British Columbia Committee Hansard (Blues) — 16 July 2020, p.m., Issue 10 (41st Parliament, 5th Session) (20200716pm CommitteeC n10)

20200716pm CommitteeC n10

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fifth Session, 41st Parliament REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (HANSARD) COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY ,

SECTION C Virtual Meeting Thursday, July 16, 2020 Afternoon Meeting Issue No. 10 Presiding Officers: RAJ CHOUHAN, DEPUTY SPEAKER SPENCER CHANDRA HERBERT, DEPUTY CHAIR, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ISSN 2563-352X

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Janet Austin, OBC Fifth Session, 41st Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Darryl Plecas EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................... Hon. John Horgan Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance............................................................................................................................Hon.

Carole James Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Training..................................................................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Minister of Agriculture.........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Attorney General.................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

David Eby, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ............................................................................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Minister of State for Child Care...................................................................................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Minister of Citizens’ Services...................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Anne Kang Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................ Hon. Rob Fleming Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources ..................................................................................................... Hon. Bruce Ralston Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy............................................................................................. Hon.

George Heyman Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development ..............................................Hon. Doug Donaldson Minister of Health .....................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Adrian Dix Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon.

Scott Fraser Minister of Jobs, Economic Development and Competitiveness.............................................................................Hon. Michelle Mungall Minister of State for Trade...............................................................................................................................................Hon. George Chow Minister of Labour ...................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Minister of Mental Health and Addictions............................................................................................................................ Hon. Judy Darcy Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.................................................................................................................. Hon. Selina Robinson Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ........................................................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction..............................................................................................Hon. Shane Simpson Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture.....................................................................................................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure................................................................................................................ Hon.

Claire Trevena LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition................................................................................................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Leader of the Third Party .................................................................................................................................................................Adam Olsen Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Assistant Deputy Speaker............................................................................................................................................................. Simon Gibson Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ................................................................................................................ Spencer Chandra Herbert Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ...........................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel.............................................................................................................................. Seunghee Suzie Seo Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services...........................................................................................................................

Artour Sogomonian Clerk Assistant, Committees and Interparliamentary Relations ..............................................................................................Susan Sourial Senior Research Analyst ................................................................................................................................................................. Jennifer Arril Senior Research Analyst ...................................................................................................................................................................

Karan Riarh Acting Sergeant-at-Arms..................................................................................................................................................................Greg Nelson

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal) ......................................................................... Penticton Bains, Hon. Harry (NDP)................................................................ Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) .....................................................Cariboo-Chilcotin Beare, Hon. Lisa (NDP)..............................................

Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Begg, Garry (NDP) .......................................................................Surrey-Guildford Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal) .........................................................Peace River South Bond, Shirley (BC Liberal)...........................................Prince George–Valemount Brar, Jagrup (NDP).......................................................................Surrey-Fleetwood Cadieux, Stephanie (BC Liberal)........................................................

Surrey South Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) .......................................Vancouver–West End Chen, Hon. Katrina (NDP)...................................................... Burnaby-Lougheed Chouhan, Raj (NDP) .................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Chow, Hon. George (NDP).................................................Vancouver-Fraserview Clovechok, Doug (BC Liberal) ..................................Columbia River–Revelstoke Coleman, Rich (BC Liberal) ................................................................ Langley East Conroy, Hon.

Katrine (NDP)...........................................................Kootenay West Darcy, Hon. Judy (NDP) ............................................................. New Westminster Davies, Dan (BC Liberal) ........................................................... Peace River North de Jong, Michael, QC (BC Liberal) ..............................................Abbotsford West Dean, Mitzi (NDP)................................................................ Esquimalt-Metchosin D’Eith, Bob (NDP) ................................................................Maple Ridge–Mission Dix, Hon.

Adrian (NDP)....................................................... Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Hon. Doug (NDP)...................................................................... Stikine Eby, Hon. David, QC (NDP).............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP).........................................................Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Hon. Mike (NDP) ........................................................Port Coquitlam Fleming, Hon. Rob (NDP) ......................................................

Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal).............................................................Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Hon. Scott (NDP) ..................................................Mid Island–Pacific Rim Furstenau, Sonia (BC Green Party) .............................................Cowichan Valley Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ...................................................Abbotsford-Mission Glumac, Rick (NDP).........................................................Port Moody–Coquitlam Heyman, Hon. George (NDP) ................................................Vancouver-Fairview Horgan, Hon.

John (NDP) ................................................ Langford–Juan de Fuca Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) ........................................................ Surrey-Cloverdale Isaacs, Joan (BC Liberal) .......................................... Coquitlam–Burke Mountain James, Hon. Carole (NDP).................................................... Victoria–Beacon Hill Johal, Jas (BC Liberal).................................................Richmond-Queensborough Kahlon, Ravi (NDP)............................................................................... Delta North Kang, Hon.

Anne (NDP)......................................................... Burnaby–Deer Lake Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal)..............................................................................Shuswap Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .............................................. Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Michael (BC Liberal) ........................................................Vancouver-Langara Leonard, Ronna-Rae (NDP) ..................................................... Courtenay-Comox Letnick, Norm (BC Liberal).............................................

Kelowna–Lake Country Ma, Bowinn (NDP) .....................................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Malcolmson, Sheila (NDP) ........................................................................Nanaimo Mark, Hon. Melanie (NDP) .......................................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Martin, John (BC Liberal)....................................................................... Chilliwack Milobar, Peter (BC Liberal)..................................... Kamloops–North Thompson Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ........................................... Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Hon.

Michelle (NDP)......................................................Nelson-Creston Oakes, Coralee (BC Liberal) ............................................................ Cariboo North Olsen, Adam (BC Green Party)............................ Saanich North and the Islands Paton, Ian (BC Liberal).......................................................................... Delta South Plecas, Hon. Darryl (Ind.) ........................................................... Abbotsford South Polak, Mary (BC Liberal) ............................................................................. Langley Popham, Hon.

Lana (NDP)............................................................... Saanich South Ralston, Hon. Bruce (NDP) ............................................................Surrey-Whalley Redies, Tracy (BC Liberal) .......................................................Surrey–White Rock Reid, Linda (BC Liberal) ................................................. Richmond South Centre Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ............................................................................. North Coast Robinson, Hon.

Selina (NDP) .........................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Ross, Ellis (BC Liberal)................................................................................... Skeena Routledge, Janet (NDP) ....................................................................Burnaby North Routley, Doug (NDP) ................................................. Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, John (BC Liberal) ................................................................Nechako Lakes Shypitka, Tom (BC Liberal) ..............................................................

Kootenay East Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ......................................... Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Hon. Shane (NDP)..................................................Vancouver-Hastings Sims, Jinny (NDP) ........................................................................ Surrey-Panorama Singh, Rachna (NDP) .........................................................Surrey–Green Timbers Stewart, Ben (BC Liberal) ................................................................. Kelowna West Stilwell, Michelle (BC Liberal)...............................................

Parksville-Qualicum Stone, Todd (BC Liberal)..........................................Kamloops–South Thompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal)........................................ West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal)................................................ Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ...........................................West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ................................................................. Fraser-Nicola Thomson, Steve (BC Liberal)......................................................

Kelowna-Mission Thornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) ...............................North Vancouver–Seymour Throness, Laurie (BC Liberal) .......................................................Chilliwack-Kent Trevena, Hon. Claire (NDP) ................................................................North Island Wat, Teresa (BC Liberal) ................................................. Richmond North Centre Weaver, Dr.

Andrew (Ind.)................................................Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Andrew, QC (BC Liberal) ................................Vancouver-Quilchena Y ap, John (BC Liberal)............................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission............................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South....................................................................... Hon. Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West......................................................................

Michael de Jong, QC Boundary-Similkameen...................................................................... Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake....................................................................... Hon. Anne Kang Burnaby-Edmonds................................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Burnaby North .................................................................................

Janet Routledge Cariboo-Chilcotin .............................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North.................................................................................... Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ............................................................................................... John Martin Chilliwack-Kent ...............................................................................Laurie Throness Columbia River–Revelstoke .........................................................

Doug Clovechok Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.................................................................. Joan Isaacs Coquitlam-Maillardville ...................................................... Hon. Selina Robinson Courtenay-Comox................................................................... Ronna-Rae Leonard Cowichan Valley .............................................................................

Sonia Furstenau Delta North.............................................................................................Ravi Kahlon Delta South ..................................................................................................Ian Paton Esquimalt-Metchosin ..............................................................................Mitzi Dean Fraser-Nicola .........................................................................................

Jackie Tegart Kamloops–North Thompson .............................................................Peter Milobar Kamloops–South Thompson..................................................................Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country .....................................................................Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission ..............................................................................

Steve Thomson Kelowna West ..........................................................................................Ben Stewart Kootenay East.......................................................................................Tom Shypitka Kootenay West........................................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Langford–Juan de Fuca .............................................................. Hon. John Horgan Langley .....................................................................................................

Mary Polak Langley East.........................................................................................Rich Coleman Maple Ridge–Mission.............................................................................. Bob D’Eith Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows............................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Mid Island–Pacific Rim................................................................ Hon. Scott Fraser Nanaimo......................................................................................

Sheila Malcolmson Nanaimo–North Cowichan............................................................... Doug Routley Nechako Lakes........................................................................................ John Rustad Nelson-Creston ................................................................... Hon. Michelle Mungall New Westminster........................................................................... Hon. Judy Darcy North Coast ...........................................................................................

Jennifer Rice North Island.............................................................................. Hon. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale................................................................... Bowinn Ma North Vancouver–Seymour........................................................Jane Thornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head............................................................Dr.

Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum.......................................................................Michelle Stilwell Peace River North ................................................................................... Dan Davies Peace River South ................................................................................ Mike Bernier Penticton ................................................................................................. Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam...................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam.......................................................................Rick Glumac Powell River–Sunshine Coast....................................................... Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie....................................................................Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ..................................................................

Shirley Bond Richmond North Centre..........................................................................Teresa Wat Richmond-Queensborough.........................................................................Jas Johal Richmond South Centre ......................................................................... Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ...................................................................................

John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands .............................................................Adam Olsen Saanich South .............................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Shuswap...................................................................................................... Greg Kyllo Skeena........................................................................................................... Ellis Ross Stikine....................................................................................Hon.

Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale ................................................................................ Marvin Hunt Surrey-Fleetwood.....................................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey–Green Timbers........................................................................Rachna Singh Surrey-Guildford......................................................................................Garry Begg Surrey-Newton ..............................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ...................................................................................... Jinny Sims Surrey South ................................................................................ Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Whalley ......................................................................... Hon. Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock .............................................................................. Tracy Redies Vancouver-Fairview.............................................................. Hon.

