Mackenzie and a difference for 160

people directly going back to work.

M. Morris: I’m happy to see the minister acknowledge that he’s had a lengthy

amount of time since he’s been minister to do something about this, as

this is a train that has been coming down the tracks for several years,

according to him, and we haven’t seen much take place here. I also

dispute the numbers: 750,000 or whatever that was, over five

years.

Anyway, apart from that, there has been a significant amount of

overharvesting in the southern reaches of the TSA, to the point that

it’s had a significant impact on the green standing timber. A lot of the

licensees have refused to adhere to the partitions and take the dead

spruce, of which we have well over a million hectares up in that area

because of the spruce beetle.

What agreement has he made with Conifex? Is that impacting on the

southern part of the TSA, and in an area that has already been

significantly overharvested on the green side of the harvest

level?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ll get to the member’s question, but his comment needs

responding to. I would say that the displeasure of his constituents at

seeing logs leave their community falls directly at the feet of the

member when he was in government and the government of the B.C. Liberals

chose to not attach volume into local mills. That’s very unfortunate.

People in Mackenzie are suffering because of that decision by his

government when they were in power.

As far as the management of harvesting in the southern part of the

TSA, I know that’s of high concern to the people of Mackenzie. They want

to make sure that harvesting is balanced across all the TSA. We are

managing that with BCTS blocks and Canfor blocks over a five-year

period. Conifex, in their blocks in the southwest part of the TSA, will

not exceed the partition over a five-year cut period, which is the

routine cutting period around the province.

These are not specific deals. This is under the chart reallocation

process.

The Chair: Do you have any further questions, Member?

M. Morris: No, thank you, Chair. I’ll keep my comments to myself and turn it

over to the next speaker.

[3:55 p.m.]

I. Paton: To the minister: thank you for your time. I’ll try and make this

quick. One subject is land use in the very north part of B.C. The other

is land use in the very southern part of B.C.

My first topic would be an area a little bit north and west of

Dawson Creek called the Sunset Prairie Community Pasture. Hopefully, the

minister is familiar with this area. It is supervised and run by the

Sunset Prairie Livestock Association.

In 1959, over 30,000 acres of grazing land up in this area were

designated as grazing land for the farmers and ranchers in that area.

Since then, as you can see on satellite imagery, there are hundreds and

hundreds of cutblocks and dugouts and well sites and gravel roads and

whatnot that have gone into this same area of grazing for

cattle.

Every year over 4,000 head of cattle get taken from their home

farms to this community pasture. Everybody cooperates and comes and

gathers up their cattle in the fall of the year. It’s a great place for

cattle to put on weight during the summer, and the farmers are able to

grow their crops on a better use of land on their home farms. Two young

people from Dawson Creek Secondary School have done a fantastic synopsis

on the future of this.

To get to the point, Minister, the petroleum and forestry

industries were told back in 1959 — and there’s an agreement — that they

would compensate the livestock association and the community pastures

for the loss of grazing lands by the cattle industry from the forestry

industry and the well and petroleum industry. This is not

happening.

What I’m asking you today…. Is the minister familiar with the

historic agreements with the lease from the forestry district and with

the FLNRORD guidelines for compensation and mitigation? Will the

minister commit his staff to meeting with the Sunset Prairie Livestock

Association to ensure a commitment and funding by forestry and petroleum

to regenerate grass for grazing and for the replacement of aging fences,

roads and corrals? Thank you.

Hopefully, I could get an answer that I could relay back to the

people at the Sunset Prairie Livestock Association.

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: To the member for Delta South, always good to hear from him about

agriculture issues, an important part of the ministry I represent. I

always enjoy hearing what he’s hearing on the ground.

What I can say is we are committing that the northern ADM will

meet with the Sunset Prairie Livestock Association — I believe that’s

the full name that the member used — soon — in fact, I believe it’s

going to be in early September — to discuss these issues.

I know it can be a complex issue around the compensation piece

when cattlemen in the northeast have arrived at individual agreements

with other users of the land base around compensation. Over time, this

has happened. As part of the work, I’ll try to bring some consistency to

that. I definitely want the member to know that he can relay to the

association that the assistant deputy minister for the north, the most

senior manager for the lands file in the north, will be meeting with

them soon.

