Second Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, November 17, 2021

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 131

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 29 —

Interpretation Amendment Act, 2021

Bill 18 — Human Rights Code Amendment Act,

Hon. D. Eby

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Ground search and rescue volunteers

J. Rice

Mike Grisdale and community support for woodworking

shed

S. Bond

Richmond Cares, Richmond Gives youth program

H. Yao

Adoption awareness

K. Kirkpatrick

Punjabi literature and language

R. Singh

Community response to flooding in Abbotsford

B. Banman

Oral Questions

Service model change for children with support needs

and funding for autism services

S. Bond

Hon. M. Dean

K. Kirkpatrick

Service model change for children with support needs

and independent distributed learning

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. J. Whiteside

Severe weather events and protection of critical

infrastructure and supplies

S. Furstenau

Hon. R. Fleming

Hon. L. Popham

Emergency alert system and government response to

severe weather events

J. Tegart

Hon. M. Farnworth

B. Banman

Tabling Documents

Islands Trust, annual report, 2020-21

Standing Order 35

Request to debate a matter of urgent public importance

— response to severe weather events

P. Milobar

Hon. M. Farnworth

S. Furstenau

Motions Without Notice

Committee of the Whole to sit in two

sections

Hon. M. Farnworth

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 28 — Forest Amendment Act, 2021

Hon. K. Conroy

J. Rustad

Standing Order 35

Request to debate a matter of urgent public importance

— response to severe weather events (continued)

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 28 — Forest Amendment Act, 2021

(continued)

J. Rustad

A. Olsen

Hon. B. Ma

B. Stewart

G. Kyllo

M. Morris

D. Davies

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 20 — Access to Services (COVID-19) Act

Hon. D. Eby

S. Furstenau

M. de Jong

A. Olsen

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2021

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: P. Alexis.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

M. Dykeman: It’s an honour to rise in the House today. I have two

introductions.

The first one is that I am just thrilled to have two people joining me from

my riding. Theo Warkentin and Roslyn Ritchie are over for some meetings with me

today, and I’m so grateful that they made the trek over. I was wondering if the

House could please help me make them feel very welcome.

My second introduction. I know that there is a group of LAs in the gallery.

I wanted to introduce my LA, Trudy Maygard, who keeps me organized and puts up

with me constantly being lost or having to tell me where to go. As we talked about

our CAs recently in the House, we can’t do our job without the wonderful,

qualified people that help us shine every day. I wanted to thank Trudy Maygard,

and I was wondering if the House could please help me make them feel very

welcome.

S. Bond: I would like to welcome some very special guests to the gallery today. They

are concerned with the recent announcement regarding funding for autism supports

and services. It’s a real pleasure to have them here to watch question period

today.

I hope the House will make welcome Kaye Banez, who is the president of

AutismBC, Vince Banez, Estella Banez and Lazarus Banez. Estella, while she might

be young in years, is an incredibly powerful advocate. I would encourage everyone

in this House to listen to her podcast. I’m told that she’s gathering in all these

experiences, and I’m sure that will be a very interesting podcast that she

produces.

Please help me make the Banez family welcome.

Hon. D. Eby: Today we’re joined on the precinct by Emily Ohler, chair of the B.C. Human

Rights Tribunal, and Elena Pennell, a policy analyst from the Union of B.C. Indian

Chiefs.

I also want to recognize some guests who intended to be here but weren’t

able to join us because of the disaster currently unfolding in the province:

Kasari Govender, Human Rights Commissioner; Chief Don Tom, Tsartlip First Nation

and vice-president of UBCIC; Kúkpi7 Judy Wilson from Neskonlith First Nation, an

executive member of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs; and Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond,

director of UBC’s Indian Residential School History and Dialogue

Centre.

I thank those individuals for making an effort to come. Please join me in

welcoming Emily and Elena to the House.

A. Mercier: I’d just like to introduce three spry young men who I think are no

strangers to many in this House: Bruce Ferguson, Manuel Alvernaz and Merrick Walsh

from the Labourers International Union of North America, LiUNA. Their youthful

appearance may fool you, but they have spent decades building the critical

infrastructure necessary to keep this province moving, maintaining and repairing

it and supporting the workers who do so. Could we please give Manuel, Merrick and

Bruce a big hand.

I. Paton: It’s my pleasure today to introduce one of the greatest door knockers in

the history of Ladner, B.C. Young Rachel Loif is here today from Ladner with her

friend Craig, from Ottawa. It’s their first time here visiting the Legislature

here in Victoria. Rachel has been a great success story, helping me out in my

riding. She has recently graduated from UBC and just wrote her first LSAT exam the

other day. We wish her all the luck moving forward. Thanks for coming, and we wish

them well.

Hon. N. Cullen: I have two very special guests joining us here today. Colleagues, as we’ve

often said in this place, it’s our privilege to take our seats here, but we owe

that to many other people in our lives.

[1:40 p.m.]

To these two people in particular, I owe an obvious and greater debt. They

are my parents, Marguerite and John, who are here today in the gallery. Literally,

without them I couldn’t be here, not just by birth but also their undying support

and love in this strange path that I have chosen — not simply for me but for my

family. I am truly grateful for their support and often very clear instruction as

to what I should and should not do.

Would colleagues please join me in making them feel welcome.

K. Kirkpatrick: It’s an honour to introduce two amazing women who I’ve recently become

acquainted with. Julia Boyle is the executive director of AutismBC, and Amanda

Flentjar is the regional coordinator, Vancouver Island, for AutismBC. They both

work tirelessly on behalf of their own children and many other children across

British Columbia. I’d like to thank them for joining us today.

Hon. S. Robinson: I have two guests joining us today in the gallery.

Along with the member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain and the Solicitor

General, I’m very excited to introduce Chief Ed Hall of the

kʷikʷəƛ̓əm Nation, on whose territory I’ve

had the privilege of raising my family.

Chief Hall has been a tremendous advocate for his people, working

collaboratively with government to deliver on housing for his seniors and working

to make sure that səmiq̓wəʔelə, the lands known

as Riverview, deliver mental health services, recognizing the history of the

territory, the history of the land as we continue to do work there.

The chief is joined by Gail Sidhu, his partner, who supports his work and

who has had a significant career as a sergeant with the RCMP.

Chief Hall has been an amazing student of

hən̓q̓əmin̓em, the language of the Stó:lō,

over the past number of years. Every time I see him, he has enriched his language

skills in an incredible way.

I want to finish off my greeting and my welcome with éy swáyel. ey

kwels kw’etslome, el siyá:ye .

Good day. It’s good to see you, my friend.

Will the chamber please help me in acknowledging and welcoming these

guests.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Kootenay East. West. East.

No, north. Peace River North.

D. Davies: As much as I do love the Kootenays, Peace River North is Peace River North.

This is part of the new boundary commission stuff going on here.

Just to add to some of my colleagues that have introduced some folks up in

the gallery today who are here, concerned about the recent announcement around

autism. Please, would the House join me in welcoming Brock Sheppard. He is the

program manager for AutismBC. I want to thank him and the others for coming down

today to listen to the proceedings this afternoon.

A. Olsen: Today I’m honoured to stand and introduce members from the first Saltspring

Island Pathfinders, which is part of the Girl Guides of Canada. I’m sorry that I

wasn’t able to join them this afternoon. There was a bit of a timing

issue.

Today I’d like to introduce the adult guiders — Mary Rowles, Jane Lizotte

and Michelle Bennett-Peters — and, as well, the seven Pathfinder girl scouts: Mya

Purvis, Grace Chamberlin, Megan Lizotte, Shelvy Bennett-Peters, Elizabeth Lee,

Blossom MacAllister and Abby McColl.

I look forward to connecting with you at some point in the near future so

that you can get all the badges and patches that you need. I’m sorry that we

missed you today.

Will the House make them feel very welcome here.

Hon. M. Dean: Today it’s a pleasure for me to rise to introduce Mr. Colin Sparks. He’s a

16-year-old student from Royal Bay who lives in the neighbourhood in Metchosin.

He’s a bright young man from my community. He’s very interested in politics, so

he’s observing today. He was brought here by his father, Dale.

[1:45 p.m.]

Also in the gallery today…. My amazing constituency assistant is here,

Nubwa Wathanafa. Jared Butcher, my other amazing constituency assistant, isn’t

here with her, but I recognize the work they both do, which is absolutely

tremendous.

Also in the gallery are two of my assistants from here in the ministry

office, Nicole Hansen and Kaitlin Morton, without whom I couldn’t get here and do

all of my meetings on time and on schedule. I really appreciate all of their

support.

Also from AutismBC, I do appreciate that today, as many members have

already mentioned, we have Kaye Banez, Julia Boyle, Brock Sheppard, Selina Lim,

Amanda Flentjar and Terri Hopkinson. I had a very productive meeting with them

just before lunch. They’re passionate advocates, and I really appreciate the

conversation that we had.

H. Yao: First of all, I want to take a moment to welcome one of our Richmond

elected officials. He has been a champion in doing a lot of cross-cultural

Every time when there’s a provincial policy coming out, a federal policy

with his face attached to a lot of really great messages to educate our

constituents about the importance of our government’s policies and what we’re

doing to better the life of Richmond residents.

Please join me in welcoming Coun. Chak Au and his guests.

T. Stone: It does give me a great deal of pleasure, as well, to welcome all of the

folks that are here holding meetings with the government and the opposition to

express their concerns with recent funding announcements related to autism

supports. Specifically, I’d like to mention Selina Lim, who is the marketing

manager with AutismBC, as well as Terri Hopkinson, who is the marketing assistant

with AutismBC.

Thank you so much for making the effort to come to Victoria and to fight

for your children. It was great to meet with you earlier today.

I would ask the House to please make them feel welcome.

J. Tegart: I also have some special guests in the gallery today. There is no greater

advocate for children than parents. We know that in the education system, and we

also know that in the autism world. Today I’d like to have you welcome Vanessa

Taylor, Ryan Taylor, Lysander Taylor and Elisse Taylor.

Welcome. I know you’ll listen with a great deal of interest to the

questions and answers today.

L. Doerkson: I’d like the House to help me with a birthday greeting today. I want to

send a greeting home to 100 Mile House to a longtime member of this House, a past

MLA for Cariboo-Chilcotin. She still watches the happenings of this place almost

daily and has much opinion about it.

Happy birthday to Donna Barnett.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 29 —

INTERPRETATION

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a

bill intituled

Interpretation Amendment Act, 2021.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to introduce the

Interpretation Amendment Act,

2021. This proposed amendment to the

Interpretation Act affirms the province’s

commitment to uphold and not abrogate or derogate from Aboriginal and treaty

constitutional rights. It also underscores the importance of consistency with

the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples when there are questions

about the

interpretation of provincial acts and regulations.

[1:50 p.m.]

This legislation originated through feedback we received in the

development of the draft action plan, and it evolved through a deeply

collaborative co-development process with Indigenous representative

organizations, including the First Nations Leadership Council. I’d like to

thank them for their innovation and support in prioritizing this important

work.

This legislation is another example of our government’s willingness to

break new ground and take action to advance our shared commitment to respect,

promote and advance the rights of Indigenous peoples. I’m proud that B.C.

continues to be a leader in Canada in advancing reconciliation together with

Indigenous peoples.