George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek........................................................................ Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview...............................................................Hon. George Chow Vancouver-Hastings ............................................................... Hon. Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington....................................................................... Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..................................................................... Hon.

Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara................................................................................ Michael Lee Vancouver–Mount Pleasant..................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Vancouver–Point Grey ............................................................Hon.

David Eby, QC Vancouver-Quilchena........................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Vancouver–West End .....................................................Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee ....................................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill.................................................................. Hon. Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake.................................................................... Hon. Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano...................................................................

Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky................................................................Jordan Sturdy Party Standings: BC Liberal 42; NDP 41; Independent 2; BC Green Party 2

CONTENTS Thursday, July 16, 2020 Afternoon Meeting Page Committee of Supply Proceedings in

Section C.......................................................................................................................................................... 167 Estimates: Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy(continued) D. Clovechok Hon. G. Heyman P . Milobar D. Barnett T. Shypitka Estimates: Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions Hon. J. Darcy J. Thornthwaite S. Gibson D. Barnett C. Oakes

THURSDAY , JULY 16, 2020 The committee met at 1:46 p.m. [S. Malcolmson in the chair.] Committee of Supply Proceedings in

Section C ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE STRATEGY (continued) On Vote 23: ministry operations, $188,132,000 (continued). The Chair:Good afternoon, Members. I want to recognize that I am on the territory of the Lək̓ ʷəŋin̓ əŋ-speaking people, today known as the Song- hees and Esquimalt people. Members from across the province are participating from their own First Nations territory. We extend our appreciation to First Nations across British Columbia for us being able to work on their land.

We’re meeting today to consider the budget estimates of the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. P . Milobar:Heeding your advice at the beginning, my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke will have questions till until around two o’ clock today, and then I will be clicking back in and probably running out the rest of the day. With that, I will pass the floor over to the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, with your per- mission. D. Clovechok:Chair, I appreciate it. To the minister, I appreciate the opportunity as well.

The budget consultation process heard from British Columbia’s experts on invasive species. They’re asking for a single invasive species act that provides robust funding for education, prevention, monitoring, response and, of course, enforcement. This would include streamlining reg- ulations to better monitor and manage high-risk pathways that introduce and spread invasive species, and ensure an aggressive remediation process. The question I have is: will the minister acknowledge the advice received during these consultation processes and establish an invasive species act? [1:50 p.m.] Hon. G.

Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. We’re certainly aware of the suggestions and proposals that came forward as part of the budget consultation, also as part of our consultation on species at risk. Similar ideas were put forward with respect to invasive species, includ- ing the possibility of legislation. We’ve been reviewing and studying the feasibility of some of those for some time, but I am not going to speculate on a result of that and how we might bring those issues together.

In the meantime, of course, we continue to devote resources to invasive species management and protection, including, for example, zebra and quagga mussels. We evaluate the success of those every year. We make adjust- ments where necessary, redeployment of resources where necessary. In addition, although they’re not my ministries, FLNRORD as well as Agriculture, to a lesser extent, also devote resources to the management of invasive species. We have heard the suggestions that the member refer- ences. They have been under active consideration in the ministry. D.

Clovechok:The minister will know that his min- istry parcels funds to the HCTF , which grants lake mon- itoring to regional groups to work on the mussel issue. Two questions. Will the minister confirm the amount that is in the budget this year for the HCTF and also confirm that this program will receive continued fund- ing into the next fiscal? [1:55 p.m.] Hon. G. Heyman:Thank you to the member. In 2017, under the former government, a grant of $350,000 was given to HCTF in order to do work, largely educational. Under the HCTF workplan, they anticipate using up that funding for the workplan this fiscal year.

We have been, for some time, looking at longer-term funding provisions with them and other partners and are currently in discussion with them. In addition to that, under this government, we have allocated around $2 million per year specifically for pro- grams related to invasive mussels. That is ongoing funding in the service plan. D. Clovechok:The minister will know that the control of invasive species, specifically zebra and quagga mussels, is of paramount importance to the future and the health of B.C. waterways and lakes, thus the need for a compre- hensive defence program.

I’ve got four questions associ- ated with the mussels. Given the nature and the severity of this issue, I’m won- dering if the minister, first of all, can explain and offer a bit of a breakdown of the budgetary allotments for the invas- ive species file. Will the minister confirm this funding will continue? The last question. Will the minister confirm that the stations that check mussels throughout the province will remain intact, that there have been no cutbacks from the COVID-19 and that those defence systems will remain unaltered going forward? [2:00 p.m.] 167

Hon. G. Heyman: I only heard three questions. Was there a fourth? D. Clovechok:For the sake of time, I cut one out. [2:05 p.m.] Hon. G. Heyman: We have a total of about $3.75 mil- lion that is expended on control of invasive mussels. Roughly half of that is funding from partners, partner contributions — for instance, B.C. Hydro and FortisBC — who have an interest in this. Half of it is secured with- in the ministry budget. Those partnership agreements are ending, but we’re already in discussion with the part- ners about renewal. The stations remain intact.

There was some disruption because, during COVID, there was some delay in training that normally would have proceeded, but stations contin- ued to run. There’s been perhaps a bit of a reduction in overlap with some staff, and there was some redeployment. Frankly, the border has been closed, so we haven’t been dealing with the same influx of boaters as we would have in a normal year. We basically have stations up and staffed in accordance with what the review of last year indicated we should be doing. I hope that answers the member’s question. P .

Milobar:Just to follow up on that, then, to be clear, the minister is saying there’s $2 million directly from the government, $3.75 million spent in total a year. And $2 million is in the ministry budget. The other $1.75 million comes from those outside partners. If the minister could clarify I have that correct. Also which operational budget the $2 million comes out of. If the minister could clarify that as well. The Chair:For the benefit of the public who are tuning in, in huge numbers, I’m sure, here to watch the mechanics of government in action, this is the budget estimates pro- cess.

Members of the opposition have an opportunity to ask questions of the ministers on their budget. This is Budget 2020, which was presented in the Legis- lature back in February, but we are still doing our review. Ministers sometimes answer questions all day, sometimes multiple days, depending on the ministry, the number of questions, the size of the budget. In the end, the committee will vote on whether the particular ministry’s budget should be adopted or not.

As a point of comparison, when I was serving as Mem- ber of Parliament in the House of Commons, we would have a minister for an hour and would share our questions between all three recognized parties in the House of Com- mons, including the government, who got more questions to ask of their own ministers than anybody. This is a very different process. [2:10 p.m.] This is simultaneously happening in another room right now, which you can tune into if this one wasn’t as gripping as you hoped. I believe it’s the Minister of Agriculture who is answering questions.

I’m glad you’re out there and appreciative to all the members of the committee here doing their work on behalf of the public. Hon. G. Heyman: The member asked if he had the numbers correct. We have about $2 million in partner agreements. Our expenditure that’s slated is a total of about $3.75 million, but we will top up if we need to go a bit over that. When I said we’ve spent $2 million, that’s the most recent experience. That’s what we actually did, and that comes from ministry operations. P . Milobar:Thank you for clarifying that. That makes a little bit more sense with one of my other questions.

Could the minister just clarify which account this pro- gram was run out of? Hon. G. Heyman:The funding is shared across different lines in the ministry but is delivered through the conserva- tion officer service primarily. Primarily, the money would be found there. P . Milobar:If there was the $2 million expenditure last year, there’s about $1.7 million in this year’s budget…. Last year when the ministry was asked to come up with the cost savings, one of the cost pressures identified was the mus- sels program, at a $300,000 cost pressure, which was late September.

So that program was essentially done by then, I would assume — most of it. It sounds like that’s how we got to the $2 million. I recognize there are contingencies that keep getting tapped into. Again, it’s tough to do estimates if all we’re going to rely on is contingencies. It’s a good thing that there are contingencies for overruns. I was glad to hear that the minister said that they will look at that and have contingencies for this year. Has there been any discussion…? Why is there not just an actual uplift to this program, given that it seems like it was well recognized last year that it needed more?

The lakes aren’t getting any smaller. The tourism pre-COVID — especially as this budget is pre-COVID — wasn’t slow- ing down. Why is there just not a move to actually increase the budget to give that certainty to these communities that every year are asking what the budget is going to be for this type of programming? [2:15 p.m.] The Chair:Members, it has been brought to my atten- tion that we have lost quorum. So we will recess for five minutes. We’ll see you back here in five minutes, when we will reconvene. Thank you. The committee recessed from 2:16 p.m. to 2:26 p.m. 168 Committee of Supply,

Section C Thursday, July 16, 2020

[S. Malcolmson in the chair.] Hon. G. Heyman:In answer to the member’s question, first of all, in 2018, this program for invasive mussels received a $1 million lift in the ongoing budget. As I men- tioned, the partnership agreements are expiring, so we’re in the process of preparing to discuss renewal of those agreements in concert with evaluation of this year’s results and the expectations of our partners. So it’s hard to say, at this point, what we will end up deciding is the necessary budget in the ministry.

I will say that we do an annual evaluation of the pro- gram to ensure that resources are where they should be, that they’re adequate, that they’re being deployed and moved around as needed. I think it’s fair to say that we believe the program has been successful to date, because the evaluations and the consultations with the interested community groups and stakeholders have resulted in the appropriate decisions being made. Having said that, we are always in consultation with the communities and interested partners. We’re in conversa- tion with our funding partners.

We review, and we’ll revise budget amounts as needed. If we hit a point where we find that the budgeted amount needs to be augmented in a year, we would certainly approach Treasury Board for access to contingencies if needed. I’ve certainly had that discussion in the past with the Finance Minister. P . Milobar:I’m going to switch gears again, back to some more CleanBC and some LNG-related questions. Earlier we had established that the operating certificate for LNG was 0.16, and 0.24 is the max threshold they can be at. On the break, I decided to dig around a little bit, and it was interesting.

I wasn’t in the Legislature back in 2016. Certainly, the minister was, in opposition, and back then opposed Bill 2. Bill 2 set out 0.16 as an operation- al threshold, and 0.23, not 0.24. So actually it was 0.01 stricter of a standard. [2:30 p.m.] Can the minister confirm that what eventually wound up being the agreement for LNG is, in fact, very similar to Bill 2 in terms of how the emissions are being dealt with in terms of offsets, in terms of targeting, in terms of being able to claim back dollars?

