Second Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, June 15, 2021

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 94

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Elder abuse awareness

S. Bond

Transportation service on Highway 16

J. Rice

LNG industry and projects

E. Ross

Personal Information Protection Act Review Committee

M. Elmore

Ted Itani

B. Stewart

Graduates of 2021 in Maple Ridge–Mission area

B. D’Eith

Oral Questions

Government response to U.S. legislation on cruise ship industry

S. Bond

Hon. R. Fleming

M. de Jong

Request by Squamish Nation for deferral of old-growth logging

A. Olsen

Hon. K. Conroy

Ambulance response times and service management

R. Merrifield

Hon. A. Dix

C. Oakes

Petitions

A. Olsen

Tabling Documents

Legislative Assembly Management Committee, accountability report, 2019-20

Office of the Auditor General, Community Living B.C.’s Framework for

Monitoring Home-Sharing Providers , June 2021

Office of the Ombudsperson, special report, Alone: The Prolonged and Repeated

Isolation of Youth in Custody

Forest Appeals Commission, annual report, 2020

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance (continued)

M. Bernier

Hon. S. Robinson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)

R. Merrifield

Hon. A. Dix

K. Kirkpatrick

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (continued)

M. Lee

Hon. R. Fleming

TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 2021

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: R. Merrifield.

[10:05 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

A. Olsen: Today I’d like to stand and acknowledge the graduates from my riding.

Gulf Islands senior secondary school, Parkland Secondary School and Stelly’s

Secondary School all have graduates this year. And for the first time in my

riding, the W̱SÁNEĆ Leadership Secondary

School is graduating students out of grade 12.

Five students are graduating out of

W̱SÁNEĆ Leadership Secondary School.

This is an endeavour to ensure that our

W̱SÁNEĆ youth can start school in

elementary and go all the way through in the SENĆOŦEN language program.

They’re working their way towards that.

I raise my hands to my niece Madison Olsen, who’s graduating from

Stelly’s as a Stinger; and to my cousin Demetrius Olsen, who we know as

Weems, who is part of that first graduating class of the

W̱SÁNEĆ Leadership Secondary

School.

Please, could all of the members here congratulate

W̱SÁNEĆ Leadership Secondary School

for the work that they’ve done and to all of the graduates from Saanich

North and the Islands.

Hon. G. Heyman: I’m honoured today to rise to recognize a favourite constituent,

Margery Kellett, who recently celebrated her 99th birthday. Margery was born

on the family farm in County Cork, Ireland. While she was studying in

Dublin, she met her husband, Robert. They travelled the world before

settling in Vancouver with their three children and two dogs in

In addition to her lengthy teaching career, Margery was one of the

first women wardens at Christ Church Cathedral, where she once helped

protect sex trade workers facing harassment who sought sanctuary inside the

church for three nights. Margery is also the only person who ever hosted a

meet-the-candidate gathering for me in Shaughnessy and managed to attract a

pretty good turnout.

She also has advice for all of us, at age 99. She says: “Life is

completely irrational, but never miss a party.” I hope all members will join

me in celebrating Margery as she begins her 100th year.

R. Russell: I have the honour this morning of wishing a very happy birthday to a

constituent of mine, Nancy Koch, who next week is turning 100 years old.

Please join me in wishing her a very happy birthday.

R. Merrifield: Well, my dad taught me to be fearless, to allow courage and principle

to be my guide. My mom, however, taught me to listen in order to understand

and to be fierce in defending those without voice — and also to always have

an extra seat at the dinner table because you never knew who was going to

join.

Generous, bold, kind, thoughtful and still learning in their 70s, they

raised four crazy kids into, arguably, responsible and contributing adults,

with 14 grandkids to love. I wish that everyone could have parents like

mine, and for today, this House can.

Would the House please join me in

welcoming my parents, Bruce and Norma Merrifield.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

ELDER ABUSE AWARENESS

S. Bond: Today is World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. It’s an occasion to

reflect on the care and the treatment of seniors and older British

Columbians. Many of our older citizens are dependent on those that they

trust for support as they age. Whether living independently or in

long-term care, elder abuse is a heartbreaking phenomenon that we as a

society must address head-on.