Mr. Speaker: Members, it’s the first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at

the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 29,

Interpretation Amendment Act, 2021, introduced, read a first time

and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

BILL 18 — HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a

bill intituled Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2021.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to introduce Bill 18, the Human Rights Code

Amendment Act, 2021. Indigenous people face disturbingly high levels of

discrimination and racism in our province. Despite this, in a recent report put

out by the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, Indigenous complainants continue to be

underrepresented among those seeking the tribunal’s assistance.

Bill 18 seeks to enhance and clarify existing protections for Indigenous

people under the code. Currently the B.C. human rights code implicitly protects

individuals based on the prohibitions against discrimination on the grounds of

race, colour, ancestry, place of origin and religion. These amendments will add

a protected ground of Indigenous identity to explicitly recognize the human

rights code’s protections against discrimination and racism for Indigenous

people.

In addition, Bill 18 will add a definition of Indigenous which was

co-developed with Indigenous people and provides clarity that Indigenous means

the First Nations, Métis and Inuit people of Canada.

Mr. Speaker: Members, you heard the question.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at

the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 18, Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2021, introduced, read a first

time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

GROUND SEARCH AND RESCUE VOLUNTEERS

J. Rice: When someone in British Columbia goes missing, they can rest assured

that people are out looking for them. In North Coast, Prince Rupert Ground

Search and Rescue is one of the many SAR groups responding to the call. These

courageous individuals volunteer their time and effort to locate missing

persons.

Prince Rupert GSAR recently purchased a new mobile command centre to

allow the search crew to respond more quickly and efficiently to calls. It

features a cell signal and hand radio booster antenna as well as signal booster

repeaters, which allow SAR teams to communicate across greater distances.

Inside they have a complete operational centre with space for the operations,

planning and logistic departments and the search manager. It’s self-sufficient

for at least three days with food, water, a backup generator and a battery

bank.

With recent extreme weather events, we know more than ever the

importance of search and rescue work. In the Fraser Valley, Vancouver’s Urban

Search and Rescue team was deployed to help rescue over 270 people trapped

between two mudslides. In Chilliwack, search and rescue helped save several

people Sunday night after their home on Wilson Road was badly damaged by

flooding. Numerous GSAR groups are engaged across the province as we deal with

this emergency.

These British Columbians give their time and expertise without

hesitation, often on a moment’s notice, risking themselves in some of the most

dangerous situations, in a rugged environment, making sure someone in trouble

stays alive. B.C.’s ground search and rescue volunteers battle the worst

weather conditions and navigate the most dangerous terrain to find and rescue

the lost and injured.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the 80 search and rescue groups

and approximately 2,500 GSAR volunteers we have in this province.

Your work is invaluable to all British Columbians.

I also want to give a shout-out to my local Prince Rupert Ground Search

and Rescue, who have recently been deployed on a multi-day mission and put

their new command centre to the test.

Thank you for your service.

[1:55 p.m.]

MIKE GRISDALE AND COMMUNITY

SUPPORT FOR WOODWORKING

SHED

S. Bond: I rise to share a story about a community coming together to support

someone after a significant loss.

This is the story of Mike Grisdale. He’s a custodian who has worked hard

and given a lot to our community. He’s been supporting his wife through a

serious disease and praying for her to receive a liver transplant. To help him

support his wife and relieve some of the stress of work, Mike spent time in his

shed, focusing on woodworking projects.

Unfortunately, in September, tragedy struck when Mike’s shed caught fire

and burned to the ground. This was absolutely devastating to Mike and his wife.

people throughout our community heard about what happened and pitched in to

help. David Mothus and Caleb Wilson stepped up and partnered with Primus

Electric to ensure that Mike got a new shed.

Whether it was people making small donations or actually getting a crane

to place the replacement shed, Prince George was there to support Mike. You

should have seen how this impacted Mike and his wife — the outpouring of love

and generosity. Seeing a brand-new shed with brand-new tools, courtesy of his

friends, neighbours and even complete strangers meant the world to

him.

Sticking up for those facing hard times in our community means the world

to us in Prince George. As people across the province are facing grief and

loss, whether from the past year and a half of the pandemic, the heat dome

earlier this summer or the terrible flooding and landslides this week, it’s so

important to remember how British Columbians come together to help one

another.

Whether it’s a major natural disaster or a man’s shed lost in a fire,

British Columbians have each others’ backs. I am so proud of how we support our

neighbours in this province, and the story of Mike represents just how we do

that.

Thank you, Prince George.

RICHMOND CARES, RICHMOND GIVES

YOUTH

PROGRAM

H. Yao: Board directors of non-profits and charities are expected to exercise

exceptional versatility and resourcefulness while leading organizations that

they represent to fundraise, volunteer recruitment and coordination, event

promotion and ticket sales, community celebration attendance and network with

local leaders, hosting public engagement and advocating for great causes,

budget evaluation, addressing operational challenges and much, much

more.

It takes someone with an extraordinary passion, exemplary attention to

detail, an admirable level of resourcefulness and unwavering dedication to

serve on the board of a non-profit or charity. Most of all, it takes unique

experience and knowledge to serve the position well. That’s why I want to take

a moment to say how proud I am of Leadership Now — Richmond Cares, Richmond

Gives’ Youth Now program.

On October 22, 2021, RCRG Youth Now celebrated their 17th anniversary.

Up to that point, they had over 100 young adults graduated from the program.

Led by Sydney Kuo, the program provides a rare opportunity for young adults to

serve on the board of a local non-profit or charity. While they serve, they’ll

be mentored by an experienced director, a partnership where organizations in

Richmond come together to call on the young adults of today to become the

leaders of tomorrow.

RCRG Youth Now is a remarkable program where passionate young

visionaries will access the means and receive the guidance needed to better the

community. I want to take a moment to express my gratitude to various

organizations, community leaders and young adults who volunteer to serve a

community in such a worthy capacity.

First, I want to thank Richmond Women’s Resource Centre, Richmond

Addiction Services Society and Richmond Sharing Farm.

I also want to thank Tammi Belfer, Li Qing Wang, Cyrene Beavis and

Sheilagh Pace for taking the time out of your busy

schedule to mentor young

leaders in our community.

Most of all, I want to thank the young leaders — Casey Skuce, Sadaf

Sediqi and Brandon Kato — for sharing your time, energy, vision and dedication

to help us all make Richmond a better place.

ADOPTION AWARENESS

K. Kirkpatrick: Chongqing is a city of nine million people situated in south central

China two hours west of Shanghai. At 7:30 a.m. on November 4, 2003, 36

prospective adoptive parents from British Columbia, including me, friends,

companions, boarded the bus from Chongqing for the two-hour trip to the Fuling

orphanage. Shivery anticipation prevailed, in spite of the 31 degree

temperature.

[2:00 p.m.]

The chaos of Chongqing gradually gave way to rice paddies and rural

agriculture. Crossing the Yangtze, we arrived at Fuling at nine o’clock in the

morning. A crowd of local residents quickly gathered as we stepped down from

the bus and descended a very narrow road up to the orphanage. The rest, for me,

is a bit of a haze until I was handed a beautiful, screaming baby. She looked

up at me, stopped crying and immediately fell asleep, much to the envy of all

the other new parents.

November is Adoption Awareness Month. Families take many different

forms. There are people in this House, like myself, who have built their family

or joined their family through adoption. Now, that’s part of my

story.

I want to take this opportunity to draw your attention to the many

children in care in this province waiting for adoption. Without adoption, many

of these young people will remain in care for the rest of their childhood.

There are approximately 750 children in care ready to be, and deserving to be,

part of a loving and supportive family.

Adoptive families are incredibly diverse, just like the rest of us. Most

children in care waiting for adoption are between four and 18 years old. Forty

percent are part of sibling groups, and 59 percent are Indigenous, needing

culturally appropriate homes. Some of these beautiful children have additional

needs brought about by early abuse or neglect.

I would ask British Columbians to consider the adoption of a child or

sibling group from care. It’s a huge commitment with a huge return.

Open your hearts and reach out to the Adoptive Families Association of

B.C. to learn more about this wonderful, life-changing journey.

PUNJABI LITERATURE AND LANGUAGE

R. Singh: Today I rise to highlight Punjabi Literature Week in British

Columbia.

Punjabi has been spoken in British Columbia for over 120 years, and

Punjabi language and literature are embedded in the rich cultural and literary

traditions of Punjab in both India and Pakistan. Being a Punjabi myself, I feel

proud of the efforts of our community Elders who have been fighting for years

to keep our mother language alive in this part of the world.

This week allows families like mine, and those across British Columbia,

to stay connected to our roots and pass it on to our children.

Over the weekend, I had the opportunity to attend an event by Dhahan

Punjabi literary awards to honour three amazing Punjabi writers from India and

Pakistan: Nain Sukh, Balbir Madhopuri and Sarghi Jammu. The Dhahan Prize for

Punjabi Literature celebrates the rich culture and transnational heritage of

Punjabi literature and language. The prize aims to promote the growth of the

Punjabi language globally as well as to encourage new, emerging and established

writers working in the two Punjabi scripts, Gurmukhi and Shahmukhi.

Being Parliamentary Secretary for Anti-Racism, it warms my heart to see

Dhahan Punjabi literary awards work on cross-cultural and reconciliation

initiatives. They are honouring authors who have written on racism, social

justice and residential school survivors. It’s an organization committed to

building bridges with First Nations, who are the original stewards of this

land.

I would like to encourage all Punjabi-speaking British Columbians to use

this week as an opportunity to share Punjabi literature with one another and

foster connection and communication through storytelling.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO

FLOODING IN

ABBOTSFORD

B. Banman: I rise in the House today to deliver this statement not only as an MLA

but as someone who has called the Fraser Valley home for my entire life, as do

my children and grandchildren, and as did my parents, grandparents,

great-grandparents and great-great-grandparents.

I am truly at a loss for words to describe the pain and grief I feel

today and share with thousands of other people across the Sumas Prairie and

British Columbia as we witness the utter devastation of our roads, our homes,

our livestock, our livelihoods and the lives we’ve built in Abbotsford and

British Columbia.

[2:05 p.m.]

We have not seen destruction, loss and heartache like this in our

community since the flood of 1948, a flood my ancestors lived through

themselves. But just like in 1948, Abbotsford and British Columbia will rise

from this crisis stronger than ever before.

Today, in one of our darkest hours, I want to reflect the grit, the

determination, the bravery and the unprecedented spirit of community so many of

our local heroes have shown and continue to show in this time of

need.

They are not limited to the incredible local leaders, emergency

responders, search and rescue services and Canadian Forces, whose actions are

saving countless lives. They are our neighbours, our friends, our fellow

Abbotsford residents, and strangers.

They are people going door to door to check on neighbours to ensure that

they’re okay. They are people who are grabbing boats, jet skis, even renting

private helicopters to help their neighbours, friends and family move

livestock, gather essentials or get each other to safety.

They are volunteers at our gurdwaras, our churches, preparing thousands

of meals for people in their time of need. They are the people across our

province opening their doors to displaced families, offering clothing and

shelter to those who have none. They are the individuals who are working

through the night, sandbagging our roads, our pump station and our shelters to

protect what we cannot afford to lose.

There are, literally, too many acts of heroism for me to recognize and

too many people to thank in these short two minutes. It is the countless

actions of these men and women that give me and everyone in our community hope,

that show the world that we will overcome these challenges and come back

stronger and that remind me why I am so proud to call this amazing community

and province home.