I’m sure that the minister prob- ably remembers that he did speak on it at length in the media and did vote against it at the time. Hon. G. Heyman:The member is correct that 0.16 was contained in legislation. It is now replicated in the oper- ating agreement that was established under our govern- ment when LNG Canada decided to make a final invest- ment decision. The performance benchmark was estab- lished this year. It’s 0.24, based on the world-leading benchmark average of 5. That will be reviewed every five years. P . Milobar:Thank you.

Again, diving in, just to try to make sure what would have been in the workplan as this budget was being established for staff, especially in the cli- mate secretariat. We had some discussion around B.C. still looking at emissions trading to offset the effects of the LNG develop- ment and how that would be used to help meet CleanBC targets, overall. The minister had indicated there were sup- posed to be meetings in Glasgow, which have been post- poned indefinitely at this point, and that it would be a fed- eral negotiation.

My understanding, though, is that because of the struc- ture of how Canada has been formed as a country and the way the provinces interact with the federal government, on an international environmental conference such as that…. The provinces from Canada actually get a higher standing at the United Nations than, say, even the states, even some- thing as significant as California would get, because of the way the government structure is set up down in the U.S. Could the minister have his staff confirm that had Glas- gow gone ahead…? Glasgow could still go ahead this year. It may just happen in a virtual form.

Climate change is still marching on. At some point, people are going to want to start negotiating and having Zoom calls. [2:35 p.m.] Although the federal government would be one of the lead negotiators, British Columbia would actually have a fairly significant ability to have direct input in discussion around

article 6 as it’s being debated at the international stage. Hon. G. Heyman:The member is partially correct. I am a member of the official Canadian delegation to COP when I’ve attended. There are a lot of levels of things that go on at COP , many of which are extremely relevant to subnational jurisdictions, like provinces and states, even large cities. There are panels and forums and bilateral meetings that go on all the time. We share our experience in B.C. We answer questions about what we’ve done. We learn from other jurisdictions, and we sometimes form agreements and alliances to work together.

In terms of the actual negotiation of a treaty, that is entirely the purview of the federal government. Neither I nor anyone else in British Columbia sits at that table. The federal negotiators and federal government delegation will give a general briefing about what’s happening on a daily basis, but even that briefing isn’t filled with specifics. P . Milobar:I understand that, but provinces do have a part to play to try to advance what they would like to see happen with the federal government.

The Premier was doing a victory lap earlier today about sick pay, a federal program the Premier was touting as pressing forward on. One would think that it’s not just the Premier but it’s other ministerial responsibilities that would be pressing federal Thursday, July 16, 2020 Committee of Supply,

Section C 169

counterparts to try to get what they feel would be in the best interests of British Columbia. In that sense, it sounds like the trading of offsets is needed for CleanBC to be able to meet its targets. Is the intention of the minister to continue to press the federal government to negotiate

article 6 so that those offsets can take place and CleanBC would be able to meet its targets? [2:40 p.m.] Hon. G. Heyman:The member is correct. Obviously, I have conversations with my federal counterpart on a range of issues, as he does with me, and we regularly urge each other to do certain things. But if the member is assuming that I’m busy urging the federal government to get a move on to achieve a system of offsets because CleanBC depends on it, he’s simply incorrect. Our intention is to meet our targets within CleanBC by emission reductions, not by the use of offsets. Even if

article 6 was completed, there’s still the need for a sys- tem of international verification of potential offsets as truly being additional, truly resulting in net reduction of GHGs overall, no matter what the particular product we’re talking about is. It will take some time to develop those, and they need to be independently verified and based on science. So we are not hanging our hat on that.

We’re proceeding with trying to find a number of ways to reduce emissions in B.C., abso- lutely, to bring CleanBC to the place it needs to be to do our part to contribute to holding overall global warming to around 1.5 degrees. P . Milobar:It’s interesting, because CleanBC is sup- posed to be the document. Certainly, the former leader of the Green Party has wrapped himself in CleanBC as justi- fication for holding government to account around LNG. I’m not sure where the other two members of the Green Party actually fall on CleanBC as it rolls out more and more and gaps start to be seen within it.

The minister earlier made it clear that the emissions trading would actually help CleanBC to meet its emissions targets. Y et we have emissions standards for LNG that mir- ror — actually are 0.01 higher on the high end — Bill 2, in April of 2016, that was being debated. The minister voted against and spoke out against it because he just simply couldn’t have that work to still meet the emission profile. In fact, on June 3, 2016, in theProvince, the minister is quoted as saying: “The trouble with Gordon Wilson’s state- ment is there’s absolutely no evidence B.C. LNG will result in the use of less coal in China.

He shouldn’t be inventing wildly exaggerated claims of saving Chinese lives to justify LNG development in British Columbia. ” The minister seemed to be fairly consistent about the LNG thresholds back in 2016, which he has agreed are the same as they are now. In 2016, he said that using trading offsets would not work and were wildly exaggerating the benefits. There are articles out now saying that the B.C. government is still pursuing that with the federal govern- ment, through

article 6 of the Paris accord. The minister won’t confirm that they’re encouraging the federal government to get an agreement around this. The minister had contradictory statements to the benefit of this in the past. So is the minister saying that he’s encouraging the federal government to not negotiate these types of off- sets being available if he’s confident that CleanBC can be accomplished without these types of offset tradings? [2:45 p.m.] Hon. G. Heyman: First of all, I want to make clear that I have never said that B.C. needs offsets in order to meet our CleanBC targets.

I think the member is taking a statement I may have made in one particular context, which we’ve canvassed at length today, and imputing a different meaning to it. Quite frankly, I’ d appreciate it…. If the member wants to say what I said, then quote me. But don’t paraphrase me to reach a certain conclusion that isn’t consistent with what I’ve actually said or what I believe or what I’ve done. It’s just, frankly, in my view, not helpful nor appropriate. With respect to the member’s question, no, I’m not urging the government not to pursue

article 6. Interna- tional negotiations take a long time.

Article 6 negotiations are part of the Paris accord. They’re ongoing, but they will take some time to complete. We don’t have a lot of time, frankly, in British Columbia or around the world, in order to take the actions necessary to reduce our emissions to hold our warming to 1.5 degrees. So we’re proceeding to implement actions to reduce emissions in B.C. P . Milobar:I agree that time is of the essence. That’s why these questions…. I am not trying to fabricate what the minister said or means.

Unfortunately, I think it’s due mainly to the tech- nology we’re being forced to use.Blues are a little bit slow to get to repeat back to the minister verbatim what he had said earlier in the day. I’m not trying to invent what he had said, but he made it very clear earlier in the day that offsets would help CleanBC meet its targets. That’s what is critical here, and these questions are relev- ant, because there is a lot at stake. There’s a lot invested in terms of government marketing around CleanBC and how they feel they are going to move forward, but there are a lot of unanswered questions around CleanBC.

It’s not me that has now gone on 19 months without having the other missing 25 percent of an emission reduction plan in place. It is the minister that does not have that in place for the public to scrutinize and to look at. There’s a great amount of skepticism out there. We have reports that the province is still actively having conversations with the federal government and on the international stage around the use of using LNG trad- ing offsets to try to meet targets. I guess I’ll try this a different way. If the federal gov- 170 Committee of Supply,

Section C Thursday, July 16, 2020

ernment does come to an agreement with offsets…. Again, time is of the essence. No one knows for sure how quickly governments may move in a pandemic to try to reset the table. We’re doing this on Zoom. I’m assuming that envir- onmentalists wouldn’t be opposed to doing a large confer- ence by Zoom, as opposed to flying and creating carbon that way. [2:50 p.m.] If the federal government does come to an agreement that enables the use of trading offsets to bring down emis- sions under CleanBC, will the government take advantage of that?

Or will the government decide that they will, in fact, forgo that as a way to reduce emissions under Clean- BC? Hon. G. Heyman: Once again, I simply disagree with the member that I have stated that offsets would be a net benefit to the CleanBC plan or were essential to the Clean- BC plan. I think the exchange to which the member is referring was in a very specific and defined context and referred to offsets in B.C., which of course would result to a neutral or net benefit in B.C. I’ve said that we are work- ing toward absolute real reduction in emissions in B.C. to meet our CleanBC targets.

International discussions on

article 6 are an important part of the UN climate plan to which Canada is a signat- ory. The reason for that is that

article 6 was designed to find a way, if there is, to reach agreement among nations for internationally trading mitigation options — emissions in one place that may result in larger emissions in another place so that globally, overall, we reduce our emissions. Several things have to happen, and they’re all specu- lative. First, there has to be agreement on the wording of an

article 6 emission trading agreement. That’s proved hard and elusive. There’ve been two COPs where that was attempted in negotiations, and both of them resulted in failure. Whether or not Glasgow happens, we don’t know if an agreement will be reached.

Once an agreement is reached, it would be important to then define an independent, scientifically verifiable way of determining if — and let’s stay away from one particular product — the emissions associated with any activity or product in a particular nation are actually resulting in greater emission reductions in the receiving jurisdiction in a way that is truly verifiable and additional and that actu- ally wouldn’t have happened regardless of the activity in the originating jurisdiction. [2:55 p.m.] If all of those agreements, mechanisms and verification procedures are concluded, and the world has confidence in a system to actually look at if we start moving emissions and products from one jurisdiction that could potentially push the originating jurisdiction over their climate target but are overall beneficial to our world global target because they result in lower emissions, then I would think we should all be in favour of that, because the goal is to reduce emissions globally.

We don’t yet know if that’s possible. We don’t yet know if a treaty or an agreement under the treaty will be reached on that, and we don’t know what the scientific basis or independent verification procedures in which everyone in the world can have confidence would look like. Those are a lot of things that have to be done before we could truly consider the answer to the member’s question.

What I can say is that as a result of CleanBC and as a result of the carbon pricing in British Columbia, which was begun under the previous government and Gordon Campbell and which we have continued after about a six- year hiatus and scheduled increases, as well as putting in place enhanced credits for low- and middle-income people and a return to industry in a way that rewards their emission reductions and provides funding for technolo- gical innovations that will further reduce emissions asso- ciated with more heavily emitting industries, British Col- umbia is in a position to remain very competitive and to supply lower-carbon-intense products and commodit- ies to the world, and that’s a good thing.

P . Milobar:I’ll have to try to remember to send the minister theHansard from my discussion with the Finance Minister about the rebates for low- and middle-income families. It’s at the exact same

schedule per $5 of carbon tax as it was under the previous government. It’s not enhanced. It goes up with every $5, like it did under the old system as well. But that’s just one aside. Back, though, to CleanBC and the emission targets. Again, we operate a little bit in the dark because of the missing 25 percent and trying to figure out where all these things land. That missing 25 percent should be coming forward sometime in this fiscal year, so I’m assuming staff are still working on it through this budget and allotment of staffing dollars. Has there been modelling done?