I. Paton: I’ll move on now because we are short on time. Of course, I bring

this up every year. It’s regarding Brunswick Point lands in Delta. To

remind the minister, Brunswick Point was part of 4,000 acres of

expropriated farmland in Delta back in the late 1960s. Now, most of that

land was sold back to the original farming families from whom that land

was expropriated, totalling just over 3,000 acres. It went back to the

original farm families.

However, Brunswick Point, which is an incredibly fertile piece of

farmland, which not only has the original five farming families still

living there, but it is owned by the Crown. It was never sold back to

those five farming families. It is also a very, very important migrating

route for snow geese, ducks and swans, etc., and it’s a great resting

area for them heading south in the wintertime.

Minister, I would like to read quickly just how important this is

in Delta, not only to the city of Delta but to the Delta Farmers

Institute, the Delta Farmland and Wildlife Trust, the Delta Agricultural

Society. Here’s a quote from Mayor Harvie with the city of Delta. By the

way that was a private member’s bill that I put forward last fall

regarding saving Brunswick Point.

The quote is: “The intent of Bill 221 is to require that the

Brunswick Point properties are kept as Crown land and leased to either

the original farm families or other local farmers for a minimum lease

term of 20 years. Despite the current restrictions on the land use,

Delta is concerned that the Brunswick Point lands could be sold to

speculators with no interest in farming and plans for future

non-agricultural development.”

Hon. Minister, I go on to one more quote from the Delta Farmers

Institute, from the president, Jack Bates:

“We have been fortunate for over a century that the 600 acres of

Brunswick Point with its fertile soil and proximity to the ocean has

produced high-quality vegetable crops while providing habitat and feed

for millions of migratory birds. The community needs to know that this

farmland will remain as a public heritage asset in its natural

environment and feed our population. It is an integral component of

Delta’s 22,000 acres of agricultural land.”

Hon. Minister, we’ve been kicking this around for too many years

now. The Tsawwassen First Nation, right next door, had their treaty.

Good for them. They’ve gone ahead. They’re doing some great economic

things. But the borderline has to be drawn so that we don’t have any

more Amazon warehouses creeping on to our farmland, which has happened.

But we don’t want it to happen any further.

To the minister: will you commit today to agree with my statements

that this land rightfully should be sold back to the original farm

families who still are on the land or, at very least, this land should

remain as agriculture only and be held in perpetuity by the province for

agriculture and wildlife habitat and be leased back to Delta farmers

with long-term leases?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you to the member for raising this topic. Once again, I’ve

become familiar with it not simply through staff briefings within the

ministry I represent but through his advocacy efforts as well. So I

congratulate him on keeping it on the front burner.

What I can commit to…. I mean, this is farmland that’s in the ALR,

which is under the purview of the Ministry of Agriculture, and perhaps

the member canvassed this topic with ministers in his critic role. But

what I can say is that our government has no intention of removing this

land from the ALR, and that includes my ministry. It’s not necessarily

the lead agency on that, but we have no intentions of advocating for the

removal of this from the ALR and want to see it stay in the

ALR.

As far as strategy for the future of the land in the ALR, we are

in discussions, and staff have reached out — and the member probably

knows this — to the city of Delta and Tsawwassen First Nation to assess

their interests, once again, and review with the families, as well,

potential solutions. We’re doing that as well.

I guess the certainty that the member is looking for is part of

the answer I gave — that this land, as far as my ministry is concerned

and the government is concerned, needs to remain in the ALR.

I. Paton: One more quick question on the same subject.

[4:10 p.m.]

My office received a letter about Brunswick Point from Mr. Coburn

back on July 31, and actually, shockingly, we found out, with a map that

came along with it, that the province recently sold, back in November of

2019, 195 acres of farmland in and around Brunswick Point to TFN,

Tsawwassen First Nation. I do have a map of this here, showing the

parcels that were sold to Tsawwassen First Nation.

It was also said in the letter that it was sold at fair market

value. The question I’m getting from a lot of our farm groups is: can we

be told what the fair market value was of that land in November 2019?

The 195 acres that were sold to TFN — what was the fair market value of

that agricultural land?

Hon. D. Donaldson: The question was: the parcels of land that were sold — what was

the fair market value? The lands were sold for $18.5 million. These

lands were in the ALR and will remain in the ALR.