Oral Questions

SERVICE MODEL CHANGE

FOR CHILDREN WITH SUPPORT NEEDS

AND FUNDING FOR AUTISM SERVICES

S. Bond: Today in the gallery, there are a number of families who have children

with autism. They wanted to come to Victoria today to ensure that every single

MLA in this chamber understands how concerned they are about the recently

announced changes that may impact the support that they have worked so

tirelessly to put in place for their children.

They represent thousands of parents across this province. They’re here

to ensure that every MLA, and the minister, hears their story.

Vanessa Taylor and her husband, Ryan, and their children are here today.

This is what Vanessa wants the minister to know: “I have been listening

intently to the minister committing to provide the proverbial magic bullet

while at the same time pointedly singling out every single autistic child,

including my own two. The minister would be mistaken to think that I am not

offended to hear her repeatedly use false justifications to take my

individualized funding away.”

Today will the minister listen to Vanessa, to her family, to other

parents that are in the gallery and across British Columbia, do the right thing

and reverse her decision?

Hon. M. Dean: Nothing is more important than making sure that vulnerable children and

youth across the province of British Columbia receive the services that they

need.

They need to receive those services as early as possible. They need to

receive them in a way that meets their needs and is matched to their needs so

that their needs are met and they’re able to thrive and they’re able to be

launched into a wonderful pathway to fulfil their potential.

As we move into the implementation of the new framework, families with

children with autism will continue to receive services. They will continue to

receive services under the new framework. In addition, families with children

who currently don’t receive services but do have needs will also be able to

receive services.

[2:10 p.m.]

Families with children where there is a concern that they might have

autism, and they’re waiting for a diagnosis for autism, which can take up to a

couple of years…. Those children and youth will also receive services,

irrespective of that diagnosis but based on their needs.

By providing those services based on the unique needs of those children

and youth, we are going to help them thrive, we’re going to help them meet

their goals, and we’re going to build success for their future.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

S. Bond: For weeks now, we’ve been asking the minister the same questions, and we

hear the same answer. We’ve been very clear in our questions that this is not

about only autistic children in British Columbia; it’s about children and

families who are supporting children who have special needs.

This minister continues to say that we need to meet and match their

needs. What we are saying and, more importantly, what parents are saying today

to this minister is that they know how to do that best. They have spent

countless years, in many cases, providing supports that are necessary, and they

are working.

Not the families nor the opposition have ever said that it is either-or

for families in British Columbia. There is a system that is working, and this

minister and government should be building on that system to close the gaps and

better serve all families who have those needs. That’s the message that’s been

delivered day after day to this minister.

This week 24 diverse organizations from across the disability sector, 24

organizations — and it continues to grow — met to discuss the NDP’s clawback of

funding. This is what they have to say. “Our organizations, representing over

30,000 families in British Columbia, unanimously confirm that we were not

consulted on these changes. We continue to point out dangerous flaws in the

minister’s plans, but she continues to disregard our experience and our

expertise.” Not my words. Not the words of the opposition. The words of a

coalition representing 30,000 families in British Columbia.

Families and representatives are here in the gallery today. Their ask is

reasonable. Their ask is appropriate. What they want this minister to do is to

press the pause button and engage in meaningful consultation with thousands of

families who have not had the opportunity to say a single thing about changes

that will impact their children.

To the minister, again, will she do the right thing? Will she press the

pause button and engage in meaningful consultation so that any changes that may

need to take place are done in consultation, collaboration and partnership with

parents?

Hon. M. Dean: It is very important to make sure that we’re working in partnership with

parents and in collaboration with agencies, service providers, experts and

advocates from the sector. We value the experience and the feedback that we’re

receiving.

This process started back in 2019, where we did a large process of

consultation with over 1,500 individuals. That included families and agencies

and service providers. We were also listening to the Representative for

Children and Youth, who has written numerous reports recommending to the

ministry that we move towards a needs-based system and pointing out the

problems with the current system. We’ve heard from many, many families that

their children are left behind and that services are locked behind a diagnosis,

and it can take up to two years to receive a diagnosis.

If your child is two or three when you notice that you may have a

concern about their development, that’s a long time in that child’s life where

they’re potentially missing milestones and important stages of their

development.

We are now at this point in the journey, working through this process up

to 2025. We are now establishing sessions where families, where service

providers, where experts from the sector can have really detailed discussion

with ministry staff and share feedback, share concerns and share discussions

about solutions.

[2:15 p.m.]

We want to build a successful system that serves the needs of all

children and youth. I’ve been continuing to listen to a range of organizations

and agencies across the province who have an interest and who have expertise in

this area. I am committed to continuing to do that in the interests of making

sure this is successful.

K. Kirkpatrick: The minister says it’s very important to be working with the families,

but we’ve heard over and over and over again that those families haven’t been

consulted or had discussions. We already have heard that the 1,500 parents

consulted and the Representative for Children and Youth never discussed the hub

model that’s being proposed in the new CYSN framework.

The families here today want the minister to meaningfully consult with

children and youth that will lose their funding because of this

clawback.

Nathan Lee is 16 years old. He writes: “If I were to lose my funding at

this stage, as some kids will under the new system, I would struggle even more

in the areas I’ve worked so hard on improving.”

Madison Ross is 12 years old, and her MLA is the member for

Burnaby-Lougheed. She says: “Please don’t take away my funding.”

Will the minister listen to the voices of these youth who are calling on

her to end the clawback, go back and change and reverse the

decision?

Hon. M. Dean: Yes, we will be listening to children and youth as well as their

families. It is absolutely important that we wrap a circle of care around

children and youth that is based on their needs. They need the right services

at the right times, and as they grow and develop and evolve, those services

need to change in consultation and in partnership with them as well.

What we will be doing as we move through the transition is…. We’ll be

working with families. We’ll be working with children and youth. We’ll be

working with their care providers and their package of care. If they’re

fortunate to have been able to create a system of care around their needs, then

we’ll be working with each individual family, because each child and youth is

unique. They have their own needs, and we need to build that package of care

and support around them. But we do need to be needs-based.

Even the all-party Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth, when

it conducted a special project on children and youth with neurodiverse special

needs in 2019, recommended that government ensure services and supports in the

early years are based on need and functional ability and provided prior to

diagnosis. The committee recognized that neurodiversity, regardless of a

diagnosis, exists on a spectrum, and as such, each neurodiverse child is unique

and requires their own intervention plan which best supports the child and

their individual needs.

That’s exactly what our service framework will be delivering.

Mr. Speaker: Member for West Vancouver–Capilano, supplemental.

SERVICE MODEL CHANGE

FOR CHILDREN WITH SUPPORT NEEDS

AND INDEPENDENT DISTRIBUTED LEARNING

K. Kirkpatrick: It’s unfortunate that the minister cannot see the faces of the families

that are sitting in the gallery today as she speaks. The minister talks about a

circle of care and the importance of a circle of care. Well, these children

already have a circle of care.

Kaye Banez is here today with her husband, Vince. She says: “Our

children Lazarus and Estella and over 15,000 children are currently enrolled in

IDL schools. We are extremely troubled and distressed about the changes that

threaten to take our children away from the only inclusive education

environment that works for them. Please do not take away the schools that are

shaping our children’s character, values, culture, potential and their love of

learning.”

On October 21, the Education Minister told AutismBC she was considering

a one-year delay. Will the minister publicly commit today that she will pause

her changes and meaningfully consult with parents?

Hon. J. Whiteside: Thank you very much to the member for the question.

I know that we all share, in this House, a commitment to ensuring that

all children in British Columbia have access to a quality online program, if

that is what parents choose and if that’s what students choose.

That, indeed, is the objective of the changes that we are contemplating

to our online programming — that is, to ensure that as that program has

developed over the years, we ensure we have common standards, common quality

and equal access across the entire province for all of British Columbia’s

students.

[2:20 p.m.]

We have been, for many years now, reviewing our online programming.

We’ve been engaged in discussions with families, with organizations who

advocate for students who are enrolled in these programs. We are certainly

looking at a transition period that ensures that all of the needs of families

and children involved in this program are properly supported so that if,

indeed, there are transitions that need to be made, those are properly

supported. That will take place over the next two to three years.

I think, as the members know from earlier briefings that we have had

with members, the changes contemplated for the independent programs have been

extended out so that we can ensure that we’re providing those supports for

those transitions.

SEVERE WEATHER EVENTS

AND PROTECTION OF CRITICAL

INFRASTRUCTURE AND SUPPLIES

S. Furstenau: The rain has subsided, but the impacts of the climate disaster in our

province continue. The Coquihalla has been washed away in multiple sections.

Highway 7, Highway 1, Highway 99 and Highway 3 have all been impacted. The

Malahat remains impacted. They’ve either been flooded, buried in slides or

washed away.

People are working around the clock to get the highways and roads

cleared, to save people who are trapped and to stop the water from rising

catastrophically in the Fraser Valley. To the emergency workers, highway

maintenance crews, municipal workers and Good Samaritans, we say thank

you.

I’ve been reading The Future of Atmospheric Rivers and Actions to

Reduce Impacts on British Columbians , a project delivered in

partnership with the B.C. Ministry of Environment, Pacific Institute for

Climate Solutions and Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium in 2014. It identifies

that atmospheric rivers will be more frequent and more extreme, particularly in

coastal British Columbia, and that the following impacts were identified as

greatest concern: mortality, isolation of communities and loss of critical

infrastructure.

Three of the recommendations from the report are about infrastructure:

to develop maps of critical infrastructure, assess the vulnerability of

critical infrastructure and relocate critical infrastructure where

needed.

My question is to the Minister of Transportation. What work has his

ministry done in the past two years to assess the state of critical

infrastructure in B.C. and to pinpoint the potential fault lines of our

highways and roads?

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

If I could pick up where she began, praising the efforts of British

Columbians who have opened their doors and opened their hearts to one another,

seeing each other in very difficult circumstances, flooded out of their

communities and put on a herculean effort to make people welcome and to shelter

in place.

Our thanks go to every British Columbian who has been part of that

effort. There are thousands of volunteers that are engaged right now in doing

that. There are men and women who have worked in heavy rescue teams, who are

working on road maintenance contractor crews that are working to restore rail

and highway connectivity.

It’s our job as the government to coordinate every resource possible —

emergency response, coordination with the federal government, working with

engineers, with contractors and others — to restore connectivity. Right now, as

the member knows, the Lower Mainland and the Interior and the North of the

province are severed through our highway systems.

I am pleased to have been able to provide an update to the province —

along with the Premier, the Solicitor General and the Minister of Agriculture —

earlier, some news that does give a timeline, which everybody is eager to have,

about when that connectivity might be restored. We are looking…. Hopefully,

we’ll have an update for the member and all members in the House later today on

Highway 7 finally getting a connection from Agassiz to Hope.

Highway 3. The work is in earnest to have an interior route that will

connect the Lower Mainland of British Columbia.

Highway 99. Work is progressing, and we will have an update by the end

of today on what the projected opening date is on that highway.

Of course, as she mentioned, the Highway 1 Malahat is functioning. It’s

supported now by additional ferry service that is going from Swartz Bay to Duke

Point to make sure that essential goods, services and travel can happen and

that the south Island is connected to the mid- and north Island.

[2:25 p.m.]

The issue around resiliency of infrastructure is one that our government

has worked on for the past four years, since forming government. We’ve worked

with her and her caucus in the previous mandate to increase the budget and

resources for strengthened road networks, to shift towards sustainable

transportation topics.