Elder abuse can take many forms, ranging from physical and

psychological harm to financial exploitation and manipulation. Seniors

from all walks of life and in communities right across the province are

vulnerable to being taken advantage of or mistreated. And when the

person who is mistreating them is someone from their family, many

seniors are simply afraid to speak up. Help is available for elders and

their families and friends to recognize and get support when abuse may

be suspected.

[10:10 a.m.]

But all of us need to do more. It is unfathomable to think that at

a time when people who should be able to age with dignity and respect,

they are neglected and abused. The World Health Organization recently

noted that as COVID progressed, the ill treatment of the elderly has

grown considerably. It has also been noted that mistreatment of the

elderly is one of the least addressed issues in the world.

Today gives us the opportunity to raise awareness and commit to

increased education and preventative measures. Now more than ever, we

need to take the time to check in on those older family members, friends

and neighbours and provide them with the assurance that we care. It’s up

to us to raise awareness, to do our part to protect those who are

vulnerable and to let B.C. seniors know how important it is to speak up

so that all older British Columbians can live safely with dignity and

respect.

All of us have a role to play. Elder abuse is preventable.

Together, today, let’s commit to making this issue a priority in British

Columbia. Our elders deserve nothing less.

TRANSPORTATION SERVICE ON HIGHWAY 16

J. Rice: For many years, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities

have asked for improved transportation options along Highway 16. The

Highway of Tears Symposium recommended in 2006 that improved public

transportation options be put in place along Highway 16. Commissioner

Wally Oppal recommended in 2012 that urgent action be taken to improve

transportation options along Highway 16. For decades, many women have

gone missing along the highway, many of them Aboriginal.

June 4, 2018, was a proud day for me as an MLA, when B.C. Bus

North’s wheels hit the ground, filling a void left by Greyhound when

they pulled services from western Canada. We’ve also made improvements

to the Northern Health connections bus, expanding its ridership to

include seniors’ travel. We’ve also put in place community busing grants

and B.C. Transit intercommunity bus service along Highway 16.

Safe, affordable and reliable transportation is essential for

people who live and work in the north. Our government is committed to

this goal. We recently announced a grant of nearly $8 million to

Northern Development Initiative Trust, to help ensure that regional

transportation options are available through to March 2025.

The funds are from the federal-provincial safe restart program to

help offset the cost of essential public transportation as communities

recover from the pandemic. Northern Development Initiative Trust will

engage with communities and other stakeholders to determine

transportation needs across the region, from Prince Rupert to Prince

George, Valemount, Fort St. John, Fort St. James and points in

between.

Northern B.C. is a vast region with many unique communities,

several of which are isolated. Safe, consistent and affordable

transportation is a necessity for many residents in the north,

especially now that the province is reopening and travel will increase.

I’m pleased to be a part of a government that understands the importance

of safe, reliable public transportation options for vulnerable

communities.

LNG INDUSTRY AND PROJECTS

E. Ross: LNG Canada represents one of the largest energy investments in the

history of Canada. Once complete, one ship will come into Kitimat every

24 hours to fill up and take an LNG ship into Asian markets, creating

what should have been the start to a world-class liquefied natural gas

industry in British Columbia and Canada.

The reason why LNG Canada chose to locate its $40 billion export

facility in Kitimat is because B.C. has the second-largest natural gas

reserves in Canada and is ideally located for shipment. With all of

these available advantages, one might have thought more of the 17 other

proposed LNG projects would also be under construction at this stage.

Unfortunately, that’s not the case.

Just recently, the Chevron-Woodside proposed project in Kitimat

has joined the list of projects that decided to leave B.C. for more

welcoming jurisdictions like Australia, with 16 LNG export facilities,

or Qatar’s 12 LNG facilities. This is on top of the 46 LNG liquefaction

terminals worldwide, including the United States.

While it remains clear that LNG Canada will be the last and only

major project B.C. will ever build, there’s a glimmer of hope for the

smaller-scale proposals that survive and are trying to reach final

investment decisions. The Nisg̱a’a

re-engaged Western LNG with the hopes of exporting LNG to Asia. Squamish

Woodfibre is still progressing, as it sits on the site of a closed mill,

and are making progress on their project. The Haisla Nation’s own Cedar

LNG project announced their new equity partner, Pembina, in their

project that is a spinoff from LNG Canada.

[10:15 a.m.]

B.C. didn’t fully capitalize on the energy demands from overseas,

and investment did bypass us. But there’s still hope that the remaining

proposals can keep B.C. on the energy-demand map, like other countries

have.