The Chair: Member for Delta South, do you have a further question at this

time?

I. Paton: No. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: I now recognize the member for Penticton.

D. Ashton: Thank you, hon. Chair. Appreciate it.

Minister, nice to see you again. In the essence of time, I have

three questions and one comment. Just to put them on the record. I would

ask for responses as soon as possible from the ministry

staff.

Minister, the city of Penticton, for two years, has been in the

precursor of negotiating the extension of a lease to facilitate some

additional area for a CN tug for the marine museum park at Penticton,

which contains the SS Sicamous and another vessel.

I have two years’ worth of correspondence back and forth. I’ll

have it delivered to your office directly, today or tomorrow. Can we get

an update, please? I know that time is of the essence on this lease. Two

years seems to be a bit of an issue for the city, for the time that it’s

taken to get to fruition on this.

The second one is also a status for the renewals of the leases for

both the Naramata and the Peachland yacht club basins. Dredging — I

know, in Naramata, that they have to get the leases in place before they

can facilitate the dredging, which is long overdue. Also, Minister, this

has been going on for an extended period of time. If ministry staff

could get back to me and also the Naramata and Peachland yacht clubs on

the status and when fruition might come forward.

The third and last one is facilitating access across the Crown

land, not through private property, as what’s taking place right now, at

Chute Lake. We had talked about this before. I know that there’s a

concerted effort. They would like to get this solved. As we all know,

there are issues regarding egress and issues regarding liability. We had

talked before about the possibility of replacing some culverts. However,

apparently, that is not going to be able to be facilitated with the

forest company that has tenure up there.

[4:15 p.m.]

Minister, if we could have another look at that. Like I said, I

know there’s a whole bunch of people that would like to work with the

ministry with the possibility of getting this resolved.

Last but not least, Minister, I would like to thank you,

personally, and your staff. I had a conference call about a week ago

regarding the continual full- and over-pooling of Okanagan Lake. I just

want to say thank you to the ministry staff for coming forward.

Minister, we all have to work a little bit harder and a little bit

smarter on this. In three of the last four years, Okanagan Lake has

exceeded its full pool, and it is causing continual damage, erosion,

settlement of homes, etc.

Once again, thank you, and if you can just plant the seed with

ministry staff on that. I know that there’s an awful lot of people….

It’s not just lakeshore owners. With the water table affected, it

affects homes far back from the lakefront.

Minister, if I could leave those with you — again, in the essence

of time — and get a response, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you

very much, sir.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Just quickly to the member for Penticton, thank you for raising

the issues that you did. I’ll direct staff to get back to you in an

expeditious manner about the city lease; the renewal of the yacht club

tenures, I believe it was; and continuing work on Chute Lake, which the

member has done a good job of keeping in front of myself and the

ministry. So thanks.

M. Bernier: Thank you to the minister. I’m going to try to make my questions a

little bit more succinct without too much monologue from myself, and

hopefully, we can get the same from the minister.

I’m going to switch and try not be too repetitive from previous

questions, but I still want to talk about what’s relevant in my riding

around the caribou recovery plan.

Can the minister let me know, within his budget, now that a

partnership agreement is signed…. How much does he have in his budget to

help fund the caribou recovery plan? What are the objectives and

increase in numbers over the timeline for caribou as projected within

that plan for those dollar amounts, please?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ll try to be quick with the answers. Digging down through

numbers takes a little bit of time sometimes.

The annual caribou recovery program this year provincially is $10

million. We covered that — you’re right, Member — in previous questions.

Specifically, though, the central group for activities like herd

planning, population management, maternity penning as well as the

partnership agreement…. It’s $1.2 million for this fiscal.

The second part of the question from the member was the population

and what the goal is. Specifically, in the partnership agreement,

there’s not a number. It’s to achieve self-sustaining herds that support

Indigenous harvesting rights as well.

The overall population in the central group right now is estimated

at about a little less than 300. The historic levels were in the range

of 2,000 animals. It would take a long time to get to those numbers. Of

course, the herd could become self-sustaining and also be able to

provide Indigenous harvesting rights opportunities before that historic

number is reached.