It’s a $7.6 billion infrastructure budget today. As I’ve said to the

member earlier, we will spare no expense and dedicate every resource possible

to rebuild and recover the infrastructure that British Columbians built. They

are eager to work with our government to rebuild the B.C. that they built in

the first place.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Third Party, supplemental.

S. Furstenau: I thank the minister for his response. It was about 90 percent about the

reactive response, and what I was asking about was proactive work that has been

done in response to multiple reports that we have had over decades about the

impacts of climate change.

The Port of Vancouver has been cut off from the rest of the province.

We’re already seeing the impacts of food shortages, panic-buying in grocery

stores, gas shortages. Videos and photos from last night show the desperation

and concern of British Columbians in being able to feed their families. There’s

a line of people wrapped around a Fraser Valley Walmart three times over.

Shelves in Prince Rupert, Kamloops and even Victoria are empty. And gurdwaras

in Surrey have rented helicopters to fly food to those stranded in

Hope.

Sumas Prairie is flooded near catastrophic levels, according to the

local government. The Fraser Valley produces 50 percent of this province’s

dairy, eggs and chicken, and tragically, many livestock will not have survived.

This is devastating for farmers and for this province, and people need to hear

from this government what concrete steps are being taken to ensure that there

will be food available in the weeks and months ahead.

My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. What are the

contingencies for our supply chains of food across B.C., and how has the

ministry prepared for events like this?

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you for this very, very important question.

This is a devastating time for farmers in B.C., especially those in the

Fraser Valley. We have spent days communicating with hundreds of stakeholders

around the situation.

I can tell the member that as we reach people — this is still playing

out — they’re glad to hear from us. They know we have their back. But when we

ask them what we can do in the immediacy, they’re lost for an idea, because

it’s still happening.

As things change, especially over the last 12 hours, we’ve seen some

areas dry out. But there are some areas that are under threat, and the areas

that are under threat include thousands of poultry in barns, more dairy cows,

all different types of animals that are trapped in barns. They are injured.

They are getting sick because they’ve been in cold waters. And we see the

desperation of farmers trying to save their livestock, trying to move them from

one barn to another. The efforts are heroic, and I can’t even express how

thankful I am that we have such a resilient agriculture community.

To the member’s question of what are we doing to make sure that we have

a resilient food supply, my ministry….

Interjections.

Hon. L. Popham: The members across the way are thinking I’m taking too long to talk

about a disaster that’s unfolding in the province of British

Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s listen to….

Continue, Minister.

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you.

The members might be interested to know the stories of the farmers. It’s

playing out right now. Right now.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Order.

Conclude, please.

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My ministry works every day on the issue of resiliency and

sustainability when it comes to our agriculture food system in B.C. I can tell

the member that there is a lot of enthusiastic shopping that’s going on. We

wish that people would be measured in their purchases. It’s not necessarily

about the fact that we’re going to run out of food. We are re-jigging ways to

distribute it right now. We’re working with suppliers, and we will be able to

do that.

[2:30 p.m.]

We won’t run out of food as a province. This province is a strong

supporter of supply management, and we know that because of our national

producers, where we are not able to produce, other provinces will help us out

until we get back on our feet.

EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM

AND GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

SEVERE WEATHER EVENTS

J. Tegart: Since 2019, emergency alerts have been issued 80 times in Alberta, 101

times in Saskatchewan and 202 times in Ontario. In British Columbia,

zero.

We are alone as the only province not to use emergency alert to provide

advance warning to British Columbians. Not after the devastating forest fires

of 2018. Not for the deadly heat dome which claimed 600 lives. Not for this

summer’s destructive wildfires that razed Lytton to the ground. Now not even

for the devastating floods and landslides that we face right now.

Can the minister tell us when and why this government chooses not to use

emergency alerts?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question.

As the member will know, because she had asked before, this government

has committed to putting in place the use of the emergency alert system — to be

able to do much more condensed notification on specific emergencies — for next

year, starting in the central Interior.

As the member will also know, there are a variety of alerts that are

used by communities in the province. One of the things we have to ensure is

that any system that is put in place in this province is compatible with that

which is used by local government and to avoid duplication. We are working with

those communities and First Nations to ensure that we will have a system using

that first alert and that when it’s in place, it works.

I’d also remind the member of this. It is a tool. It is just one tool,

in terms of notifications that are used throughout the province. It is not a

silver bullet, and the member knows that. We have committed that one will be in

place, starting in the central Interior, for next summer.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Fraser-Nicola, supplemental.

J. Tegart: As the minister will know, I’m very aware of a lot of the devastation

that has happened in this province.

I would remind the minister that Alberta managed to warn the people of

the severe weather event this weekend. So did Washington state. This government

did nothing. They learned not a single lesson from the heat dome or the forest

fires. British Columbians are paying the price for this government’s

incompetence.

How bad does it have to get before the government actually uses an

emergency alert system?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

I will remind the member of this. There is significant work that took

place in advance of and during this storm. There were updates on Drive B.C.,

where people get drive information, stream flow and flood warnings in place and

communicated to local governments, communication between EMBC and local

communities and, at the same time, communication between myself and the federal

government.

This was a rain event, a weather event, of unprecedented

proportions.

Local governments had crews out all weekend. Transportation and highways

had crews out all weekend.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I will tell you something else. When it comes to the use of an

alert….

The member talked about the flooding that’s taken place in Abbotsford.

EMBC was in constant communication with the city of Abbotsford. I was in

constant communication with the mayor of Abbotsford. They asked to be able to

use an alert. One was put together, in place. We were ready to send it. They

then said: “No, we don’t need to do it at this point. We will ask you when to

do it.”

I will tell you this….

Interjections.

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I find it really interesting that on a situation involving flooding —

and I’m giving a detailed answer — they really don’t want to listen.

I’ll tell you this. When it comes to putting in place when and how to

use an alert, I will always rely on the expertise of the people on the ground,

like the rescue people in Abbotsford, like the mayor in Abbotsford, who knew

exactly what they wanted to do and when they wanted to do it.

That is how decisions will be made. They will never be based on

Twitter.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: They will always be based on the expertise of people who know

exactly…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. M. Farnworth: …what they’re doing and when it needs to be done.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s have the courtesy of asking a question and listening to

the answer and vice versa, please.

B. Banman: This is a tragedy of unparalleled scale. Dire weather forecasts were

clear on Friday. On the U.S. side of the border, a flood warning was issued for

the Nooksack River on Sunday at 3:40 p.m.

On Monday, Gov. Jay Inslee issued a severe weather emergency

proclamation and implemented emergency procedures. The U.S. flood sirens in

Sumas, Washington could be heard in Abbotsford.

This area is home to a huge population of livestock, poultry — farmers

that provide, as we’ve heard, on the low end, 50 percent of the food for

British Columbia. Despite being reminded of the risk on Monday, zero steps were

taken to initiate an evacuation plan that could have saved thousands and

thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of animals.

The Emergency Program Act regulation says the duties of the Agriculture

Minister are to “coordinate the emergency evacuation and care of poultry and

livestock.”

My question to the minister is: now that we’re in the thick of it, now

that it’s too late, what resources are being devoted now to ensure that there

is feed and water for the animals that actually have survived? What’s being

done now, today?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

I can tell the member that right from the beginning, emergency officials

in communities right across the lower part of the province, in the Fraser

Valley, started to enact emergency plans. Resources were deployed by EMBC at

the local level to deal with the situation as it developed, rescuing people,

ensuring that we are able to cope and that communities are able to

cope….

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That’s right from the get-go, hon. Speaker.

Whether it was the Joint Rescue Coordination Centre dispatching the

Cormorant helicopters to come and get people who were trapped between the

slides on the very day that that storm started, right through last night,

getting people in terms of the evacuation order — every resource is being

deployed and will continue to be deployed to deal with this situation. The idea

that that is not taking place is simply wrong.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Hon. J. Osborne: I have the honour to present the Islands Trust Annual Report

2020-21 .

Standing Order 35

REQUEST TO DEBATE A MATTER OF

URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE —

RESPONSE TO SEVERE WEATHER EVENTS

P. Milobar: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 35 to move adjournment of the House to

discuss a matter of definite and urgent public importance, specifically the

B.C. government’s response to the emergency flooding and landslide situation

that has unfolded across our province.

[2:40 p.m.]

The urgency of the debate arises from a number of circumstances, the

first being the imminent risk to people’s lives and livelihoods in the wake of

these floods, landslides and now even fires, and the second being that there is

very little time left in the legislative session for us to come together to

discuss a path forward when it comes to this evolving emergency

situation.

Now, 2021 has shown us that we have to take decisive and immediate

actions in an emergency. If there are gaps in the response, and the process is

tied to that response, we need to resolve them now. With respect to

section 10

of Standing Order 35, the motion is well within the limitations as outlined,

specifically with respect to subsection (c): “the motion must not revive

discussion on a matter which has been discussed in the same

Session.”

I would argue that events of the past four days, particularly overnight,

with regards to the urgent evacuation of the Sumas Prairie in Abbotsford and

the unfolding large loss of livestock, have not yet been canvassed in this

House and are deserving of our immediate attention. I submit that these latest

developments in this tragic situation represent a new matter, rather than an

ongoing one, as described on page 85 of Parliamentary Practice in British

Columbia , fourth edition.

While it’s not always possible in these instances, where a matter is

known in advance, members are encouraged by this practice recommendation to

give notice to the Speaker — this matter having been revealed overnight and

this morning.

In closing, I submit that the 60 minutes of debate allowed for under

Standing Order 35 does not constitute an unreasonable interruption of the

regular business of the House. It is my hope that the government and Third

Party will agree.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the comments from the Opposition House Leader, but I would

disagree at this point in terms of the need for an emergency debate.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I notice questions being asked in question period in order to get

answers. That has taken place. I also noticed that the member did refer to the

practice of communicating ahead of time with the government. That did not take

place. The issue is not….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister will continue.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The issue has been unfolding since the weekend. Response has been taking

place since the weekend. We have been sitting in this House since Monday. I

would, at this point, say that we do not see the need for an emergency debate

when efforts are already ongoing, the state of emergency has been in place, and

actions are being taken. So at this time, we would not support having a debate

under

section 35.

S. Furstenau: I fully support the motion from the Opposition House Leader to have this

emergency debate. I think that one of the reasons that we need to have it is

because as this emergency is unfolding, British Columbians from all regions of

this province need to know about the next steps that are being taken, the

proactive measures that they can expect from this government.

Canvassing this in question period is not sufficient at this time. There

needs to be the capacity for members to be getting those questions and getting

responses from government at a time when we are facing what is one of the most

significant emergencies this province has ever seen. If there is a time for an

emergency debate in this House, this is the time.

I encourage the government members to recognize that it is a service to

all of our constituents, to everybody that we represent in this province, to

have this debate and to show that we are engaging in the questions that they

want to hear asked and answered and that we are engaging in a way that is

productive and constructive, in a way that they can now understand what’s

happening in here and how that’s going to affect them in their lives in the

days, weeks, months ahead.

I think that there is an absolute need to set aside our regular

scheduled duties in here for one hour to have this debate. I implore all of you

to do your very best at this time to allow for this legislative House and every

member of it to do our best work together.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Members. The Chair will take this under advisement, and it

will render its decision momentarily. Give me a few minutes.

In the meantime, we’ll continue with other business.

[2:45 p.m.]