I call on all members of this House to support and save what was a

good start to B.C.’s LNG export industry.

PERSONAL INFORMATION PROTECTION

ACT REVIEW

COMMITTEE

M. Elmore: As members will recall, the Legislative Assembly appointed a

Special Committee to Review the Personal Information Protection Act, or

PIPA, as it’s known. As Chair of the committee, I’m joined by the very

capable vice-Chair, the MLA for Penticton, and I appreciate the

opportunity to speak today about our work.

PIPA governs how private sector organizations collect, use and

disclose personal information. It also requires organizations to protect

and secure personal information against unauthorized use or disclosure

and grants individuals the right to access their own personal

information.

We know that we have become more reliant than ever on technology

to stay connected with friends and family and to do our work. Now is an

opportune time to modernize our private sector privacy legislation in

response to this new reality. We also want to ensure that B.C.

businesses are supported in protecting and using the personal

information they collect so they can remain competitive and

successful.

Our committee is currently undertaking a public consultation as

part of our work. We’re looking forward to hearing from British

Columbians about the act. We’ll be holding a number of virtual public

hearings in the coming weeks to hear from subject-matter experts and

other stakeholders. On behalf of all committee members, I encourage

everyone to take some time to share their thoughts on how to strengthen

this important piece of legislation. The committee is accepting input

until July 30. More details on how to participate are available on our

committee website.

I would like to encourage all members to share this information

with individuals and organizations in their communities who may be

interested in participating.

The committee’s work will be presented to the Legislative Assembly

and made public by December 8 this year.

TED ITANI

B. Stewart: It’s a great honour to rise today in this House and remember the

life of an incredible Canadian with deep roots in West

Kelowna.

Tetsuo Itani was born in Ucluelet, B.C. in 1939. His father,

Takeo, was a successful commercial fisherman, a second-generation

Canadian and homeowner. Unfortunately, this did not stop the Canadian

government from labelling Ted’s family and all the other Japanese

Canadians as enemy aliens, following the attacks on Pearl Harbor in

Much of Ted’s childhood was spent in internment camps at Hastings

Park and East Lillooet and then, when they were allowed to, the Itani

family decided to move to Westbank on Dobbin Road, just down from my

constituency office. Takeo grew vegetables and his mother, Sumako,

worked for the Reece family at the family packing house.

Ted always looked for ways to get involved in his community, and

he decided to…. One of the few groups that would allow him to be a

member was the Cadets. He spoke of the program as giving him a sense of

belonging in a place and at a time when it was difficult for him to find

one. This decision ended up shaping the rest of Ted’s life.

After the Cadets, he went on with 37 years of service in the

Canadian Armed Forces. He served with NATO, was involved in UN

peacekeeping and humanitarian missions across the world and was awarded

the Order of Military Merit in 1994.

He then retired from the military and went on to a successful

26-year humanitarian career with the Red Cross and a few years ago was

inducted into the Order of Canada.

The headline in the local newspaper: “Once Shunned by Canada, Ted

Itani Now Among Canada’s Honoured Elite.” I just want to read a clip

from the Governor General.

“Ted Itani is a role model of service to people in crisis around the

world. Following a distinguished military career, he became an adviser

to the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre, where he drew on his own experiences

to help design peacekeeping training courses conducted by the centre

around the world. A committed humanitarian, he led responses to…natural

disasters, including the earthquakes and floods that ravaged Pakistan in

the last decade. He was a senior volunteer in the International Red

Cross and Red Crescent movement.”

[10:20 a.m.]

Ted’s life is a story that looks like somebody that dedicates

oneself to service, despite having every reason to bear resentment

towards Canada. He chose to spend his life serving his country and

working to improve the lives of people around the world.

His life and legacy is remembered by his community; his wife and

author, Frances; Bing of 100 Mile; Nancy of 108 Mile; and sister-in-law

Beryl Itani in Kelowna West — an example of dedication, resilience and

commitment from which we can all learn.

GRADUATES OF 2021 IN

MAPLE RIDGE–MISSION

AREA

B. D’Eith: I rise today in the House to say congratulations to the high

school graduating class of 2021 across British Columbia, and especially

in my riding of Maple Ridge–Mission. This past year students have shown

great resilience in overcoming adversity during the pandemic, and many

have dedicated time to contributing to the health and well-being of

others through their actions.