M. Bernier: I think the whole point, though, I guess would be…. We’re

investing a lot of money trying to protect the caribou — a lot of

taxpayers’ money. Even from the minister’s own admission just now, it

sounds like there are not a lot of benchmarks or deliverables on what

we’re going to accomplish with those dollars.

Can the minister tell me, then, hopefully quickly…. If he’s

covered some of this, he should have it accessible quickly. What are we

spending, then, in the South Peace or the Peace region in order to help

to protect those caribou? What are we spending on wolf cull right

now?

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: He used the term: “We’re spending a lot of money to protect

caribou.” I want to make sure to remind him that the money is well spent

if it’s considered against the threat we are facing by the federal

government under the Species at Risk Act that would to have led to a

unilateral decision by the federal government based on habitat

protection alone that could have had devastating effects on local

economies and those kinds of factors.

So the money specifically that he asked about: the wolf cull is

$500,000 out of that $1.2 million. Provincewide we spend approximately

$2 million on wolf predator management.

We had a situation where the herds that are considered under the

partnership agreement were facing extirpation — in other words, local

extinction — and through our measures, we’ve managed to go from annual

declines of 15 percent to an increase of 15 percent per year on the

populations from the measures that we’ve taken. So money well spent in

the larger context of what could have been a very disastrous

situation.

M. Bernier: Interestingly, I’m not going to argue too much about whether the

money is well spent or not. The comments about spending the money are

fine, if we can show deliverables for the taxpayers and for, more

importantly, the recovery of a species at risk. That’s the main

thing.

I’m running out of time, because I know I’ve got more colleagues

that want to speak. So I am going to submit a few to the minister in

writing. I hope he appreciates. But one last one that I just want to

make sure that I get on the record. It’s actually not around the

caribou, but it’s around another species, and that’s elk.

We have the reverse problem in my region, and that is the elk were

almost becoming like an invasive species in the sense that the amount of

damage that takes place in the agricultural zones due to our elk is

incredible and, also, the issues we have ever since this government has

changed the direction around other predators, such as the grizzly bears,

the problems we have with them as well — coming closer into communities,

now going after cattle and some of the problems there. So it’s a

multispecies issue.

My last question I’ll just ask to the minister, and then more, I

guess, back to the issues around agriculture.

[4:30 p.m.]

What studies are done within the ministry to ensure that we’re

taking care of and listening to those issues that the farmers put

forward? Can we look at more — in region 7, for instance — LEH or more

opportunities for opening up hunting? At the end of the day, we’re

losing a lot of money, and there are huge risks to farmers because of

this. So if he could give me a quick answer on that, then I’ll pass it

along.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’m going to get to the answer to this question. We just have a

bit of a power issue here, so I’m going to ask for a quick recess after

this question to deal with that.

But yes, the specific was around studies to take care of the

issues that farmers put forward. One example that was given was the elk.

I’m familiar with this from the eastern part of my constituency, as well

as the member for Nechako Lakes. There is an LEH, a limited-entry hunt,

for elk — and the member probably knows that — in Peace River

South.

We engage and collaborate with private landowners, including

ranchers, on that hunt. Its purpose is to reduce the impact on feed

especially. I know that elk can make a mess of farmers’ stored feed, as

well as the feed that’s coming up out of the ground. So we monitor that

to make sure that the LEH is doing the job that it needs to do, and if

it needs to be increased, then, as long as those levels are sustainable,

we’ll do that.

Chair, if I could suggest a quick break in order to deal with the

power issue we have here. Maybe five minutes.

The Chair: No problem. Yes, the House will be in recess for ten

minutes.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Okay. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 4:34 p.m. to 4:42 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

D. Davies: Thank you, Minister, for the opportunity to ask some questions. I

appreciate it. I know that we’re stretched for time. Half the hook is

already around my neck, ready to pull me off here. So I’ll be as quick

as I can.

I appreciate you know quite a bit about the industry, and I’ve

talked to you about it numerous times before in Fort Nelson, with the

issues up there. I appreciate we’re close. The community forest is, I

think, in the final stages of being wrapped up — a great partnership

between Northern Rockies as well as the Fort Nelson First Nation. That

is, of course, being developed, technically, to help to create a local

forest industry again back in the community of Fort Nelson, which is

much needed.