Motions Without Notice

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

TO SIT IN TWO

SECTIONS

Hon. M. Farnworth: I seek leave to move a motion:

[ GENERAL

1. That the House be authorized to sit in two sections, designated

Section A and

Section B, to be subject to the rules that follow.

2. That

Section A sit in such committee room as may be designated

from time to time, and that

Section B sit in the Legislative Chamber.

3. That

Section A be authorized to consider bills at committee stage

after second reading thereof, and for all purposes be deemed to be a Committee

of the Whole House, and that the Standing Orders relating to the consideration

of bills in a Committee of the Whole House be applicable to such

proceedings.

4. That

Section A and

Section B be authorized to examine any public

bill appearing on the Orders of the Day at committee stage, which may be

considered in the order determined by the Government House Leader in accordance

with Standing Order 27 (2).

5. That bills previously referred to a designated

Section may at any

time be subsequently referred to another designated Section, as determined by

the Government House Leader in accordance with Standing Order 27 (2).

COMPOSITION

6. That the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole or their

designate preside in

Section A.

7. That

Section A consist of 11 Members, not including the Chair,

being seven Members of the Government Caucus, three Members of the Official

Opposition Caucus, and one Member of the Third Party Caucus.

8. That the Members of

Section A be: the Minister who is in charge

of the bill under consideration and Hon. Lisa Beare, Garry Begg, Bob

D’Eith , Hon. Mike Farnworth , Hon. Selina Robinson, Niki

Sharma, Lorne Doerkson, Trevor Halford, Karin Kirkpatrick , and

Sonia Furstenau .

9. That substitutions for Members of

Section A be permitted with the

consent of the Member’s Caucus Whip, where applicable, or otherwise with the

consent of the Member.

10. That

Section B be composed of all Members of the House.

DIVISIONS

11. That, when a division is requested in

Section A, the division

bells be rung four times and the division proceed in accordance with Standing

Order 16.

12. That, when a division is requested in

Section B, the division

bells be rung three times, at which time proceedings in

Section A shall be

suspended, and the division proceed in accordance with Standing Order

13. That, if a division is underway in

Section A at the time that a

division is requested in

Section B, notwithstanding Standing Order 16 (2), the

division in

Section B shall proceed 10 minutes after it is requested.

REPORTING

14. That, at 15 minutes prior to the ordinary time fixed for

adjourn­ment of the House, the Chair of

Section A shall report to the

House.]

A copy of the motion has been provided to the official opposition House

Leader and to the Leader of the Third Party.

Leave granted.

Mr. Speaker: The motion moved by the Government House Leader is to enable the House,

for the remainder of this session, to undertake concurrent proceedings and to

designate it into

Section A and

Section B.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 28, Forest Amendment

Act.

In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, which will start at 3 p.m., it will be

Committee of the Whole on Bill 20, Access to Services (COVID-19) Act. After that, it

will be Committee of the Whole, Bill 22, the FOIPPA amendment act.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 28 — FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that Bill 28, the Forest Amendment Act, 2021, be read a second

time.

Our forests make B.C. one of the best places to live. They’re cherished

places for us all, supporting plants, wildlife and our watersheds. Our forests

have been a source of family-supporting jobs in all regions of British Columbia

for generations and continue to be an integral part of the fabric of who we are

as a province. We all want to leave healthy forests as a legacy for our

children and grandchildren, and we know if we take care of our forests today,

they will be there for future generations.

However, we know that our forest industry is facing a number of

challenges, whether it’s wildfires, the impacts of pine beetle, climate change

or old policies that consolidated control of our forests in the hands of too

few. Past practices aren’t working and need to change. Trees have been cut down

when prices were high, and mills have shut down when prices were

low.

There is significant concentration of forest tenures in the province,

and we know almost all of the available forests for harvesting are already

under tenure. This makes it challenging to promote innovation and attract new

participants to the sector, including value-added operations and made-in-B.C.

manufacturing. This short-sighted approach has left workers and communities

behind, ignored First Nations rights and title holders, and has left some of

our most rare and ancient forests at risk.

[2:50 p.m.]

We will fail British Columbians if we keep the policies of the past. We

owe it to them to fix these problems and take care of our forests. That’s why

we’re taking a different approach to better share all of the benefits of our

forests for today and for generations to come.

Our government believes in a healthy and vibrant forest sector where

First Nations and the people who live near the forests are the first to benefit

from this public resource. New tools in our toolbox are required for government

to realize that vision.

These amendments will provide government with a new legislative tool

called special purpose areas. These special purpose areas will allow government

to reduce timber harvesting rights of existing forest tenure areas, fairly

compensate the tenure holders and redistribute the harvesting rights to First

Nations, community forests and B.C. Timber Sales.

Additionally, amendments to the Forest Act will give government a new

mechanism to redistribute forest tenure to advance reconciliation and support

our market pricing system. For tenure holders, new compensation rules will

provide greater certainty around compensation levels in situations where

harvesting rights are altered. The compensation will be based on the contract

between government and the agreement holder and ensure the payment is based on

the reduction in harvesting rights held by the agreement holder.

The new compensation provisions will address vague language in the

existing legislation and protect British Columbians and government from

windfall settlements while providing fair compensation for agreement holders.

Where we see the downward pressure on the available timber supply, government

needs to make sure that the industry remains competitive and

diverse.

New tools ensure that license reductions will support small-

to-mid-sized operations and First Nations licence holders when the allowable

annual cut is reduced across the timber supply area. These changes will ensure

that First Nations are meaningful partners in how forests are managed and that

communities have a sustainable future with new, innovative

opportunities.

Consultations with First Nations related to the proposed amendments have

been undertaken. First Nations were notified of these proposed amendments in

the summer of 2021 as part of broader engagement on the intentions

paper.

Changes to the Forest Act will also require area-based tenure holders to

share inventory information with the chief forester. This will increase

transparency and support the chief forester in making informed decisions

regarding our public forests.

There will be changes from the Ministry of Finance in these amendments.

The Forest Act requires a fee — referred to as a fee in lieu — to be paid to

the government for timber exported out of the province. The fee in lieu ensures

that British Columbians receive their fair share of resources revenue for

timber not manufactured in the province.

These amendments will provide the income taxation branch within the

Ministry of Finance with the authority to audit and make assessments in respect

of the fee in lieu. This audit process is consistent with those already in

place for stumpage fees.

We know that outdated forest policies aren’t working for the majority of

British Columbians. The forest sector is changing, and our legislative

framework needs to ensure that we support workers and communities; advance

reconciliation with First Nations partners; and take steps to support a strong,

sustainable forest sector. We cannot continue to operate with legislation and

regulation designed for the industry of the past.

These amendments support our vision for forestry, where workers and

communities benefit from secure, innovative forestry jobs for generations to

come; where Indigenous peoples are full partners in sustainable forest

management; and our oldest and most ancient trees are protected. We’re taking

action to ensure our public forests are managed in the public interest. We owe

it to our children and grandchildren to better care for our resources — to

better care for our forests, for today and for generations to come.

[2:55 p.m.]

J. Rustad: I thank the minister for her rather brief comments about a bill that is

70-some-odd pages, dropped near the end of the session. I am very surprised,

quite frankly, that a bill of this weight would have come in at the end of a

session, jamming possible debate on it, with such an important change to our

forest sector.

It’s shameful that we haven’t seen this kind of a bill come in at the

beginning of a session and be a highlight of what a government would do,

instead of trying to sneak it in at the end and trying to stifle, quite

frankly, debate on it. It is shameful to see that approach to such an important

piece of legislation.

The legislation, as the minister just described, touches on a wide range

of things. It touches on old growth and old-growth protection. We’ve seen an

announcement earlier — just a month ago or less, a couple of weeks ago — about

old-growth protection. It’s a key piece in terms of this act, because what it

will do is it will reduce the annual allowable cut. It’ll reduce the area

available for harvesting. Those reductions fit into Bill 28 in terms of how

companies will actually end up being impacted and how the reductions will end

up being fed through.

It’s for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that I’m going to talk about the

old-growth reductions as well, as part of my response to this. It’s because

this is an important piece of understanding the shift that is coming to the

forest sector. The minister talked about new, innovative opportunities. Well, I

would tend to think that if that’s what the minister is expecting, she’s doing

a very good job — and this government is doing a very good job — of destroying

the existing opportunities and destroying the existing forest

sector.

I’ve had an opportunity, since the minister’s previous announcements,

and since Bill 23 was introduced and now Bill 28, to talk to a number of

communities around the province, to a number of workers around the province, to

some First Nations, and to companies as well.

Here’s the impact that we’re seeing. It’s pretty hard to say to a

community like McBride or Valemount that these changes are going to create a

new, innovative opportunity, when in fact these changes are going to shut down

the forest industry for those communities entirely. The jobs are gone. To a

small community like McBride, even losing five, ten or 20 jobs is huge. The

ripple effect of that, in those communities, rips at the core of what the

community is.

I was speaking with another company just recently about this. There’s a

process that you go through in forestry. The process is, of course, that you go

through, you identify the inventory, and you identify the wood you want to

harvest. You go in, you do consultation, you submit for permits, and you do

more consultation.

It’s a long process. The process can take months and sometimes years to

be able to get wood under permit. Of course, it’s important to be able to put

wood under permit for a number of years, because you have to be able to have

the flow of wood to be able to keep those jobs going within communities, within

the facilities.

When you suddenly have an announcement come in that says, “No, you can’t

log this anymore,” well, now you’ve got a mill…. You know, at one operation,

for example, in Revelstoke, 85 percent of the fibre that they were counting on

— that’s under permit or that they were working on permits on to get through —

is now suddenly not available to them. They might be able to adjust and go

after other wood, but that could be a year or two for them to be able to get

permits.

I mean, is the minister serious in saying that those jobs are going to

be deferred for a year or two? Of course, that can’t happen. That can’t happen

to families. That can’t happen to individual workers. What about the

communities? There has been no socioeconomic analysis whatsoever around that

announcement or, quite frankly, the additional bills that have been moved in.

It’s very disturbing to see that happening.

The reason why I’m saying this from a perspective of being disturbing is

that I grew up in a forest family. My family moved here. My dad moved to

British Columbia in the late ‘40s and started logging on Vancouver Island. He

moved up into the Interior and started sawmills and was involved in logging

pretty much all of his life.

[3:00 p.m.]

I grew up…. I learned how to drive when I couldn’t even reach the

pedals, sitting on my dad’s knee on a forest road. My first jobs that I started

working in the summer were working out and doing forestry, helping out on a

landing.

When I was age 14, I was driving D8 cats before I even had a driver’s

licence, and graders, helping to build roads and do forestry work. Forestry is

in my blood, as it is, I know, with everybody who is passionate about the

forest sector.

The issue that has come up here with these changes is going to impact,

according to COFI, 18,000 jobs, 18,000 families. Communities, quite frankly,

are going to be devastated. One mayor said: “I guess we’re going to have to

roll up the sidewalks.”

That’s not fair. It’s not appropriate, and it’s certainly not the way to

be introducing forest policy. It’s certainly not the way to be treating

hard-working families in this province.

If you go out into this Legislature, you’ll see four pillars, four main

themes that were captured in this Legislature — fishing, agriculture, mining,

forestry. We are gutting one of those pillars, one of those pillars that helped

to build this province, that helped to build this Legislature.

I get it. The government wants to create some changes and do some

adjustments, but you don’t have to burn the building down to build it up again.