Can the minister cla- rify, if there’s been modelling done, what would happen to our emission profile in British Columbia? How much extra will regular everyday businesses and citizens have to do in their own day-to-day life to meet our overall provin- cial GHG reduction targets if there is no agreement found under the Paris accord for the trading of these offsets? In other words, have we looked at both sides of it?

And what is the order of magnitude of work that’s going to need to be done and undertaken by every individual in their home so that LNG can come on stream, versus LNG com- ing on stream and there being a trading mechanism for these credits to offset our footprint within the province? [3:00 p.m.] Hon. G. Heyman: To the member, who regularly says there’s a missing 25 percent, I’ d simply say we have a real plan to reach our legislated targets. That’s what CleanBC is. We scrupulously modelled and are implementing, with Thursday, July 16, 2020 Committee of Supply,

Section C 171

$1.3 billion plus allocated over a four-year period, the measures in CleanBC to reach those modelled results. We’re actively working very hard on the remaining 25 per- cent, and we’ll have more to say about that in the coming months. I think that’s pretty positive, and I’m certainly very proud of it. With respect to the member’s question, what we are concentrating on in CleanBC is a number of systemic changes, regulations, incentives and measures to reduce sources of emissions.

Whether it’s personal transportation vehicles, whether it’s heavy-duty trucking, whether it’s industrial transportation, we’re planning and implement- ing measures to make those as clean as possible. We have, in some cases, legislated targets.

In addition, for buildings and homes, we’re looking at systemic programs to retrofit existing buildings and homes to make them more energy efficient, as well as to plan the standards for new buildings and homes — importantly, as well, provincial government and broader public sector buildings — to ensure that they are as energy efficient as possible, all of which has a number of beneficial aspects. In all these cases, in transportation and home and com- mercial energy use, it results in greater comfort, greater efficiency, lower operating costs and more affordability. Those are good things.

Those are net positives for every- body, once we put in place and work with people on the necessary capitalization, whether it’s a commercial vehicle, a personal vehicle, a home retrofit, a new home, an existing building or a new building.

In addition to that, we’re working with industry to help them find ways to reduce emissions, particularly emis- sions-intensive industries, while remaining competitive, whether it’s new technology, whether it’s upgraded capital investments in infrastructure, all of which gives British Columbia businesses greater efficiency, greater productiv- ity, lower operating and energy costs and a big competitive advantage globally in a world that is hungry for lower-car- bon-intense products and services. That’s the best answer I can give to the member’s ques- tion, but I think it’s good news for British Columbians. P .

Milobar:We have a missing 25 percent, and it is a missing 25 percent still. I’ve never once said it wasn’t on its way. We all acknowledge that it’s on its way. I had, admit- tedly, hoped it would have been here by now so we could be scrutinizing and looking at it. That said, the minister is still within his 18- to 24-month window, so I don’t take great issue with that. But we do have to still, as a population, figure out what these impacts will mean for the average person moving forward, as it relates to things like offsets and what they will have to do if there are not offsets in place.

The minister has made no bones about saying that regardless of what the federal government says when it relates to a project like a Kinder Morgan, they are going to do what they feel is right for the province, whether the fed- eral government agrees with it or not.

I believe he’ll agree with the quote “every tool in the tool box” — I hope I’m not paraphrasing that one — that they are going to go after, trying to stop the project. [3:05 p.m.] It sounds like the Premier has now come to the realiz- ation, based on yet another losing court battle — not that the government was involved in this last court battle — that the project is moving forward. My point is that the province, on that project, had no problem coming out and saying: “No. We’re just not going to support it, regardless of what the federal government says. We don’t agree with it.

We are going to press the issue to the nth degree. ” Here we have a way of trading offsets globally to help an emission profile of an industry that, four years ago, the minister — then in opposition — spoke out strongly against for hitting the exact same benchmarks that he has now signed off, as the minister, as a signatory to that LNG agreement. We have discussion going on about these international offsets potentially happening, being negotiated by the federal government with input by the provincial government. Those would change our emis- sions profile in the province.

I’m not hearing the minister say they have profiled what the result would be to the general public if we did not have the ability to trade these. I guess I’m confused, though. The minister will not encourage the federal gov- ernment to negotiate these, but he’s also not saying that he’s encouraging them or telling them that British Col- umbia would opt out. Maybe the minister, again, could go back to why the province, then, is not prepared to stand by what their pos- ition was four years ago, in opposition, to say that they would be opting out of these types of scenarios that they were very strongly opposed to.

The previous Chair, before lunch, had very strong comments as the former Environ- ment critic, as well, on this subject. It’s not just this minis- ter and this Premier that have had these long-held views. Why is it, then, that we cannot get confirmation that the province would be accepting of the federal government doing this or be indicating to the federal government that they would stand on principle, like they said they were try- ing to do with the TMX project, and tell the federal gov- ernment: “It doesn’t matter what you negotiate. We’re not taking

part in that. We’re not going to use that in part of our calculations to meet our emissions targets”? [3:10 p.m.] Hon. G. Heyman: I tried to be clear, and I’ll try to be clear again. First, let me deal with the two situations the member put forward, which I don’t believe are analogous. The position of the government of B.C. with respect to the TMX project was that we believed it was a signific- ant environmental and economic risk to British Colum- bia in the event of an oil spill. That’s why we opposed it. We believed that British Columbians expected us to do 172 Committee of Supply,

Section C Thursday, July 16, 2020

everything that we could to protect our interests and the environment and the coast and the economy of British Columbia in the face of that project, so we proceeded to put forward some measures through regulation that we believed could assist with that. There was one of those that the government of Canada objected to. We said: “Okay, let’s let the courts decide. ” The courts did decide, and I regret the decision of the court that the only jurisdiction that exists in this regard, with TMX and the regulation we proposed, rests with the fed- eral government. But we do accept that decision.

It’s a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. We have continued to press the federal government that if this project goes ahead, we need the highest possible degree of environmental protection — spill response capa- city, spill response timelines, other measures to ensure that we don’t have a catastrophe in British Columbia that could risk tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in economic activity and permanently ruin our coast. In that case, our position and our continued activity, which are now guided by the court decisions, are to protect and enhance B.C. ’s environment.

Similarly, our position with respect to negotiations at COP are that any final agreement at COP that has the net result — and I stated this in my answer to the last question — of a net decrease in global emissions in order to meet our international targets would be a good thing. The key there is that they must be verifiable and based on science. My comments to which the member refers when I was the opposition critic pre-existed the Paris Agreement, pre- existed any discussion whatsoever of

article 6. What I said was that Mr. Wilson and others were claiming — without any documented scientific evidence, without any inde- pendent verification, without any mechanism to prove it to be true — that the use of LNG in China would result in a reduction in the use of coal. That’s a reasonable statement to make. It’s a statement that I might make today.

If a system is put in place that says, “Here’s what we have to do to verify that we’re getting absolute emission reductions through displacement, whether it be through any particular commodity, and it’s verifiable and based on science…. ” What I said in my answer to the last question and what I say again now, which I believe is completely consistent with my earlier statements for many years, is: “If it absolutely reduces emissions, it’s a good thing, but it must be provable. ” If it is provable and independently veri- fiable, I don’t know why anyone wouldn’t embrace it. P .

Milobar:Although the minister is absolutely correct — the Paris Accord and

article 6 didn’t exist back then — the premise that the statements made by Mr. Wilson and others around LNG and the global good that would come from it is the exact same as what drives the conversation for

article 6. In terms of the enhancements and spill response and spill recovery with TMX, it’s not surprising that the gov- ernment is okay with that now. Most of that was dealt with by the previous government, much like Bill 2, where that was dealt with by the previous government. This govern- ment signed off on and agreed to the same thresholds and 0.16s and 0.23s of the LNG industry, as was in Bill 2 back in 2016. So there is an importance to it. [3:15 p.m.] I guess I’ll try it this way, then. We know that the LNG will be about, I believe, 6.5 percent of the overall emissions of British Columbia now.

If there was an agreement, how much of the missing 25 percent of emissions plan would an offset trading agreement create? How much room would that take up? We know the federal government recalibrated the num- bers, so 4 percent has been found by the ministry already. If a trading agreement was to be agreed upon, how much of the overall emissions profile does the ministry expect that would take off the table for having to find? The Chair:For the benefit of the public, you are watch- ing a committee of the Legislature review the budget estimates.

In this hour, this is for the Minister of Environ- ment and Climate Change. The opposition has an opportunity to ask the govern- ment questions about the 2020 budget and the programs associated with it. It’s not the fastest process, because as you can see, the minister’s now off screen, talking with his senior ministry staff to make sure we get the best inform- ation to the opposition. It’s not quite an open book exam, but it’s totally legitimate to ask for help. It’s a slow process. Thanks for hanging in there.

It is an example of the public being able to watch government in action, and sometimes that is not the most gripping thing. I’m glad that you’re out there, hanging in with us. This could go on for hours or days. The minister’s back, and he’s got the floor. Hon. G. Heyman:Thank you to member for the ques- tion, but it’s not one I can answer. It’s hypothetical and speculative, and we’re not proceeding on that basis.

We’re proceeding on the basis that we’re doing work to identify the remaining emission reductions for 2030, as well as working on emission reductions that we’ll need to achieve our 2040 and 2050 targets. Y ou have to plan long term, and we’re doing that based on not expecting or counting on an agreement that has yet to be reached and certainly won’t be reached by the end of this year in a way that could be counted as part of the 25 percent. So the question, in my view, is speculative and not relevant to the work that CAS is undertaking. P .

Milobar:Can the minister confirm, then, just at the very end of that answer…? Oh, sorry. It’s the climate action secretariat. Too many acronyms. I was thinking the CASA you referred to was your confidence and supply agree- Thursday, July 16, 2020 Committee of Supply,

Section C 173

ment. It just clicked in my head there. So there we go, Min- ister. I saved both of us a tedious question-and-answer. I’m going to move on a little bit here. I may come back to CleanBC near the end, but I’ve got a couple assorted things, and then I was going to go into a little bit of some parks as well. My understanding is that Metro Vancouver…. I’ve can- vassed this before with the minister around Metro’s desire to amend some solid waste bylaws and bring some new ones in. I believe it’s 308 and 309, or it 208 and 209? It’s off the top of my head right now.

My understanding is that the Ministry of Environment contracted for a consulting company — I believe it’s Elevate Consulting — to do up a report around that. I believe it’s due in November. Can the minister confirm if the ministry did indeed contract with Elevate Consulting to do some work around Metro Vancouver solid waste issues? [3:20 p.m.] Hon. G.