Recently some of your senior staff had a meeting with Northern

Rockies and some of the partnerships up there about looking at how they

can best improve the forest industry. Of course, we know that Fort

Nelson is removed from market. It’s a long ways up there, and looking at

rates out of Fort St. John is not a feasible way to look at how to price

things.

One of the concerns from this meeting was that they’re going to be

testing the market to see what it can hold. I mean, I don’t think we

need to really test the market. It’s been 12 years since there’s been

anything happening up there. We know the issues. We know that the issue

is the distance to market.

[4:45 p.m.]

The easiest thing would be to just create a correction by having

that distance worked in already and adjusting the stumpage rate

accordingly. But it sounds like they’re going to be taking a little

piece of the community forest and putting it up — basically, treating it

like a B.C. Timber Sales program — to the highest bidder, which, of

course, can come from anywhere and could artificially fix that

price.

Basically, my question — and I have many; I might have to put

these into a formal piece of correspondence, which I’ll send you later —

is: why does FLNRORD seem that they want to interfere and undermine the

local objectives that were initially the reason why the community forest

was created?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yeah, thank you for the question. We’ve discussed the situation in

Fort Nelson and how it’s so important for them to be able to diversify

their economy by reinvigorating the forest sector there. Yes, the

member’s information is correct that one of our senior managers, the

assistant deputy minister for the north, met recently with the Northern

Rockies and the Fort Nelson First Nation and other parties up in that

area, or perhaps it was by Skype or whatever we’re using these

days.

Yes, we need to get some data points in order to make an accurate

stumpage rate for the area. There hasn’t been anything to put the

factors that the member is talking about into place. There’s been no

data collection in the last ten years, because not a lot has been

happening in that area in last ten years.

We have been in discussions with the community forest to see if

they’re interested in providing some of their volume for a licence. We

wouldn’t do it unless the community forest was on board, and it might be

helpful to them because they have a fire management plan where they want

to do some harvesting of fibre for wildfire risk purposes. That’s where

it comes to the term that the member used of testing the

market.

[4:50 p.m.]

We agree that there likely needs to be a more appropriate stumpage

rate reflected in the distance from market and that it’s likely not the

same stumpage rate that he referred to that is being charged in more

southerly portions of his constituency. We’re working on that, but this

is a step to get there. I know that the member says that we need to…. We

know that there’s some need for this to be adjusted, but the only way we

can do that is to first put this licence on the market and then go from

there.

D. Davies: Again, I do thank you. I know that at least the conversation’s

happening, which I think is important. But I certainly implore the

ministry to make sure that the local piece is extremely important — the

local processing as well, wherever possible — and to make sure that this

market test…. Like I say, truly, it’s a base rate correction that really

needs to be looked at. We don’t want to have a false market created —

you know, you get a big company that does a bid just to play with the

prices. I implore you to look into that, and I look forward to further

conversation on that as well.

My last question — making kind of a statement, then hopefully,

I’ll just get a written response from you, which is just fine. I know

there has been a little discussion around water licensing as well. We

have a number of businesses, and they’re actually essential services

located on the Alaska Highway — these small little stops from

Buckinghorse, Pink Mountain, Sikanni, and the list goes on. These small,

little, tiny places are essential stop points, often the only place

where someone can go to call 911 on the Alaska Highway, if they need —

washroom points as well as fuel points. Water licensing…. They are, of

course, being used for non-commercial uses.

These businesses are barely keeping afloat. To have more of these

costs put down onto them and this incredible burden that they’re

facing…. I’m hoping that the ministry’s able to look at some of these

unique situations. I know there are probably others around the province

where these small gas stations and little places fill an essential

service. But hopefully, the ministry is able to look at some special

consideration around licensing for these places.

I’ll leave it with that, Minister, and thank you for your time and

turn it over to my other colleagues.

J. Rustad: I have one quick question. Then I’m going to turn it over to my

colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin for some rural development

questions.

During the blockade on the Morice River Road, there were a number

of spots set up. One in particular, set up by the Gitdumden, was a spot,

of course, that was taken down to allow for access through to the

pipeline construction site for Coastal GasLink.