In Maple Ridge, Thomas Haney Secondary School’s Selma Babiker

started an anti-racism club and spoke to over 3,000 regional delegates

at the virtual Lifting Black Voices Youth Conference. Selma talked about

how colourism had affected her in her daily life and shared the impact

that this had on her mental health.

At Maple Ridge Secondary, grads Tayah Bitter and Nana Yamamoto

helped to organize a mental health week initiative in their school. They

got creative to come up with mental health activities that would respect

social-distancing rules.

Last week there was a Grad Walk event kicked off in Maple Ridge to

celebrate and honour graduating schools from school district 42. Youth

partnered with local organizations and businesses to decorate ten

storefronts along 224th. The Grad Walk allows students and their

families to take memorable grad pictures and celebrate their

grad.

I also heard from Jim Pearce, who’s the principal of the Mission

Secondary School, about this year’s grads, and he said: “The journey has

been long and complicated for this grad class. Since the pandemic

started, these youth have endured part-time school, full-time school,

online and combinations of those. As principal, I’m so proud of what

they’ve accomplished.”

So on my behalf, of course, and on behalf of the MLAs for Maple

Ridge–Pitt Meadows and Abbotsford-Mission, I’d like to congratulate the

class of 2021. My message to you is be bold, follow your dreams, reach

for the stars, and in your lifetime you may literally be able to do just

that.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO

U.S. LEGISLATION ON

CRUISE

SHIP INDUSTRY

S. Bond: Well, yesterday once again, as we have been for months, we raised

serious concerns about the risk of cruise ships permanently bypassing

our ports. The Premier was, as he has been from the very start,

dismissive about the issue. Let’s be clear. The consequences will be

devastating for British Columbia. We know that it will threaten

thousands of jobs and impact billions of dollars to our

economy.

But here was the Premier’s response: “The governor from Utah may

have trouble with a 100-year-old bill in his jurisdiction. Fair enough.

Change it. That’s what you should do.” That quote and the Premier’s

continued responses show how completely out of touch he is on this

file.

Can the Premier explain to British Columbians what on earth he was

talking about yesterday and explain why he has been completely missing

in action on this file from day one?

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the Leader of the Opposition for the

question.

Yesterday was a very important day for all British Columbians and

a welcome day when Dr. Bonnie Henry, the Premier, the Minister of

Health, the Ministers of Tourism and Jobs and Economic Recovery

announced stage 2, announced the further reopening of our economy — a

reduction of health restrictions in terms of our social and economic

activities, the ability to have outdoor gatherings of up to 50 people,

more in-person services being possible. Some spectator events and

activities are being resumed.

[10:25 a.m.]

What Dr. Henry outlined yesterday was that we’re on track, over

the next incubation period, to announce a further reduction in health

restrictions, when we reach stage 3 on July 1. This is fantastic news.

This is a tribute to everybody who has worked so hard to keep British

Columbians safe. It’s a tribute to the job that public health has done

in leading this province to a place of COVID safety and the restoration

of economic activity and as much normalcy as possible under the pandemic

circumstances.

We will also proceed to stage 4 based on how we perform this

summer for further reductions, still. So what the announcement today did

for British Columbians was align perfectly with what the Premier has

called for publicly. He has called for the Prime Minister to take the

opportunity on June 21, when the United States and the Prime Minister’s

Office, representing Canada, announce what our approach will be on

opening the border.

The Premier has been clear that if you’re dealing with the land

border, you have to deal with airports and you have to deal with ports.

We are in a far better position today than we were just three weeks ago,

when we were still in a COVID circuit breaker situation, when we had

hundreds and hundreds of new cases per day. The vaccination rates are

continuing to proceed on pace in our country. Now is the time for the

Prime Minister to lead the discussion on what reopening the border looks

like for the U.S., including for the cruise industry here in British

Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a

supplemental.

S. Bond: What’s painfully obvious is that this Premier has been completely

missing in action on a file that is critical to British Columbians. It

is absolutely unbelievable that this minister completely ignores the

essence of this question. His Premier called the situation with cruise

ships potentially bypassing British Columbia a “blip.”

The minister might want to reflect back on three weeks ago. Well,

if this Premier have been doing his job from months ago, we would not be

in the position that we are in today. It’s time for him to stand up and

admit that he has made a complete mess of this file. He was wrong then,

and he is wrong now.