Heyman: The role of Elevate is to act as an intermediary between the waste haulers association and Metro Vancouver with regard to resolving some issues and answering some questions that we suggested strongly to Metro Van would need to form part of their subsequent submission of a waste management plan, and the bylaws in question, in order to be accepted by the ministry. Both parties wished us to be in an intermediary or mediator role, and that’s why we issued the contract to Elevate Consulting. But the funding for that contract is coming from Metro Van and is simply flowing through the ministry. P .

Milobar:Did the ministry put out a call, or was it a sole-source contract situation? Hon. G. Heyman: Elevate Consulting was chosen because they were acceptable to both of the parties between whom the mediation was taking place. [3:25 p.m.] It was a direct award, in accordance with government policy on financial controls that allows a direct award when the cost of the contract is being paid by a third party. P . Milobar:In terms of the steward programs, there’s just been a fairly significant change when we’re dealing with bottle returns — everything going to the standardized 10 cents and that.

But I’ve been getting a lot of calls from people within the industry with concerns around process. Has the minister officially signed off on all the changes? Are they now permanent to what Encorp was trying to accomplish with their changes to Recycle B.C. and all the rates and setup? Hon. G. Heyman: There are a couple of possible answers to the question, depending on, specifically, the bottle return policy that the member is referencing. So I wonder if I could ask him to clarify it before we answer. P . Milobar:Y es. I apologize. As I was asking, I realized I was convoluting it a bit.

Y eah, it’s around the bottle return. I was mixing in Recycle B.C., which used to be MMBC, with the whole Encorp program. So it’s about the bottle return program and the sign-off on the changes that were made and if those are now permanently signed off on by the minister or not. Hon. G. Heyman: If the member is referring to the increase and the combination to a single bottle return rate, the answer to that is yes. The regulation has been depos- ited. If the member is referring to some other aspect of bottle returns, I’ d be happy to answer with more clarity if I get the clarification. [3:30 p.m.] P .

Milobar:Y eah. It’s partly around the returns, the set- ting of the pricing. There will, obviously, be a little bit of a change. Nickel deposits go to the dime, the 20 cent will drop to the dime. On balance, it will come out in the wash, probably, in terms of what was already out there versus what moves forward. Where there are a lot more concerns, though, which I’m hearing about, is in terms of the whole process around the beer can — BDL contracts with Encorp, contractors that have contracts with BDL, and independent depots feeling like they’re being squeezed out of the market.

Are any of those changes permanent? Are they a pilot? If they’re permanent, what consultation with the stakehold- ers did the ministry themselves undertake versus just the Encorp side of things? Hon. G. Heyman: The regulation requires extended producer responsibility. It requires producers to take responsibility for return and recycling, but it is silent on exactly how that is done, as long as the objective is met — in other words, which contracted agency does it. There currently is a…. Encorp has a pilot project.

They also have a stewardship plan that is up for review by the ministry, and we’ll review the pilot as part of that review. P . Milobar:Can the minister confirm, then, that as part of that review, there will be ministry outreach to affected independent and other actual operators within this sphere, as opposed to strictly just the steward agency itself? Hon. G. Heyman:Y es, there will be. P . Milobar:Now, this next question…. Again, please, everyone, separate any person from position within the ministry with this.

I’m sure the Chair will understand why I gave that disclaimer when I start the actual question here. 174 Committee of Supply,

Section C Thursday, July 16, 2020

It’s around the plastics and parliamentary secretary area within the minister’s purview. Last year, in mid-September…. It was created last year. So it’s understandable why last year, midyear, it would be identified as a $400,000 cost pressure to the ministry, when the minister was needing to find potential cost savings and identify cost pressures. This was, again, September 18. That was $400,000 last year. What was, as a result, put into the budget this year? It would have been an addition, a new thing that didn’t exist for last year’s budget.

I’m assuming that going into this year’s budget, it was a new program and service that was added in. Or was the money pulled from other programs and repackaged? [3:35 p.m.] Hon. G. Heyman: When the 2019-20 budget was cre- ated, there was no parliamentary secretary, and there was no mandate to the parliamentary secretary to review mar- ine plastic debris and derelict vessels. Therefore, that’s why it was identified as a cost pressure, because there was an agreement to undertake additional work that was unbudgeted.

That work also involved travel — and not full-time ded- icated staff resource but certainly some substantial staff work to support that new initiative. That travel and review are largely complete, with a report being completed by the parliamentary secretary, to be submitted. The parliamentary secretary continues that and some other work that assists me in some of the consultations that I do on a range of issues. Recycling, waste and plastics are a part of that. The parliamentary secretary receives some support from one of my ministerial assistants on a part-time basis.

As well, staff in relevant parts of the min- istry will give advice and answer questions when asked. But there is no additional funding in the budget that is tar- geted specifically to that work. Like many other things in the ministry, staff answer questions and deal with emergent issues as they arise. They often, as we all do, work long hours to accomplish that. P . Milobar:That does make some sense. I just wanted to make sure if it was an ongoing program or if it was more side-of-the-desk staff support, which it sounds like and which is understandable. That’s pretty common with governmental things.

In terms of legal expenses, last year — again, cost pres- sures from September 18 on the FOI — the legal budget was identified as $1.5 million for the Ministry of Environ- ment for the year. Six months into the fiscal, it was fore- cast to be $2.6 million, based on spending to date — I’m reading directly from the document there — which put it at a little bit more than $1.1 million over budget halfway through the year. Now, that’s obviously forecasting it to the end of the year. I’m wondering if the minister…. I’m not asking for any legal firms to be named.

There are probably many, and many different files they would have worked on. Was the cost overrun of $1.1 million, from a budget of $1.5 million, due to court challenges around the Trans Mountain pipeline? [3:40 p.m.] Hon. G. Heyman:I was just waiting a minute to see if we could break it down. Certainly, TMX would have been part of those costs, along with a number of other ongo- ing and regular, as well as unpredictable, legal issues and advice that we seek within government.

I’m not sure if the member is aware that legal work in government flows to the Ministry of Attorney General, but it’s on a cost recovery basis. They may well bill us back for some of the work they do or some of the work that is sent out of house, with regard to issues within our purview or which we’ve requested. P . Milobar:I had assumed that it would be the AG that would spearhead the work, but I did expect that there would be an allotment back to the ministries responsible for creating the charges in the first place. If I’m hearing correctly, there was a memo created that was a

summary of pressures and savings. I would point out there is not one savings identified on the Ministry of Environment sheet. It was all cost pressures, so staff are under an enormous amount of pressure to deliver, so I feel for them. There’s nothing wrong with that. I understand the concept of checking in and making sure where you’re at and referencing where you’re at and making adjust- ments within budgets within a year to stay within your budget.

However, is the minister saying that this report comes forward, trying to identify cost savings at the time of $6.76 million, also identifies cost pressures of $14 million, and one of the larger single items is the legal expenses being almost double of what was budgeted and there was no fol- low-up to ask why the AG’s office is billing back so much money to the ministry? It was just blindly accepted, and neither staff nor ministry got in contact with the Attorney General’s office while they were trying to find, literally, $20 million worth of cost pressures.

They just blindly accept an extra $1.1 million bill from the Attorney General without asking any follow-up questions as to what that is being billed back for. Hon. G. Heyman: The member is incorrect. All of the cost recovery from the Ministry of Attorney General is, like legal bills anywhere, itemized in detail, so we don’t have to ask. We get that information, and we closely scru- tinize the work that’s being done on our behalf to ensure it aligns with our expectations for priority and expenditure. [3:45 p.m.] P .

Milobar:Well, I asked that question because it would have been surprising if there was a different answer than Thursday, July 16, 2020 Committee of Supply,

Section C 175

what the minister just gave. But in his previous answer, he wasn’t sure what it all accounted for and gave vague refer- ences that there may have been other things that popped up. He did acknowledge that some of it was probably TMX, but one would think that…. Dollar figures, at least in my head — I tend to like numbers — stick in my head. I was surprised that no one within the ministry staff that’s advising the minister right now recalls, off the top of their head, out of the $2.6 million, under the $1.1 million over budget while this memo was being drafted….

Surely some of those staff probably helped draft the memo. The owner of this one particular item is “all. ” There are names next to other items, but this one actually says “all. ” I’m assuming that although there have been staff changes within the ministry, there are still several very well-qualified, great people advising the minister. For those at home, the speaker has done a good job of laying out process. But part of the process is that the minister isn’t necessarily tip of their fingertips for every single answer.

That’s why they bring all of their staff to help advise — so that the public and the critics can get full, wound-out answers with some depth and detail to them and the min- ister can relay back to the public what the staff are provid- ing them for information. Again, out of the $2.6 million — which was $1.1 million, projected, over budget as of September 18, 2019 — how much of that would be accounted for, for the TMX court filings and various actions that the minister had decided to use every tool in the toolbox to advance? Hon. G.

Heyman:The amount that we were billed back from the Attorney General’s ministry for legal services with respect to Trans Mountain was $162,000. With that, Chair, might I suggest a recess? The Chair:Certainly. We are switching Chairs in about 12 minutes. Hon. G. Heyman:I can wait. The Chair:Do you want to wait till then? That would be great. We’ll take ten minutes at that point so we can do disinfection procedures and so on. Thanks for hanging in there. I’ll return to the member for Kamloops–North Thomp- son. P . Milobar:Thank you.

Can the minister, then, shed some light on what other major events were happening within the Ministry of Environment that would have triggered an almost doubling of the legal budget if the Trans Mountain Supreme Court filings amounted to $162,000 being billed back to the minister? I can appreci- ate that might be all that was attributed to you, and there’s probably more within the Attorney General’s ministry or other ministries. I take that answer at face value, but then I’m even more curious how it is that the legal bills would be that much over budget.

I’m hard-pressed to think of any other major actions that were happening. So maybe we could get a fla- vour of various things that were being undertaken unex- pectedly by the ministry. [3:50 p.m.] Hon. G.

Heyman: Some examples of other legal expenditure were on the issues related to Neucel pulp’s abandonment and subsequent issues regarding coverage of the contaminated site and potential spills, issues related to South Island Aggregates and our orders and the chal- lenges, conservation officer prosecutions, park acquisi- tions, wrongful death and injury claims in parks and, of course, regular drafting of legislation and regulations. I’m advised that the actual expenditure for particular legal cases is not revealed publicly while the case is ongo- ing.