The site has never been cleaned up. It’s a mess. There are a lot

of things that are being left behind. Apparently, there was a letter

that was sent to the ministry asking for the ministry to take some

action and clean it up. I believe there was a response sent back that

said that no action would be taken.

The question is: can the minister confirm that there will be no

action taken to clean up that site? If that is the case, could the

minister explain why that would not be cleaned up by the

ministry?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: It’s nice to see my critic back on the screen and asking

questions. I appreciate that it’s a constituency topic for him as

well.

Staff are unaware of either receiving the letter — as the member

said, the letter to the ministry to clean it up — or of sending a letter

out on this topic. But if the member has access to a letter, I

definitely would appreciate it being forwarded on.

Having said that, if there’s debris left on the site that needs to

be cleaned up, we’re willing to work with the Hereditary Chiefs and the

clan to ensure that it gets cleaned up.

The Chair: Any further questions from other members?

J. Rustad: I turn it over to the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin.

D. Barnett: Good afternoon, Minister. My questions, basically…. You may not

think it, but they’re all going to revolve around the importance of

rural development. The first question that I have is: what is the

minister’s rural development plan in this budget?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: To the member, I apologize for the delay. It’s just that it’s a

lot of work ready to be undertaken, as far as rural development goes,

not just in this ministry, but overall in government.

One of the main parts that our ministry plays is ensuring that

communities that are dependent on forestry are able to still have that

vital part of their economy functioning. Our emphasis on value over

volume is an example of rural development in this budget. We’ve

allocated $10 million towards the new forest economy that will allow

more communities and more tenure holders, especially First Nations, to

pursue that value-over-volume prospect and opportunities.

We know that in the Interior, there is an overcapacity — with the

beetle wood coming down, and the annual allowable cuts coming down

because of that. In order to support forestry jobs, we need to get more

value out of the wood that we bring out of the forest.

As far as contractors who work in the forests and are experiencing

— well, up until recently — potentially a lack of work…. But with the

high lumber prices, many of them are going back to their regular

harvesting activities. Under the forest employment program this year….

That’s under our Interior forest worker support program. But the actual

envelope that this ministry is in charge of is the forest employment

program of $9 million targeted to activities in the bush that will put

contractors back to work bringing fibre out and reducing wildfire

risk.

[5:05 p.m.]

The important part of rural development is keeping communities

safe and also the added benefit of increasing fibre supply. So we have

the Forest Enhancement Society of B.C. spending around communities in

the forests. That’s part of a rural development aspect, and that’s in

the neighbourhood of $40 million this year in that program to be spent.

We have the community resilience initiative fund program for within

municipal boundaries in reducing wildfire risk.

We were able to secure community grants at the end of the year,

$14 million, and allocate that towards trail and recreation site

projects as well as other projects that’ll make a difference in

communities. That’s allocated for this year. That’s going to be spent in

communities.

That is just part of it. I mean, the overall picture is that we

want communities to be livable. We want to keep people in rural

communities so that there is the ability to stimulate the economy.

That’s something that is the basis of our thoughts — that people are the

basis of the economy.

We need people making decisions to sustain rural communities.

That’s why infrastructure projects, the $20 billion over the next three

years, not specifically in my ministry but across government — building

schools, building hospitals, building housing: it all helps to make

rural development happen and connectivity as well.

D. Barnett: Thank you, Minister, but that’s not quite the answer I was looking

for. I was the one with our government that put together a rural

development strategy. It was a strategy that was inclusive of all

ministries, everybody cooperating and working together, and of course,

that strategy was a great strategy. It was put together by local people

throughout the province of British Columbia who volunteered their time

to put this together. The funding was accessible to everyone, not just

local governments. It was accessible to anyone who had a great

initiative, and the decisions were all based on the economy.

So, Minister, I would appreciate in writing from you, if I may,

exactly where your ministry is going with rural development. Who’s

involved with it, and who is going to be inclusive? I would appreciate

that in writing, because we don’t have time to discuss it further

today.

I would also like to know: all this money you’ve talked about….

That’s normal money — infrastructure, etc., etc. Who qualifies, and what

is the application process for this funding?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, it really depends on the envelope of funding that we’ve made

available under the rural development topic area. I will commit to

respond in writing to the first part of the member’s

question.