Let’s look at the now-famous words of the Tourism Minister. I

would quote her words, and they will be quoted for a long time, I am

positive. This government is “arrogant” in their confidence. Yesterday

that was on display in this House.

Over and over, we have heard the statistics, and the members

opposite know exactly what they are. Thousands of jobs are at risk.

Billions of dollars are at risk. And what did the Premier call it? A

blip.

Yesterday what did we hear the leader of British Columbia say?

Here’s what he said: “Fair enough. Change it. That’s what you should

do.” Well, not only has the Premier completely botched this file; now we

need to ask an even more basic question: on whose side is he?

When will he finally stand up for the men and women who will be

impacted if this decision becomes permanent? That’s his job. He is

missing in action. It is time for him to get up and fix the

mess.

Hon. R. Fleming: Again, to the Leader of the Official Opposition, what the Premier

has done is speak to his counterparts: the governor of Washington,

representing the port of Seattle; he has talked to legislators in

Alaska; and most importantly, he has talked to his fellow Premiers in

this country, right across all provinces and territories, about the

federally decided position on the border closure.

We’re now just being able to glimpse what normalcy might look

like. We are just now able to talk in a tangible, realistic way about

how Canadians might safely visit their loved ones and relations in the

United States and vice versa, for Americans to come to Canada. That’s

the light at the end of the tunnel today, after a 15-month-long

struggle, one that was very difficult on the cruise ship industry in

particular, it must be said.

We know how they in particular struggled at the beginning of this

pandemic — tied up in ports around the world, active sites of some of

the worst COVID transmission outbreaks that the world knew. Now we have,

just on May 6, a set of guidelines that have been developed by the U.S.

Centers for Disease Control. They’re conducting trial

cruises.

[10:30 a.m.]

The Prime Minister, when he announced earlier this year, in

February, that ports would be closed for an additional year, it was an

entirely different time.

We forget, because time seems very compressed during this

pandemic, what things were like just a few short moments ago. But at

that time, many provinces were losing the battle against COVID. It was

infecting more and more Canadians — mortality in seniors’ homes, a

disruption of businesses, disruption of schools. British Columbia did

better than most, and we’re proud of that. But the discussion in

February of 2021 was not about opening up the border willy-nilly in

Canada between the United States. That’s a real discussion

today.

Today the case counts are down. Today the Prime Minister is

meeting with his G7 counterparts, including President Biden, about

reopening the border. I expect that the Prime Minister will revisit the

port closure order that he brought in four months ago. I expect that

will happen. Certainly, British Columbia and this Premier have had

opportunities and have taken them…

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister. I don’t think this is the only question

that’s going to be asked.

Hon. R. Fleming: …to make our position known that the border should be opened in an

orderly process.

M. de Jong: We first became aware of this issue back in the end of October of

last year. In February, the Ameri­cans, the state delegation from

Alaska, wrote to the Canadian government, wrote to the British Columbia

government. We raised the issue directly in this House in March. The

government was dismissive. The Premier was dismissive. The Minister of

Tourism was dismissive.

By April, we were in regular correspondence with the government,

alerting them to the risk that the cruise industry was articulating. And

yesterday we found out, in response to questions from the Member for

Vancouver-Langara, that the Minister of Tourism didn’t actually get

around to writing to federal officials on the whole question of

technical stops that could have provided a solution and eliminated the

need for legislative amendments in the U.S…. He, apparently, didn’t get

around to writing to his federal counterparts until the end of

May.

How on earth are British Columbians, who are desperate to see a

return of international tourists, whose livelihoods depend on the return

of tourism, supposed to have any confidence in this Premier and this

government when it takes four months to write a letter exploring a

solution that could have precluded the need for amendments to American

legislation? That’s not leadership.

Will the minister explain to British Columbians why it took him

four months to get off, to get down to business and write the letter

that should have been written back in February?

Hon. R. Fleming: We’ve taken a whole-of-government approach since day one. IGRS has

been in communication with the Prime Minister’s Office. The Minister of

Tourism has met with stakeholders and her counterparts. I’ve met with my

counterpart in Ottawa, both the current Minister of Transportation and

his predecessor, about border issues, about ports, about the cruise

industry for many months.