Once it is concluded, they’re included in the following year’s public accounts. P . Milobar:Thank you to the minister. I can accept that. I know back in my city days…. I wasn’t expecting exact dollar figures and exact case file numbers because of those reasons. I just wanted to get an overall flavour. Just one last one before we take the break, then, just to follow up on the Neucel piece of the legal. That expense on the legal side was in addition to the $6.3 million of cost pressure that the ministry was staring down the barrel at. That didn’t actually have to get triggered until this fiscal, it sounds like.

So that’s in addition to, not part of. [3:55 p.m.] Hon. G. Heyman: Of course, in the case of Neucel, cost pressures would have been an estimate, but the legal costs and our estimate of them were included in the cost-pressure figure. P . Milobar:I will switch gears again, back over to parks, and probably spend most of the rest of our enjoyable time together, Minister, with…. The Chair:Member, why don’t we break five minutes early, and we’ll leave you to start your new section. It’s been a pleasure working with you all. Carry on.

We will take a ten-minute recess so that we can carry out our cleaning protocols associated with switching of the Chair. This meeting is recessed, and we’ll reconvene in ten minutes. The committee recessed from 3:56 p.m. to 4:06 p.m. [S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.] P . Milobar:We’re going to move on to some parks ques- tions. I believe the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin has just 176 Committee of Supply,

Section C Thursday, July 16, 2020

joined us. She had a question around some parks issues as well, and then she has to jump over to the other estimates. So I was thinking maybe we could let her ask a question or two. Then I’ll jump back in, if that works. The Chair:More than happy to, Member. Acknowledging the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin. D. Barnett:Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you to the member for Kamloops–North Thompson. In my region, I have a lot of lakes that are utilized by many, many people, both residents and tourists. We have a situation where some of these lakes have boat launches. The boat launches are not in good condition, Minister.

I’ve tried many places to get these boat launches paid attention to. My question to you, Minister, is: how could we get these boat launches brought up to date so that the residents and the tourists can utilize these launches and enjoy the lakes that we have? [4:10 p.m.] Hon. G. Heyman:B.C. Parks has a $13.98 million annu- al capital plan. We naturally have a backlog of infrastruc- ture that requires attention. Every year we try to get to it, and we try to prioritize where the greatest needs are.

Boat launches and access are part of that, and part of the priority will depend on if there are alternate access points in addition to the park. There are also other infrastructure matters in the park we have to address. The ADM responsible for parks, Jim Standen, has indic- ated that he’ d be happy to have a meeting with the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin to review the state of the requests and the infrastructure needs in her constituency and take feedback on her view of where they fit on the priority list. If the member is interested, that can be facilitated through my office. D.

Barnett:To the minister, I would be happy to meet with Mr. Standen. If you could facilitate it and let me know, I will be there. Thank you very much. Thank you to the member for Kamloops–North Thompson. P . Milobar:Actually, the minister’s answer leads into an area where I was going to go anyways with parks. The cap- ital plan. I think the minister said $13.98 million is in the capital plan in B.C. Parks. When was the last time that saw a lift? Was it last year to this year? If not, how long has it been at that level? [4:15 p.m.] Hon. G.

Heyman:There has been no change to that part of the capital budget since before our government took office. However, there have been very specific additional funds accessed for campsite expansions, for example. We make an application to Treasury Board for that. We needed to update a number of vessels. That was, again, a separate capital expense, which we received money for from Treasury Board, in addition to what’s in the capital budget. P . Milobar:I’ve got a few situations to read into….

I want to preface all of this to make it abundantly clear that I recognize that our professional civil service is very pro- fessional. They do a great job. None of these are meant to personalize anything, but there is really no way to, maybe, convey some of the frustrations the public is feeling without reading them out. As I say, staff can only do so much with the dollars allotted to them by elected officials and people with the purse strings. I get that they are trying to do the best they can, given the resources they are given every year, in every budget across government.

In this case, I happen to have known Mr. Standen for a few decades now. So it’s certainly not that I question his commitment to parks, or anything of that nature. I hope that disclaimer is understood. I hope it does not come as a surprise that through the closure and through the reopening, there has been quite a high level of frustration from the public, in terms of parks. I’m just going to read briefly from one. Most of these letter writers do not want to be identified publicly. Some have actually messaged through to the minister. Some have gone through other colleagues of mine.

There’s one: “I want to add to the ever-growing pile of complaints concerning our underserviced B.C. parks. ” This one referenced Manning and Golden Ears Parks. They were shocked to see the sad state of both parks. “This is, of course, on top of the hours-long process to register for a campsite on Discover Camping, which repeatedly crashes and freezes. ” Now, one would think that was right when the parks reopened. This was sent July 7. Again, I’m trying to give a bit of the benefit of the doubt of the surge on that, but this is now several weeks after reopening.

Several weeks after systems crashing, we’re still receiving these complaints, based on real examples. “Manning Park was actually not too bad. However, many park amenities were obviously neglected, including high-use hiking trails, which are littered with dozens of fallen trees. Anyone with mobility issues would have to turn around. Thankfully, I could climb over the trees. Many amenities were simply closed for most parks. This park is in satisfactory condition. “In Golden Ears Park, however, the campground required more gravel. Sites are mud pits.

We enjoyed a safe, COVID-friendly fam- ily gathering around the fire pit with all of our feet in about one inch of mud. Next to the campground, a lake had formed, due to the rain. Then the lake started to drain into our campsite. “The outhouse toilets were absolutely disgusting. The tank was visibly full of human waste and needed to be pumped out. Signs were posted advising of the importance of using hand sanitizer, yet none was supplied anywhere in the park.

The roads in and around the park contained potholes, and many roads were just gravel, as it appears they have given up. ” Thursday, July 16, 2020 Committee of Supply,

Section C 177

Then it referenced Washington state parks. “It’s a bit more expensive, but they are five times nicer. ” The question, I guess, is…. This is now in July. The min- ister indicated there was $8.1 million added to the budget, due to COVID, for enhancements around parks, in terms of extra services, PPE and all of those types of things. [4:20 p.m.] We do know that between B.C. Parks, the conservation officer service and the park enhancement fund, there was a $2 million cut to the budget, but it should still be net $6.1 million more than when this budget was first presented, even with COVID factored in.

Why are these problems still persisting for the travelling public this far into summer? [4:25 p.m.] Hon. G. Heyman:Thank you to the member for raising these issues. I want to begin by…. To any British Columbian or any user of B.C. parks who has experienced one of the situ- ations the member for Kamloops–North Thompson’s let- ters outline or something similar that negatively impacted their camping experience, we apologize. We want people to have a really good experience in B.C. parks, and we’re going to continue to work hard to address the issues of which we’re made aware and enhance that experience.

If nothing else, I think the experience of COVID this year has demonstrated how incredibly important and valuable B.C. parks are to British Columbians and their overall sense of well-being, connection to nature and men- tal and physical health. To arrive somewhere where you expect to have a natural but a clean and a serviced exper- ience and to find something else when you’re there with your family is a disappointment. I understand that, and we don’t want that to happen.

I will say, with respect to the reservation system, that the times that it has not performed well have been those times when it was experiencing extremely high volumes, as it did on the first day it opened. Despite the glitches, we still made 50,000 reservations that day, which, frankly, is incredible and far in excess of anything we’ d experienced before. One of the things this demonstrates is that there is more demand on B.C. parks this year than there has been historically — more interest by British Columbians and, unfortunately, some more frustrations. I can say that my deputy and I are aware of these.

There are a number of issues about which we’re dissatisfied, and we’re conducting a review that will continue at the end of the camping season with a view to ensure that we enhance the system and we relieve British Columbians of the frus- tration that comes when the reservation system isn’t work- ing smoothly at all times. We’re never going to be at 100 percent. I think to say that any IT system is going to work at 100 percent is a nice concept, but I personally have yet to experience it, including my attempt to get Internet in my hotel yesterday.

We will work hard to ensure that in almost all cases, it’s the experience that it’s meant to be. People don’t have all day to spend online trying to get a campsite for their fam- ilies. We don’t expect them to, and we don’t think it’s good when they have to. We want to address that. I’m sure the member would agree with me on that. I appreciate the other issues that have been raised. Part of my delay in answering was that I was trying to find out from our staff in Parks if some of these rang bells, if we were familiar with them. Some of the letters may have come to us; others may not.

If the member gets complaints, please forward them to B.C. Parks. Things like trees across trails need to be dealt with. We want to deal with those expeditiously. If a park operator is not meeting their commitment, for instance, to ensure that the facilities are clean and sanit- ary and that outhouses are not full, we want to deal with that, and we will deal with that. The sooner we get the information, the better. We have a range of other issues in parks, and we’re working hard to catch up.

We will continue to work hard so that British Columbians can go to a B.C. park and fully appreciate it and not worry about any of the issues the member has raised. [4:30 p.m.] P . Milobar:Another one here. I’m glad the minister touches on the reservation system and it having issues in busy times. This is an email. It went to the minister, as well, yesterday afternoon, at about 5:30. He probably hasn’t seen it, but his staff hopefully have — not neces- sarily the ones in estimates but probably in his office. This is an email out of frustration. I’ll clip through it fairly quickly, because it’s three pages.

The crux of it is that last August, they booked a group campsite at Kokanee Creek in Nelson for August 24 to 31 this year, total cost of $1,383.90. Although they were dis- appointed in May that the reservation was cancelled, they understood the decision in terms of safety for people. They believed the reports that refunds would be given out. Not receiving any correspondence from B.C. Parks, they con- nected on B.C. Parks’ Facebook, and that’s when the run- around began. May 21, on Facebook, they inquired. Advised to contact the call centre.

May 31, talked to the call centre. “May 31, emailed the cancellation number to the information line to ask when and how I would receive my refund of almost $1,400. No response. ” June 11, another Facebook question. No response. June 18, another email to B.C. Parks. No response. June 25, another email to B.C. Parks. No response. “June 29, I see on Facebook that B.C. Parks were again allowing group reservations. ” He makes an inquiry on 178 Committee of Supply,

Section C Thursday, July 16, 2020

Facebook. “The B.C. Parks people respond to tell me to quit emailing as there is a lot of volume. Note, that com- ment was deleted, but to be fair, I did ask on someone else’s comment because my questions were not being answered, so they probably deleted the whole thread. ” June 29, yet again called the Discover Camping reser- vation number at 10 a.m. “ After waiting for 45 minutes on call, I hang up. I call several more times that day but hang up after ten minutes. Why does your phone queue not have a callback option?” A very important question. “June 29, yet another email to B.C.