There are ways to sit down and work with industry, with labour, with First

Nations, with communities to be able to make changes without having to destroy

the sector that helped to build this province.

When I think about Bill 28 and the adjustments on the fibre and that

fibre availability, I think back to the devastation that happened to the pine

beetle epidemic that destroyed so much of our pine beetle forest in British

Columbia and has caused some significant reductions in our forest

sector.

Then I hear the designations for old growth, and you go and look at the

maps, and some of that dead pine is now designated as old growth. These are

dead trees. They’re not old growth.

In addition, there are areas that have been burnt in the massive

wildfires in previous years. Some of those areas are designated as old growth.

They’re burnt. They’re dead trees. There are other areas of old growth that

have been designated, set aside, that are 40 years old.

A forester reached out to me and said: “I went in there just a few years

ago and helped to thin that stand.” That’s not old growth. What are we doing

here? Why are we designating these areas, reducing the working land base of a

forest sector, destroying 18,000 jobs because of mapping errors and

ideology?

In British Columbia, we are blessed with having about 60 million

hectares of forested landscape. Out of that 60 million hectares, there’s

approximately 38 million hectares that are in an original forest state that

will never see forest activity, leaving about 22 million hectares that are

available for the timber-harvesting land base.

Out of that, we’re talking about taking another 2.6 million hectares in

reduction. In the name of old growth, there’s 11.4 million hectares of old

growth in British Columbia, and between 75 percent and 85 percent of that is

already protected. How much is enough?

Does every last piece have to be protected? What is it we’re trying to

do? Has there been analysis on the biodiversity and the changes that have

happened? Has there been analysis, or even performance measures, on what this

will actually try to achieve other than a political goal, a political outcome?

No. There hasn’t been.

[3:05 p.m.]

We’ve got a report that came to government with four out of the five

people in that report with direct ties to the Sierra Club. You don’t think

that’s biased? Think about what the screaming would be if four out of five

members of that panel had been — I don’t know — working for Canfor. You don’t

think there would have been a scream of “biased” in a report?

Yet that’s the report that these decisions have been made on. Not

because we are protecting the environment. Not because we’re meeting goals of

biodiversity and balance — and balance is needed in the forest sector — but

because there’s an ideology that went into the creation of that report and that

is now going to devastate potentially 18,000 jobs in this province. And then

this bill, which we’re debating here today, will describe how that carnage will

be handed out, community by community, in the province of British

Columbia.

I am passionate about this, as I know that many other people are

passionate about this. But I’m passionate about this because I care about my

communities. I think about my riding in Nechako Lakes. About 42 percent of the

economic activity is forestry. That’s huge. Forestry supports the agriculture

that happens in my riding. Forestry has opened up the mining opportunities that

are in my riding. Forestry has opened up recreation and hunting and fishing

opportunities. Forestry built those communities, along with agriculture. And

forestry is now going to be decimated in that area without changes.

I want to use an example of these changes. I hold here a report from

Domtar in Kamloops. It was just three weeks ago that I had met with them to go

over the report and what they’re planning to do. They were excited about their

future.

They were excited about the fact that they had a four-phase program in

place to do investment in this province, to do investment in their mill, to be

able to secure jobs, to be able to transition as part of the declining cut, to

be able to make sure they were a vibrant part of Kamloops and the surrounding

area and, most importantly, to be able to support the other mills and the other

forest operations in the area, because they all work together.

Fast-forward to an old-growth announcement. These plans are garbage.

They’re scrapped. There’s zero investment now. They’ve completely shelved it.

In fact, they may very well be out of chips within a couple of months and

having to think about closing their operations for good. A company that was

prepared to spend tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars in the

province building a future, building a vibrant, healthy forest sector, creating

innovative opportunities, has been gutted, simply because of an ideological

position taken by this government.

These jobs are important. It’s not just important for the people in

Kamloops and for the families that are working there but to all of the

surrounding areas. The way that modern operations work today is chips are a

very vital piece of the economics of making a forest operation work. They’re

not going to be around to take the chips. So what does that mean? Now they’re

going to have to think about shipping them, potentially hundreds of kilometres

further away, increasing the cost and decreasing the revenue they get from it.

Will those mills now be viable? Or will we see a chain-reaction effect that

comes with the potential loss of a pulp mill?

These things would have been known if a proper socioeconomic study had

been done, if a proper analysis had been done, if engagement had been done. And

if the government then wanted to do it, at least then they could stand up and

say, “Yes, we know we are going to be destroying this particular sector and

this particular group,” but they didn’t even know that.

[3:10 p.m.]

In the announcement, it was clear that they just had done an analysis on

the back of a napkin. That is shameful. And that is so disrespectful to a

sector that has been such a vibrant part of this province since its

inception.

I have often talked to the forest sector, to workers — unionized or

contractors. I have often talked to them about the fact that we should be proud

of our forest sector. They agree. They’re proud of what they do. They get up

every day, and they’re proud of how they operate in the forest. They’re proud

of the reforestation that happens. They’re proud of the renewal that can

happen. They are proud of the jobs and the revenue that’s created from our

forest sector.

Think about this. I’m standing here in this beautiful building that is

the centre of democracy in British Columbia. Look at the wood that is in this

building. The desks. Even the pencil. Wood is part of our everyday life. Wood

is the most environmentally sensitive, the most environmentally friendly

product that we can possibly think of using.

It captures carbon. Look at the wood structures that are in this

building that have been here, what, a hundred years, more than a hundred years?

That carbon has been captured and sequestered for that length of time and will

be hopefully for another hundred years, assuming we don’t have an earthquake or

something and cause real grief in this building.

All of that aside — I shouldn’t laugh; that would be absolutely

devastating — this wood is just an example of what our forest sector does.

Think about what the replacement would be for wood if we weren’t using our

forest sector. What would we do for paper? What would we do for medical masks?

The fibres go into helping protect our health care workers. The fibres go into

everyday life. That wood fibre is critical, not just for us in British Columbia

but around the world, and we’re part of that.

The best

part is: you plant a new tree, you capture that carbon, and you

utilize it for the good of our society. You plant a new tree, and within 40

years, that tree has now sequestered a tonne of carbon. We planted 300 million

trees last year. We plant almost that many trees every year. That means every

year we are sequestering 300 million tonnes of carbon just from planting trees.

We’re taking the carbon that is old and decadent and utilizing that carbon for

our products, utilizing it for our everyday needs.

Are we going to replace that with steel? Clearly, we’re not going to

replace that with plastics. What’s the replacement, if we are not using fibre?

We need a healthy, vibrant forest sector, not one that is decimated by ideology

but one that we can be proud of; one that finds the balance between protecting

the environment needs, making sure that we have those important environmental

values for our future generations and also making sure that we have

family-supporting jobs that are renewable, that are sustainable.

We’ve got about 15½ percent of this province in parkland already. We’ve

designated parks on some 15½ percent. That is probably something to be proud

of, considering it’s more than any other jurisdiction in Canada. I think that

it’s, quite frankly, more than any other jurisdiction in the world. We’re doing

a good job of protecting and having those values for future generations, better

than any other jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, we’re 1½ times to 2 times the

recommendation of the United Nations in terms of protected areas already in

this province.

On top of that, all the old growth that is already protected: 36, 38

million hectares of forested land that will never see industrial forestry

activity. But somehow it’s not enough. It’s too much to ask that we have a

portion of our province that supports this vibrant, healthy forest sector and

that meets all of these environmental goals that we all, I think, agree on that

we would like to achieve.

[3:15 p.m.]

When I look at Bill 28 and I think about how that devastation will be

distributed through the communities…. I had an opportunity to have a quick chat

with the mayor and councils in my own riding. There was shock. There was anger.

There was frustration. Tremendously, what it was the amount of

uncertainty.

There’s hope in terms of the transfer. The minister, in previous

announcements, talked about transferring wood to First Nations, and I support

that. I think First Nations have been a growing component of our forest sector

and need to be a growing component in terms of the forest sector. It’s a great

opportunity for economic development. It’s a great opportunity for engagement

and to try to move from, quite frankly, managing poverty to managing

success.

When that announcement came out about the deferrals, there was a press

release that came out from the First Nations Forestry Council.

The comment, in particular, from the forest operations of the

Líl̓wat First Nation says:

“Líl̓wat Nation just spent several

million dollars to purchase a forest licence in their territory so they could

have a bigger say in decisions regarding forest management in their territory.

And now the government comes along and is trying to tell nations what they can

and can’t do?” He adds: “The province claims they consulted with First Nations,

but we don’t know who they were talking to.”

This is the First Nations Forestry Council.

You would think when the minister stood up and touted several times in

her speech on Bill 28 that First Nations and people are first to benefit and

touted the engagement with First Nations and how important that was…. And here

we are with the First Nations Forestry Council saying they don’t even know who

they talked to. How is that engagement? How is that being

respectful?

The press release also went on to say…. This is from November 1, 2021,

when Chief Bill Williams says: “The honour of the Crown cannot be met through

fundamentally flawed consultation.”

It’s sad. I mean, I was the former Minister for Aboriginal Relations and

Reconciliation, and we did a lot of work with First Nations: signing

agreements, particularly agreements around forests and revenue-sharing; taking

wood, for the very first time in the province, and putting a cut in the hands

of First Nations; helping them to be more engaged in activity.

Many First Nations have started their own companies, have bought

equipment, have gotten mortgages and for the first time in their life, have

basically gone into debt to become entrepreneurs. They’re impacted by this too.

They’re impacted by these decisions, just like everyone else is.

Chief Williams from the First Nations Forestry Council also says: “To do

this requires a consistent recognition of Indigenous jurisdiction, not just

sometimes when it’s convenient.”

Dr. Charlene Higgins, the CEO of the First Nations Forestry Council,

says: “How many times do nations have to call the province out on their

consultation process before they will actually change it?” It goes on to say:

“Unfortunately, we have yet to receive any acknowledgment of our offers to work

collaboratively. Instead, they have chosen to do their own thing.”

Those are the words of First Nations engaged in the forest sector, the

very First Nations the minister is talking about when she’s talking about Bill

28 and wanting to see them more engaged. How is that engagement? How is that

right?

[3:20 p.m.]

This doesn’t make any sense to me at all, unless these decisions are

being made for political ideology, as opposed to actually what the minister is

saying that she would like them to be made for.

In another press release from the First Nations Forestry Council on

November 3…. Information came forward, and they were very concerned about the

announcement, once again. Out of the press release, it says: “Thirty days to

respond is trying to rush First Nations into making decisions that, once again,

in no way support an informed and meaningful consultation process.”

We all stood in this chamber and supported First Nations and efforts

that went on with First Nations. I spent a great deal of time, over four years,

as the longest-serving Aboriginal Relations Minister in B.C., building those

relationships. Was it perfect? No. There is always more that can be done. There

is always more that should be done. But I was always straight up and forward

wherever I could be with First Nations.

I don’t see how this announcement by the minister on old-growth

deferrals is in any way straight up and forward. Many nations, when they heard

the announcement…. This is, once again, from the press release on November 1.

It says: “For many nations, this was the first time they’d heard or seen

it.”

Now we’re in a situation where we’ve got this ideological change that,

once again, according to COFI, is going to cost, potentially, 18,000 jobs, see

up to 20 sawmills close, potentially a couple of pulp mills. I just referred to

the challenge that Domtar is going to be facing in Kamloops. A bill, then,

that, like I say, is going to distribute how that punishment will be inflicted

upon a forest sector.