As far as examples of who could qualify for the funding that I

mentioned…. For instance, in the forest employment program under the

Interior forest worker support program, those are contracts that are put

out in consultation with district managers, in consultation with the

Interior Logging Association. If it’s over a certain dollar value, it’s

put on B.C. Bid in targeted areas of the province where we know that

forestry contractors need employment. So they regularly monitor B.C.

Bid. If it’s under a certain value, we have a prequalified list of

contractors as well.

The member asked about infrastructure grants. Of course, that

would be under other ministries in a cross-government approach. But it’s

not just local governments; First Nations and non-profit associations

can apply for some of those infrastructure dollars that I described

already.

In the rural community development grants that I mentioned, the

$14 million went to local governments, to Indigenous communities and

organizations, to non-profit organizations. That was open to a whole

gamut of different groups, not just local government.

D. Barnett: Minister, I would appreciate all that in writing too. Thank

you.

My next question. They all pertain to rural development; this is

all about rural British Columbia. With the funding that is going to be

announced here pretty quickly, the $1.5 billion for COVID, will there be

any low-interest loans for young entrepreneurs who have great ideas and

need just a little helping hand to get into the value-added business in

some of these rural communities?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes, $1.5 billion is the economic recovery fund associated with

COVID. There has been extensive public engagement where ideas, in the

form of the one that the member mentioned, were canvassed — not just

public engagement but engagement with specific sectors and the ministry

advancing various proposals as a result of all the ministers talking to

their groups that they deal with regularly.

The actual details of the $1.5 billion I’m unable to discuss at

this point, because it’s still in cabinet consideration, but it will be

released very soon. If the member, in the meantime, has some specific

cases where young entrepreneurs, as she described, are looking for

low-interest loans in order to enter or expand markets, she should be

aware that the federal government has a loan program for the kind of

people she’s describing — young entrepreneurs. That’s managed through

the Community Futures offices, of which there are many in rural

communities around B.C.

D. Barnett: Yes, Minister, we are very aware of those programs and the

complicated paperwork. I was kind of hoping — if we really do want to

kick-start this economy for those of us that are in the forest

communities — that because of pine beetle and fires, maybe there would

be some kind of a low-interest loan come out in the $1.5 billion. But

we’ll wait and see.

The next questions all pertain to rural development. A question I

have — I’m asking it for my riding and many rural ridings in British

Columbia, and also for my colleague from Prince George–Valemount — is on

resource roads. They are very important to rural British Columbia for

their economic well-being. Much of our tourism product is created by

these rural roads. Many of the rural roads in many, many ridings and

regions are being decommissioned with no public consultation.

Minister, could we get a commitment from you that the regions will

have public, open consultation before any of these roads are

decommissioned?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes. Coming from a rural area myself, I totally understand her

point of view that resource roads are important for many reasons

recreationally for people, but also for tourism product as

well.

I’ll get to her specific question, but I wanted to make sure that

we’re both on the understanding — and I’m sure we are — that there is a

very wide range of resource road statuses in the province and,

therefore, many reasons that might be applied for decommissioning,

whether it’s for wildlife reasons, for area closures or to do with

access permits. I can’t say that every resource road is the same in the

province, but I do get her point that they are of high value to local

users as well as those who depend on them for economic reasons around

tourism, for instance.

Specific to her question, we do engage with the public and with

First Nations stakeholders before decommissioning any forest service

road.

D. Barnett: Thank you to the minister for that.

Well, Minister, there are a lot of areas where the resource roads

have been closed with no public consultation. My question, again to the

minister: could the minister commit to having some public consultation?

I know, in areas, there is major decommissioning work going on with no

public consultation, and once it happens, then, of course, it creates a

lot of issues for tourism, for local residents. So would the minister

commit to having more public engagement and consultation before

decommissioning of these forestry access roads?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I appreciate the question. Yes, I can reaffirm and commit to

having public consultation on the decommissioning of any forest service

road on Crown land.

There are situations where there is a permitted road builder. That

is a different kind of situation. That’s sort of what I was getting at

in my previous answer around the wide variety of resource roads. A

permitted road built by a licensee is a different circumstance. But a

forest service road on Crown land…. I commit and reaffirm that we will,

and we do, engage in public consultation.

If there are specific situations, as the member said, that she has

heard or experienced or gotten word about