Parks referencing that you are allowing group reservations again, which is in very poor form, as you have not processed refunds yet. No response. June 30, another several attempts to get through on the reservation line. Still on hold for longer than 15 minutes twice. ” This person works regular business hours so can’t wait longer than a coffee break to speak to an agent. July 8, more Facebook questions. “ Again, no direct responses to my inquiry, but B.C. Parks is responding to other consumers.

I also requested a refund request through the Discover Camping website, but I forgot to record the date of that request. ” The long and short is that this person’s saying that, after multiple contact points and over seven weeks waiting for a refund for a cancellation that was initiated by B.C. Parks, they want to know when they can expect to see their almost $1,400 reservation fee that was cancelled by B.C. Parks. [4:35 p.m.] Hon. G. Heyman:Thank you to the member. We spent a little time. The member’s correct. I haven’t seen that letter yet. I will. There’s usually a bit of delay.

It’s difficult for me to comment on something that I haven’t seen and I haven’t had a chance to run down. Regardless of that, let me first of all say that it’s pretty clear that the writer experienced incredible frustration, and I want to apologize for that. I think that people have a right to expect an answer and a response, even if it may not be what they’re looking for. Specifically, we’ve had 47,000 cancellations to date. That is not something that we ever prepared to handle or is usual.

Obviously, it was brought about by COVID and, in addition, our decision to give preferential treatment to B.C. people booking. So we had a backlog of refunds. We’re not quite through it, but we’re working through it, and we’re close to being through it. What I would say to the member is we’re going to track down that letter and make direct contact with the letter writer to discuss directly their experiences and ensure that we take steps to deal with them.

We’ d be happy to com- municate with the member, as well, and keep the member abreast of how we propose to address the particular situ- ation as well as any systemic issues that we may identify through them. [4:40 p.m.] Hopefully, we will not have another COVID summer, but certainly, that’s not guaranteed. We want to ensure that if British Columbians are seeing B.C. Parks as a refuge, as I said previously, they’re a welcoming and hospitable envir- onment, that people do not, frankly, experience frustra- tions in interacting with B.C. Parks by telephone, by web- site, by social media or in other ways.

I need to look at the letter. I can’t comment further until I have, but I want to assure the member that we take the issue seriously. We’ll look at them. We’ll make contact with the person, again, about the frustration. I understand that $1,300 is a lot of money. It’s a lot of money to wait for. My apologies to the person who’s waiting for a refund, as well as for the loss of the opportunity to camp, although the writer did understand that aspect of it. P . Milobar:I certainly was not expecting that the minis- ter, and I hope I made that clear as well, would know all the details of these two letters.

I selected them to highlight on purpose. I think they show the frustration around people trying to get a reservation and, when they finally do, the condition of the parks once they finally get out into the parks, as well as the frustration on the side of people try- ing to get their refunds and that from the cancellations.

The minister referenced both scenarios in both his answers, which was good, in terms of the system having a problem with the spike of 50,000 people trying to book a reservation but also the 47,000 cancellations that the min- istry initiated on their own by making the decision to close all the parks. Now, I understand the ministry is saying that this is because of COVID. I get that. I’m not so thick as to not realize that logic.

However, government, across ministries, was, by and large, taking their direction directly from the public health officer in terms of the steps that they were taking of changing regulations or operations within their own ministries to respond to orders or direction from the public health officer. My understanding is that the complete closure of the parks and the complete cancellation of all the parks reser- vations was not done at the request of the public health officer, Dr. Bonnie Henry. It was not done by way of order. It was strictly a ministerial decision by the Minister of Environment.

Can the minister provide some insight as to why, of all the things, at a time when Dr. Henry was encouraging people to go out, encouraging people to go and be in the open spaces, to go hiking, to get some physical fitness for your own mental well-being, to be with your small family unit from inside your own house and to find safe ways to be out in the bigger spaces…? At the same time as those pieces of advice were being given by our public health officer, who, I think everyone can agree, has been giving great advice to this point….

It was, essentially, ignored by the Minister of Environ- Thursday, July 16, 2020 Committee of Supply,

Section C 179

ment, and a decision was made to close those exact spaces the public health officer was encouraging people to go and access. [4:45 p.m. - 4:50 p.m.] Hon. G. Heyman: The member asked…. The question was, I believe: what was the process that led us to the decision? Because it wasn’t an order of the provincial health officer. Let me start by saying we didn’t announce a closure of our parks until April 8, which was sometime into the heavy concern about the pandemic.

One of the reasons we didn’t was we heard clearly the need for people to get out- side, to get some exercise, to do it in open spaces — that it was important for their mental and physical health. So we saw the role that B.C. Parks played as quite central and integral to that. At the point at which we closed the parks, however, we did so for a variety of reasons. I would note that on April 8, when we closed the parks, the national parks sys- tem had already been closed. Around the same time, both Saskatchewan and Alberta also closed their parks.

I haven’t checked to confirm this, but my memory tells me that Ontario did as well. [4:55 p.m.] What we were seeing were issues of crowding, issues of crowding at trail heads. It’s true. A park is a wide-open space. It’s also a space that has certain concentrations of people and chokepoints. We were seeing a lot of crowding in those places — trail heads, parking lots. In some cases, we had people parked three deep. Playgrounds. We were seeing spillovers to neighbouring communities that were causing concerns that were expressed to us by neighbour- ing communities.

They were also expressed to us by some local law enforcement agencies, as well as by some neigh- bouring Indigenous nations. The member — I’m going to anticipate a question — might have asked: why didn’t you close the areas where you heard the complaints? The answer to that is that it’s difficult to enforce a decision like that, in some cases, without causing a rush in movement to some other place that, therefore, takes the problems with it and results in rolling closure orders. It just didn’t make sense to us to do that. We thought we should be definitive.

The member also said that the provincial health officer did not order the closure, and that’s correct. She also didn’t order the closure of many retail spaces or many malls. But B.C. Parks and our decision-making process in the min- istry office worked the same way that many of those oper- ators did. That was to look at the general direction of the provincial health officer, which at that time was: stay close to home; minimize or eliminate unnecessary travel; ensure you maintain social distancing, because we need to flatten the curve. It’s important to flatten the curve quickly rather than to see it go up.

Like those other places, and like the national park sys- tem and Alberta and Saskatchewan, our

interpretation was that given what we were seeing, we needed to take the action to close the parks. It’s true that when asked in an interview, the provincial health officer said on April 29: “It was not me who closed the parks. ” But she went on to say that a primary reason for the closure of the parks was increased concern about people gathering, certainly in particular areas, and using the facilities, which was exactly the reports we were getting and exactly why we acted. I’m not going to claim that the decision was perfect or the decision-making process was perfect.

But I think it’s fair to say that whether it’s across government, the private sector or our communities at large, nobody has ever actu- ally experienced this before in living memory or had the opportunity to have a game plan for addressing it. We did the best we can, and we erred on the side of pro- tecting public health and communities, in particular, from the possibility of outbreaks with very severe consequences, which in many cases, on April 8, were largely unknown. But at that time, we had a chance to view northern Italy. We had a chance to view Spain. We had a chance to view parts of France.

We knew British Columbians didn’t want to experience that here. P . Milobar:Well, the minister references that it would be much more difficult to do rolling closures and that. Y et the ministry seemed to find no problem doing rolling openings. We have a situation now where there are parks like Garibaldi Park, which is still closed to this day, even though we’re in phase 3 — that’s my understanding — yet smaller, heavier-used parks in the same region have been open since parks started to reopen, especially the more day-trip parks, not even the camping side.

Why is it that we are still seeing parks that are very large — Garibaldi’s a very, very large park — closed? There seemed to be no problem to do a unilateral “everything is closed. ” There does not seem to be that same willingness to open up and have more parks open so people could actually spread out — same amount of people in more parks versus putting people into those smaller parks in certain areas. [5:00 p.m.] Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question.

Obviously, British Columbians, particularly people who want to use those parks that have yet to open — very beautiful parks, very popular parks, like Garibaldi — want to get there and want to get there soon, and they’re asking why. As I explained when I talked about the closure all at once — we did close a couple of parks early, but the rest we did close all at once, on April 8 — it was because that was a different time. We were on the upswing in COVID cases. We were trying to flatten the curve. We didn’t know what 180 Committee of Supply,

Section C Thursday, July 16, 2020

the impacts of the infection rate would be or if it was going to go on a steep curve upward or not. I’m not saying that those concerns and risks have disap- peared, but we are in a different time. We’ve flattened the curve, and we’re taking measures to keep it flat and under control while opening gradually. Obviously, we want to open as many parks to the public as possible as soon as possible so that we can spread out usage, but there are some parks that we have not yet opened that are high use. They have not yet opened; they’re high use when they’re open.

They have not yet opened because we’re working hard to put in place the measures that will ensure that we don’t create an over- crowding situation at choke points, as well as in the park generally, so that we have to roll back. We want to do it well the first time so that we can maintain an opening. We’re working hard on Garibaldi, and we hope to open it very soon. P . Milobar:Thank you to the minister for that. I’m going to, with the Chair’s permission, turn it over to Koo- tenay East for a quick question, and then I think we’ve pretty much hit the end of my time allotment. So we’ll do that, if that works. T.

Shypitka:Thanks to the member for Kamloops– North Thompson for the opportunity and to the minister himself as well. I just wanted to get some clarification, if anything else, with this question. I want to draw the minister’s attention to an area around the Koocanusa reservoir known as the Koocanusa recreation strategy area. It’s an area that’s been identified to put a management plan in place. Through that management plan, we’ve seen a

section of the Forest and Range Practices Act, otherwise known as FRPA,

section 58, enacted on that piece of strategy area, which includes the closure of Crown land to overnight camping and also to off-road vehicle use other than designated trails. I just wanted to ask the minister if this is under his pur- view or not, or is this something I need to take to FLNRO on decision and on the management of that recreation area? [5:05 p.m.] Hon. G. Heyman: The member is right. It’s under the direction and authority of FLNRO, and that’s where the question should be directed. We did assist them with com- pliance on the long weekend but, again, under their direc- tion and authority.

The Chair:Thank you, Minister, and thank you, Mem- bers. All right. So seeing no further questions at this point, does the Minister have any closing remarks? Hon. G. Heyman: I’ d like to thank primarily the member for Kamloops–North Thompson but also many other members of the opposition and the Opposition House Leader for the Third Party for asking thoughtful questions and questions their constituents want and deserve answers to. While it’s hard to hear some of the issues the member for Kamloops–North Thompson raised about parks, we appreciate hearing them, and my commitment is to follow up.