B.C. Wood is a group that has done a lot of work in the province.

They’re all about value-added. They’re all about extracting the highest value

and the best value they can out of the trees. I know the minister is passionate

about this and wants to do this. The minister has talked at length about

wanting to see more value from our forests. Yet they say their sector is going

to be hit the hardest — that value-added will be hit the hardest through this

process.

I’m not quite sure how that will work out unless, of course, the

minister wants to bring the whole forest sector down to nothing and then try to

build from the ground up. It certainly seems to be the approach that this

government is taking.

Mr. Speaker, I notice I’m running low on my time. Just to let you know,

I am the designated speaker for this bill. I’m getting a stare from the

minister, but that’s okay.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: I am talking about the bill. The minister says I’m not talking about the

bill.

In this bill is the path for taking wood back from companies from

decisions government has made — decisions like deferrals. This is how that

damage will be inflicted. In order to understand that

section of that bill and

that process that’s going to be in there, it’s important to understand why it

needs to be in there, because there is damage being done to the

sector.

I was back talking with mayors in my community. Many of my communities

have community forests. The minister mentioned that in this bill, there will be

an opportunity to be able to enhance community forests through these special

purpose areas, this extraction that will come out of the forest sector. But

with the announcement on old growth…. For example, in the Granisle community

sector, 65 percent of their available timber is now going to be reduced because

of old growth — 65 percent.

[3:25 p.m.]

They’ve looked at it. They’ve come up with the numbers. This is what

they’ve told me. The minister is shaking her head, I suspect because the

minister hasn’t even looked at the community forest at Granisle and what the

impact of that may be.

There’s another huge challenge with the deferrals that were announced,

and that’s access. There are some areas…. I heard from one company operating in

the Revelstoke area that said these deferrals effectively isolate an entire

valley, which they won’t be able to get access to. How will they put a road

through, a deferral, if it’s a protected area? They can’t get into the fibre

behind it, further reducing the amount of fibre that will be

available.

I’m encouraged when nations, like the Cheslatta Carrier Nation in my

riding, according to the mayor, are saying no to these deferrals. They don’t

want to see it. Maybe that will be one area in the province where we don’t see

the deferrals go ahead.

My understanding, from many of the other nations, is they’re also very

reluctant to say yes to these deferrals. As a matter of fact, I suspect there

will be a lot of them that will say no. It will be very interesting to see

whether the minister, through this consultation process, these 30 days of

consultation, will actually listen to First Nations or whether they’ll carry on

with this ideological drive to destroy the forest sector.

Much of the information that the minister is looking at, in terms of

these deferrals which flow through to Bill 28 and the reductions that will come

and pass on to companies, is based, actually, on inventory information, quite

frankly, that needs to be updated.

As I mentioned earlier, there are areas that have been deferred that are

30 or 40 years old. There are areas that have been deferred that are burnt.

There are areas that are deferred that are basically dead pine. So I wonder

what the plan is, through this bill — and I’ll get into this more under the

debate on Bill 23 — to update that inventory, to be able to really do that full

assessment and analysis of what the devastation will be.

I find it interesting, as well, when the minister talks about, in this

bill, how First Nations and people are the first to benefit. Well, here are

some quotes from the United Steelworkers union in their press release around

deferrals. I’m curious as to how the minister sees Bill 28 as seeing these

benefits go to the people when…. This is a quote from Jeff Bromley, from the

United Steelworkers Wood Council chair: “If even half of the 2.6 million

hectares identified by the government are removed, jobs will be lost as

multiple mills, value-added operations and pulp mills close

permanently.”

He goes on to say: “In the past three years, eight operations with USW

workers across B.C. closed, and 1,000 good-paying, family-supporting jobs were

lost. The impact from this process will almost certainly multiply across the

province.”

It goes on to say, in the press release: “The government says 4,500 jobs

will be lost, but USW’s information suggests the real number could be four

times that much.”

This is certainly, as the minister said in her opening comments, putting

people first to receive the benefits. Unless she’s referring to an unemployment

cheque, I’m not sure exactly the benefits that she’s talking about.

Jeff Bromley goes on to say, and this is from November 3, 2021: “If

First Nations who’ve been given 30 days to respond reject the plan, will the

government listen to them?” That’s a very valid question.

Of course, Mr. Bromley also goes on to talk about the bias of the Sierra

Club, as I had mentioned earlier, in terms of that ultimate decision around the

old growth and the old-growth report.

[3:30 p.m.]

As we get into the debate on Bill 28 and we look at the new rules for

passing on these reductions — the rules around these special management areas,

which have the potential to quite literally wipe out a woodlot, perhaps even a

community forest or a tree farm licence as areas are taken back — it’s curious

how that will create a healthy and vibrant forest sector.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

I want to refer to a letter that was sent to me after the announcement.

This is also from November 3. This is a letter. I’m not going to say the name,

because I haven’t asked permission to read the letter into the record, although

it was sent to the Office of the Premier, to the minister, as well as to many

other MLAs. It says:

“The recent B.C. government announcement for 2.6 million hectares of

forest is extremely concerning to me and my family. I have lived in a

forest-dependent community in north central B.C. and am a registered

professional forester with ABCFP. My family consists of generations who have

depended on our forest sector, and our family income supports the next

generation of British Columbians. As a professional forester, I have seen the

working forest land base become more and more constrained over the course of my

career, but this announcement dwarfs them all and appears to not be aware of

its own consequences.”

It’s a professional forester with generational experience working in the

forest sector. He goes on to say:

“I acknowledge that the details of the model are not for you, Minister, to

fully understand or manipulate, but you do need to be aware that the model does

not appear to meet your intentions of preserving rare old-growth ecosystems. I

don’t know if you viewed the deferral areas yourself, but the areas tagged for

deferral do not encourage better ecosystems. For example, I have seen deferral

areas that significantly overlap a major river or existing cutblock. Are these

old-growth areas?

“I have seen 100-by-100-metre-square islands of deferred area in the

middle of a proposed harvest area. Ecologically, these islands of old growth

would be better off aggregated into more complex old-growth systems. There are

too many concerns I have with the data.”

He goes on with a lengthy letter about his concerns for the forest

sector and the concerns with this announcement.

As I mentioned, I’ve talked to a number of people about this. What’s

encouraging is the minister has actually reached out and talked to some of

these people too, talked to some of the communities that will be

affected.

You know what the minister said to these communities, to communities in

my riding? She said: “Don’t worry. We’ll throw a life-support line to you to

keep the community alive.”

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

A community is not looking for a life support, a lifeline. They’re

looking for jobs. Small communities are looking for the types of good-paying

forest jobs that support the family and that support a community unit. That’s

what they want. They’re not looking for a lifeline. If you’re a small community

and you’re trying to attract people into that community, it’s virtually

impossible to be able to do that if you’re talking about a community that’s on

a lifeline.

I see our hon. Speaker is here with a ruling. So I would be happy to

reserve my place in the debate and move adjournment to the debate.

J. Rustad moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

[3:35 p.m.]

Standing Order 35

REQUEST TO DEBATE A MATTER OF

URGENT PUBLIC

IMPORTANCE —

RESPONSE TO SEVERE WEATHER EVENTS

(continued)

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, earlier today the official opposition House Leader raised

a matter of urgent public importance under Standing Order 35. I informed the

House that I would take the matter under advisement. However, I understand that

an agreement amongst all caucuses has now been reached. Therefore, I will not

provide a ruling.

The debate on the motion regarding the response of the government of

British Columbia to the emergency flooding and landslide situation will

commence tomorrow afternoon at 1 p.m. for one hour. Thank you.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I call continued debate on Bill 28, the Forest Amendment Act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 28 — FOREST AMENDMENT ACT,

(continued)

J. Rustad: I was talking about a lifeline for communities. I’m glad to hear that

we’re going to be doing an emergency debate about many other communities that

have been impacted by floods and slides and many other individuals. Lifeline

may be very appropriate for that debate.

For forest communities, quite frankly, to quote one of my mayors with

that…. When they heard that, they said: “That’s insulting.”

The minister also, in that call, talked about the fact that there are

1,000 health care openings, and there might be opportunities to be able to

transition workers to health care openings. I’m all for being able to retrain

and to do that, but I’m not quite understanding how somebody who has a skill

with a chainsaw is going to be able to have a skill with a scalpel, or how

somebody who has skill with driving a logging truck is going to have skill with

driving an ambulance. The skills aren’t really transferable.

When you’re talking about people who have put their lives and built

careers in the forest sector, that’s not an easy transition to even think

about. I was actually quite surprised that the minister even suggested

that.

The reality for many people is that if this goes ahead, if Bill 28

proceeds in the distribution of the damage that’s caused by this old-growth

deferral, some small communities are going to cease to exist, become retirement

communities as people move away. What happens is that when a worker loses a

job, when a mill closes, when a logging job ends, there isn’t a job in a small

community like that just to go into.

It’s not Vancouver. It’s not Richmond. It’s communities like Vanderhoof

and Fraser Lake and Burns Lake. Those workers will then have to find work

elsewhere. For a time, they may travel, but eventually, they’ll find a job

somewhere and decide to move their family. So it’s not just a lost job in a

community. It’s splitting up families. It’s people having to move away for

employment.

I’ve seen, over the years, the changes of the forest sector. You know, I

remember back in the ‘70s and ‘80s, when there used to be tremendous number of

people working in the forest sector. Technological innovation has created,

obviously, a big shift. I saw what happened to many communities, small vibrant

communities, that have really struggled and have been in decline.

Not directly related to forestry but to mining, Granisle was a community

of — what? — 1,100 or 1,300 people at one point. When the mine shut down…. It’s

now a community of about 390. It’s pretty devastating for the community and for

the people that grew up in that community. But that’s what communities feel

like. To quote one of my other mayors in my riding, they said: “It feels like

Desert Storm — one thing after another pummelling the sector.”

[3:40 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, member for Nechako Lakes. Just a procedural glitch that we

need to address. If you could take your seat for a moment, I’ll recognize the

acting House Leader, who will move second reading.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: That is just what I meant to say. Thank you.

I move second reading debate on Bill 28, the Forest Amendment

Act.

Deputy Speaker: Nechako Lakes, please continue.

J. Rustad: Do I rewind and go back to where I was? Do I get an extra ten minutes on

the clock?

I appreciate the nuances. Having been in this building for a long time,

I know that there are things that have to be done in the correct order. As a

matter of fact, when the acting House Leader called it, I kind of went: “Huh?”

Then you proceeded. So I thought: “Okay, carry on.”

In any case, like I was saying, the way this announcement rolled out and

the reaction that I’ve seen from community after community across the

province…. It was described to me this way: “This is the worst announcement

ever made by a government.” And it’s not even so much the announcement but the

fact that there are no details, the fact that there is uncertainty and the fact

that families don’t know what their future is. Do they start looking for a job

now? What happens? What is going to be happening? How is this going to

unfold?

There are no details. There has been no analysis. There has been no

engagement. There has been no discussion. Quite frankly, it’s a process by a

government that clearly doesn’t seem to care about the very people that the

minister talked about in her opening statement. If that’s the benefit to

people, I’m sure that people would say: “No, thank you. Keep your

benefits.”

I looked at one of my other communities, the community of Fort St.