Likewise, with the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin and others where there is some follow-up needed. I would add that estimates is not the only time the member can bring issues to my attention. We want to address them. I want to thank the staff of the ministry, whom I intro- duced at the beginning of the process a little over a week ago, for assisting with this process, providing information and answers, and also for the work they do every day to assure British Columbians that we have a meaningful park system, meaningful oversight of environmental issues and a meaningful climate plan.

Vote 23: ministry operations, $188,132,000 — approved. Vote 24: environmental assessment office, $21,482,000 — approved. The Chair:We’re going to take a short recess, about five minutes, give or take, as we prepare for our next set of estimates, which will be Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions. The committee recessed from 5:08 p.m. to 5:20 p.m. [S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.] ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTIONS On Vote 36: ministry operations, $9,712,000. The Chair:Did the minister have any opening state- ments or want to acknowledge staff? Hon. J. Darcy: I do.

Let me begin by acknowledging that we’re on the traditional territory of theLək̓ ʷəŋin̓ əŋ people, the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations. I’ d like to introduce the ministry staff who are attend- ance, some in the room here, others remotely: Deputy Minister Neilane Mayhew; Assistant Deputy Ministers Nick Grant and Taryn Walsh; the ministry’s chief financial officer, Dara Landry; the head of the overdose emergency response centre, Justine Patterson; and a few others. I’m very grateful for their support 365 days a year, and I’m very grateful for their support preparing for estimates this year.

Y es, I do have some opening remarks. Our ministry was Thursday, July 16, 2020 Committee of Supply,

Section C 181

created almost three years ago, to the day. Since that time, we have been working flat out with a really dedicated team in our ministry but also in concert with so many partners in the community and health authorities right across the province, people on the front lines of mental health and addictions. I want to begin by expressing my incredible gratitude to the ministry staff and to everyone who works in mental health and addictions. It takes very, very special people to do this work. It is about policy expertise, clinical expertise and financial expertise.

It’s about a lot of expertise, but it’s also about issues that you pour your heart and your soul into, because this is not work that you should be doing if you aren’t totally passionate about these issues. Our teams certainly are. We have been working flat out for three years now, working to get to a place in this province where every- body in British Columbia is able to get the mental health and addictions care they need when they need it and where they need it. For far too long, people have been left waiting.

They’ve been having to navigate a broken system for too long that allows too many people to fall through the cracks. Our government is working at full speed to build that comprehensive system of mental health and addictions care that British Columbians want and that they deserve. We’re also working, on every front, to respond to the overdose crisis by strengthening treatment and recovery and prevention and early intervention and saving lives. Last year, you will know that we launchedA Pathway to Hope: A Roadmap for Making Mental Health and Addic- tions Care Better for People in British Columbia.

This is a ten-year plan. We are one year into it. We have already begun transforming the system of mental health and addiction care. We’ve accomplished a lot, but we certainly recognize that we have much more to do. I want to begin by just saying a couple of things about the social determinants of health, because people experi- ence mental health and addiction challenges for many dif- ferent reasons, all of them very complex. Each person’s story is unique. Each person’s recovery journey looks dif- ferent.

I want to thank all of those people in all corners of the province who have shared their stories with me — their family’s stories, their struggles and the help that they need — because that certainly guides our work every single day. [5:25 p.m.] We’re working across government to build strong foundations that support good health outcomes. When we speak of social determinants of health, of course, that means things like secure housing and reducing home- lessness. It means tackling poverty reduction. It means a true commitment to reconciliation and to gender equity.

It means improving access to education and post-sec- ondary education and better opportunities for all, to name just a few. By focusing on the social determinants of health and strengthening our continuum of care for mental health and substance use, we really are working from every con- ceivable angle in order to try and stem the tide of the overdose crisis and to help more people on the road to recovery, more people on the road to good mental health. That includes that we’re integrating mental health and sub- stance use care into primary care, hon. Speaker. I hope you don’t mind, Mr. Chair, being called hon.

Speaker. The Chair:Very kind, very kind. Hon. J. Darcy:Okay. Good, hon. Chair. This is really important because we have said over and over again — it’s sort of a driving theme for our ministry — that mental health issues are not signs of weakness, and addiction is not a sign of moral failure. These should not be treated as criminal issues. These are health issues — period. It’s critical that we treat them that way. Integrating mental health and substance use care into primary care is a really important way of recognizing that overriding theme.

When you go for primary health care, we want more and more to be able to see mental health and substance use integrated into that. We are doing that through urgent and primary care centres that embed men- tal health and substance use through patient care net- works, through a new nurse practitioner–led clinic that has mental health and substance use clinicians — and much more to come. We are indeed working very hard to build a continuum of care. Let me say something about prevention, because that continuum of care has many different pieces, and prior- itizing prevention is really critical.

It’s so important that we start with our youth, our young people, that we tackle small problems before they become big ones and try and avoid mental health issues or childhood trauma from turning into substance use issues in early adult life, in teen- age years, or later on in life. Prevention and early interven- tion are key to ensuring that children and youth and young adults can get the help they need for better outcomes in life so they don’t just survive, but they’re able to thrive, now and later on in life. A prime example of our work in this area is the Foundry youth centres.

It’s really a shining example of the work that our ministry is doing, and I want to pay tribute to the people who are working in those Foundry youth centres. This is really about connecting young people to the care and connection and support that they do need, not just to survive but to thrive. We’ve recently announced, as the Chair will know, eight new Foundry locations in rural and urban communities, for a total of 19 — count them, 19 — Foundry youth centres right across the province once we’re complete. Two of those Foundry centres are Indigenous-led organiza- tions, in Port Hardy and in Cranbrook.

But certainly, there 182 Committee of Supply,

Section C Thursday, July 16, 2020

are partnerships with Indigenous people and First Nations all across the province. And to ensure that young people who don’t live near a Foundry centre still have access to the vital services that they provide, a new virtual service has also been launched. That’s not it, hon. Chair. I know we’ll have a chance to talk about this further, but in the area of prevention, child and youth mental health teams that we’re beginning to build in school districts, mental health programs in schools….

That’s so important that we start with our young people, both because we want to give them support early in life but also because they’re the leaders. They’re really the leaders in combatting stigma. They’re the leaders in bringing down the walls of silence surrounding mental health and addictions, leading the way in saying, “It’s okay to say: ‘I’m not okay. ’” The work we’re doing in schools is critically important, the work in Foundry.

So is the work in post-secondary education, where my colleague the Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Training, earlier this year, this spring, announced a 24-7 mental health line dedicated to students in post-secondary education. Another critical part, of course, of the continuum of care is treatment and recovery, because people who are ready to start their recovery journey from addiction need to be able to get the treatment and recovery services as soon as they possibly can.

To be frank, over the last decade, investments in mental health and addictions did not keep up with demand, and that has resulted in long wait-lists and lack of services in many communities, especially rural and remote areas. [5:30 p.m.] We are working as quickly as we can to address the gaps in that system, and there are many, many gaps. We have a long way to go, but we are making headway. We are mak- ing a difference. We have opened new residential treat- ment beds.

We have significantly expanded access to coun- selling, because access to mental health and addiction care should not depend on the size of your bank account. But too often it has, and we want that to change. We think that’s wrong. These counselling grants, which have been distributed to 29 organizations across the province and then expan- ded further when we went virtual during COVID to an additional 20 agencies, are a critical part of being able to access these services where you need them, when you need them. The overdose crisis, the dual public health emergencies.

We were making some progress on the overdose crisis before COVID-19 hit. We still had a long way to go. But for the first year since 2012, which was when we began to see very noticeable increases in the numbers of people who were overdosing…. Since that time, the first year that the overdose death toll started to go down was last year. It went down by 36 percent. Still a long way to go, but we were headed in the right direction. The B.C. Centre for Disease Control, along with Dr.

Bonnie Henry — they’ve kind of become household names now — have estimated that 6,000 deaths were aver- ted because of the initiatives that our government had taken and because of all the efforts on the front lines. Then COVID-19 hit. We know — and the coroner has been crystal clear about this — the spike in overdose deaths that we’re dealing with today, tragically, and that continues to rise is a direct result of a drug supply that is more toxic than it has ever, ever been before. We did move very quickly. I’m sure we’ll be talking about that further, with questions from the opposition.

We’ve moved very quickly since COVID-19 hit, to move counselling services virtual, with $5 million investments. We moved very quickly to put risk mitigation guidelines in place so that there were safe prescription alternatives to the poisoned drug supply. We recently announced more beds and, as I mentioned, more substance use integrated teams and also very direct support to the recovery sector.

Like so many other sectors, whether they’re social sectors or economic sectors, they were hit hard by COVID-19, and we gave some important support for them, because we know how important the recovery sector is in this continuum of care. In conclusion to my opening remarks, the fact is, the reality is, we are living in an unprecedented time of two public health emergencies here in the province of British Columbia, the fentanyl poisoning crisis and the COV- ID-19 pandemic, and a collaborative approach is abso- lutely essential.

To those who work tirelessly on the front lines every single day in mental health, in addictions and in the overdose crisis, thank you from the bottom of my heart. Thank you on behalf of a grateful province. Thank you to the staff in our ministries and across government and our partners provincewide. Let me just say, before we begin the questions, that the way we pulled together as British Columbians, the way we pulled together as a province during COVID-19, we showed that we could move mountains. We showed that we could lead not just Canada but jurisdictions around the world in our response to COVID-19.

We need to come together in exactly the same way in order to turn the corner on this terrible crisis that continues to take brothers and sisters and aunties and uncles and close friends. To all of my colleagues and to whoever is listening — I’m sure tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands across the province — my appeal to all of you is we need to come together as one, all hands on deck, so that we can turn the corner on the overdose crisis in the same way we did with COVID-19. I look forward to hearing questions from my opposition colleagues. J.

Thornthwaite:I, too, would like to thank all the health care workers, front-line workers out there across the board, all of those that are working with mental health Thursday, July 16, 2020 Committee of Supply,

Section C 183

and addictions and those in residential care. Certainly a shout-out. [5:35 p.m.] I’ve got some initial questions. Then I’m going to get some of my colleagues to step in and ask some questions specific to their ridings. First of all, I’ d just like to get something on the record. Today, Minister, the Premier was asked about treating the opioid crisis with the urgency of COVID-19. He respon- ded with a quote, saying: “These are two separate things. We have an insidious

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20200716pm CommitteeC n10
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20200716pm CommitteeC n10
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	0aec306b10258214aa28ee3f005cb1cffc69b767

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).