James. I’m passionate about that small, little community, and I’m very pleased

that the Minister of Health assures me that they’re going to go ahead with

building a new hospital up there. What happens if the mills close? Is that

hospital going to go ahead? Population is certainly going to change. The needs

of the community are certainly going to change if those mills in that area

close.

How does this impact that community? There are no assurances. There is

no engagement. How will that community proceed? It’s already sitting in a

situation where it’s short seven nurses just for its current hospital, and

nurses are overworked in that area. How does that community attract new nurses

to the area with this kind of uncertainty that has been dropped by this

government?

In a call by the minister to mayors on Vancouver Island, once again, a

community in the north Island was talking about the challenges and the need to

be able to attract health care professionals. The minister was excited about

identifying a possible opportunity to transition forestry workers into health

care workers. Once again, I’m sorry, but that’s a little out of touch with

somebody who came out of high school and worked in a mill or somebody who has

mortgaged their house to buy a logging truck and is trying to figure out how to

make payments and will suddenly no longer have work. It’s pretty hard to think

about how that person transitions into a health care position.

What’s needed is to pause this approach, to actually go out and engage

and tell people what this will mean on the ground, to work through these issues

— not to give 30 days to First Nations and then let communities know what’s

going to happen. That’s just unacceptable.

[3:45 p.m.]

We have a situation, as well, as we go through this and look at Bill 28

and look at how this redistribution of these decisions will happen. Most people

don’t think about forestry from a Lower Mainland perspective, but over 40

percent of the forestry jobs in the province are in the Lower Mainland, with

direct and indirect jobs. That’s a pretty significant amount.

It’s not surprising that the Surrey Board of Trade also weighed in on

this issue. In their press release on November 2, they say they’re disappointed

with the B.C. government’s decision on harvest deferrals, and the economic

viability of the industry is jeopardized.

It goes on to say in this press release: “The deferral process is going

to jeopardize many businesses…. Hundreds of employees will be laid off due to

this deferral process. Every day businesses are making tough decisions on how

to preserve their bottom line and remain profitable, and this deferral will

have devastating impacts on B.C.’s economy and people’s

livelihoods.”

It goes on to say: “Surrey is home to many wood manufacturing companies

that are significant employers, such as Teal-Jones Group, S and R Sawmills,

Pacific Lumber, Catalyst Paper, the Sundher Group, Key West Forest Products and

Riverside Forest Products, to name a few. Workers and businesses are dependent

on a healthy forest sector.”

Earlier I talked about B.C. Wood, who many of these people are connected

with. They’re concerned that they may be the hardest impacted by this decision.

These are communities like Surrey and Delta and Richmond, Mission, Maple Ridge,

all along the Fraser River.

Deputy Speaker: One moment, Nechako Lakes.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Mr. Speaker, I would be grateful if you could encourage the member to

keep his comments focused on the bill at hand. We’ve been quite tolerant here.

This is legislation about redistributing harvest rights, about a compensation

framework, about requiring tenure holders to report forest inventory and about

an auditing system.

We’ve been patient, but the letter that the member just referenced,

dated November 2, is impossible in its relation to this legislation, because

this legislation was not tabled until Monday. That’s my suggestion to the

member.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you for your comments.

Do you want to make a comment regarding…?

J. Rustad: If I may carry on?

Deputy Speaker: Yes.

J. Rustad: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I’m pleased that the member has found her voice

in this. Clearly she doesn’t understand forestry, because when you reduce the

cut on forestry, this is the bill that distributes it.

It’s directly related. It’s a shame that you don’t understand what the

impacts are going to be and how this bill is related to what the person from

Surrey has to say.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

J. Rustad: My apologies, Mr. Speaker, through you.

Deputy Speaker: You can apologize through me, if you like. You can also apologize to the

member.

Please keep your comments through the Chair. That way, we can keep the

passion a little bit down.

J. Rustad: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m going to carry on with the quote from the Surrey Board of Trade,

because it is relevant to what is happening and what is discussed in Bill 28.

“We have heard from many experts that this consultation process with First

Nations is not effective, and a timeline of 30 days does not respect the

capacity and level of work required to provide a response.” The minister, in

her opening comments to Bill 28, talked about how important it is to have the

First Nation engagement, yet here is example after example, directly from First

Nations and others, that show that process is flawed.

We’re proceeding with a bill, in Bill 28, that is going to outline how

that devastation will be played out in the forest sector, through the

redistribution of cut. It’s important to understand just how that will be,

which is why I keep pulling up these quotes from the old-growth impact. Quite

frankly, if you weren’t reducing the cut, if you weren’t reducing the area of

old growth, you wouldn’t necessarily need these new rules, because you wouldn’t

have to be going out and figuring out how you distribute that cut and who you

impact.

[3:50 p.m.]

The Truck Loggers Association has been around for a very long time.

They’re a very proud organization, and they have a lot of members right across

the province, particularly on the Island and the Lower Mainland.

Their comment that came out, associated with this, is nothing short of a

damning indictment, I guess you could say, of the government’s forest policy.

These are the people who are directly on the ground who are going to feel the

impacts of these approaches. So when you reduce the area base of our timber

harvesting land base by 2.6 million hectares, which is what old growth does,

this lays out the map as to who’s going to lose that 2.6 million hectares,

who’s going to lose the cuts and where those jobs are going to be.

You know what, Mr. Speaker? We wouldn’t necessarily have to be here

talking about this, this much right now, if there was a proper socioeconomic

analysis done and we knew where all that is. But we don’t, which is why

everybody is so upset. This is why thousands of workers across this province

are talking about disruptions and protests to try to make their point. I don’t

blame them. This is their livelihood they’re talking about.

The Truck Loggers Association says:

“This announcement sends a message to multi-generations of B.C.-born and

-raised forest workers who have dedicated their lives to running independent,

innovative, small- and medium-sized businesses that continue to reinvest in

British Columbia and support a sustainable industry that they are not a

priority to this government. Government appears to have completely ignored that

they provide tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in economic

activity and revenue to help fund health care and education to 140 communities

in this province.”

Pretty straightforward when you think about Bill 28. The minister

doesn’t like to link her previous announcement to this, but they are all linked

together. They are all linked together.

I saved the quotes and the information from COFI till the end in terms

of the quotes that I wanted to be able to add into the record on this Bill 28

debate. I did that because I wanted to be able to describe to this House the

impact to communities, the impact to individuals, the impact to contractors and

workers, because they’re what is most important. I think the minister would

agree with me. But at the heart of those individuals is also the corporation,

the company that turns that fibre into those jobs through the activities that

they have, through the investments they have in this province.

As I described from Domtar, these announcements have ended capital

investment. We’re going to see this over and over again across the province.

Capital is going to flee this province, and it already has. We’re seeing all

the investments south of the border, and that’s because of all the uncertainty

that has been created by the processes and the announcements, of course, that

this government is making.

COFI said: “Today the province has indicated it will be proceeding with

a process to defer a further 2.6 million hectares of forests in B.C. If fully

implemented, this move will have a profound and devastating impact on people,

families and communities across the province.”

We have had the labour union representing the hard workers in this

industry. We’ve had the contractors and the truck loggers who represent the

people up and down this province that create this vibrant forest sector. We

have heard from the communities and community leaders around this. We’ve heard

from industry around this. Most important, we’ve heard from First Nations

around this.

What does it take before the government will realize that they have

created a mess and they need to pause? The minister can shake her head all she

wants in disbelief. She can live in a bubble, but this is the

reality.

Interjection.

J. Rustad: She says we’ve created it.

We didn’t defer 2.6 million hectares, Minister. No, we didn’t. You

did.

Deputy Speaker: I will remind the member again.

J. Rustad: Through you, hon. Chair.

The minister….

Deputy Speaker: That’s the second time.

[3:55 p.m.]

J. Rustad: I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government’s announcement has created this devastation, not things

from the past. They’ve made this decision. They made it politically, and they

made it politically based on four people with direct ties to the Sierra Club,

plus one additional person. Somewhat biased, I would say.

They made the decision that is going to gut communities. This Bill 28

will be the path to show you which communities are going to be impacted and how

that will play out. They made the decision not to engage and to inform people

as to what this will mean, creating tremendous uncertainty. They have made the

decision to drive investment from this province.

As I said in the beginning, I grew up in the forest sector. After my

time of working in the woods, where I did logging, I did tree planting, I did

layout, I did reconnaissance work, and I did timber supply analysis…. I’ve

worked in just about any component of the forest sector you can think of. After

that, I’ve been involved now in politics, looking at communities, looking at

how to support and grow those jobs.

The minister loves to tout a comment of 30,000 jobs lost. Well, let’s

talk about the 25,000 to 30,000 jobs lost in the ’90s, since we’re talking

about decades ago. But perhaps we should actually point to another stat. At the

bottom of the great recession, as it was called, in 2009, from that point to

2017, the previous government saw almost 10,000 job gains in our forest sector.

We’re the only province in this country to see gains.

The minister likes to shake her head and disagree. I suggest to the

minister that she should look at Stats Canada as opposed to listening to NDP

rhetoric, because that’s where that information comes from: directly from Stats

Canada. Almost 10,000 job gains over that period. You know what? Since this

government has been in power, that’s been gone. That’s lost. That’s already

disappeared in the province of British Columbia, and now we’re talking about,

potentially, another 18,000 jobs.

Bill 28 will be the author as to where the axe falls, where those jobs

will be lost. It’s not a very good record, especially from a government that

talks about values and wanting higher value instead of volume. But I also

remember, in 2017, the then Leader of the Opposition running for election in

Merritt, saying there would not be a mill closed under a government led by the

NDP. Wonder how that worked out. Clearly, that wasn’t a promise that was

kept.

When I go through and look at all of the information…. I had the

opportunity to have the briefing on Bill 28 from the ministry staff. There were

a couple of other interesting little things I just want to touch on.

I don’t want to take away, though, from the devastation that will be

happening to communities, really, across the province, but one of the

interesting things that is in here is it adds the power for doing auditing and

review of companies that are charged a fee in lieu to make sure those fees are

being paid to government. I wonder if there has been an example of where that

hasn’t happened. Most of these companies are publicly traded companies. They

have to meet rigorous accounting standards. They have to meet rigorous

reporting standards.

I’m very surprised that government seems to think that there is revenue

that has gone missing associated with that, but I suppose it will create a few

more jobs in the bureaucracy. We’ll see over time whether or not that turns up

anything. If it does, good on them, but if it doesn’t, be a bit of a waste I

would say. But we’ll see. That’s one other component that certainly will be in

Bill 28.

[4:00 p.m.]

The other thing I want to touch on is these special purpose areas,

because this is a tool that I think the minister is pretty proud of, in doing.

Special purpose areas, as it was described to me in the briefing, will allow

government to be able to target an area and extract that area out for

redistribution to B.C. Timber Sales or to First Nations. Okay. That sounds

reasonable, except when you think that most of the area around the province is

volume-based.

By extracting an area out, you’re actually able to go in and take what

you would consider to be the best wood that’s available and not a

representation of what a timber supply area may be. In other words, these very

special areas have the potential to take out the cream within a forest and

leave the remainder. That may be the intention that the minister is looking at

in terms of utilization of this. I’ll be very interested when we get into

committee stage to find out if that is truly her intent. But it seems to be

that’s what the purpose of that is.

That will have unintended consequences on a number of levels — first of

all, with stumpage. If these special purpose areas go, all of them, to B.C.

Timbe