I know the opposition likes to mischaracterize the industry. I

think that’s very dangerous. They should not be talking down the

industry or COVID safety or criticizing a science-led approach to what

has led us to a successful position today, where we’re having an active

border reopening discussion — led by the Prime Minister, because it is

his jurisdiction — with the United States, a comprehensive border

reopening announcement that we expect on June 21.

[10:35 a.m.]

Listen. The CEO of the Victoria port authority had written the

Prime Minister on June 11 and reminded him that his port and the

industry originally supported the extension in February of 2021, the

closure of our ports to February 2022, but suggests to the Prime

Minister — in light of vaccine rates, in light of COVID safety

increasing, in light of the USCDC developing safe sailing protocols in

May of this year, last month — that the government should reconsider

whether ports need to be closed to February of 2022.

That is exactly the position that I have expressed to my federal

counterparts. That’s the position of the province of British

Columbia.

There is opportunity, thanks to the herculean efforts of British

Columbians to stay safe, to have an all-of-Canada approach that reopens

our ports, our land borders and our airports in accordance with strict,

scientific policies that will keep people safe.

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

M. de Jong: The Americans wrote in February. This government — this Premier,

this minister — did nothing. Worse than doing nothing, they belittled

the very people who were in the U.S. who were in a position to change

laws that will have a profoundly permanent impact on tourism in British

Columbia.

The belittling and the dismissing and the insulting continues from

the Premier of British Columbia. We saw evidence of it again yesterday,

belittling the junior senator — who is not the junior senator, by the

way. He is wrong, as he has been every step of the way through this

saga.

Carnival, Holland America, Princess, Celebrity, Royal Caribbean,

Norwegian. Carnival Miracle, Majestic Princess, Nieuw Amsterdam,

Serenade of the Seas, Ovation of the Seas, Celebrity Summit,

Norwegian Bliss . What do all of those names have in common?

They’re all ships that, next month, are going to begin sailing to

Alaska, right past British Columbia ports like Victoria, Vancouver,

Campbell River, Prince Rupert, and they won’t be stopping

there.

What’s worse, because of this minister’s inaction, this Premier’s

inaction, this government’s inaction, there’s a chance — a very good

chance — that in the future, they won’t be stopping either. I can’t

believe that even today, after everything that has taken place, there

are still people on that side of the House dismissing that as not a

possibility.

Will the minister, on behalf of the government, explain, in the

face of a challenge that has materialized, that is real, that the

Americans intend to pursue, why it took him four months to write a

letter to the federal authorities articulating and advocating on behalf

of British Columbia for a solution that could have made all of this go

away?

Hon. R. Fleming: A very interesting bit of historical revisionism from the member

opposite.

In February of 2021, only 2.3 percent of Canadians were

vaccinated, and 0.1 percent of Canadians were fully vaccinated. We were

in dangerous winter conditions that enhanced the spread of COVID. People

indoors. Harsh restrictions. Some provinces — not ours, but some

provinces — in full and complete lockdown.

What was preoccupying the minds of the country and Canadians in

general was not a hypothetical cruise ship reopening in July. It was

about how we were going to get towards a safer future in our country.

How we were going to get more vaccine into this country. How we were

going to keep one another safe. How we were going to support each other.

How we were going to roll out programs to keep businesses, communities

and workers whole. So for the opposition to say that was their

preoccupation….

But it gets worse, in terms of how erratic this opposition has

been. In the middle of the circuit breaker — a measure that was

absolutely necessary in March of this year, just a couple of months ago

— when case counts were about 1,150 on a rolling seven-day average and

projected by our provincial health officials to go as high as 3,000 if

we didn’t take additional steps…. In the middle of that circuit breaker,

the member for Kamloops–North Thompson was saying an entirely different

thing about borders. He was saying we should have a hard border enforced

on Alberta.

They weren’t talking about reopening of borders with the United

States. They were talking about taking steps that no province even has

the constitutional authority to do. Instead, we brought in a ban on

non-essential travel. We brought in restrictions that kept people

safe…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, come to order, please.

Minister, thank you.

Hon. R. Fleming: …and we started to see the case counts go down. We came out of

that circuit breaker lockdown two weeks ago.

[10:40 a.m.]

That’s what letting scientists lead on COVID policy-making

decisions looks like. That’s what’s kept British Columbia

safe.

REQUEST BY SQUAMISH NATION FOR

DEFERRAL OF OLD-GROWTH

LOGGING

A. Olsen: Last Thursday Squamish Nation clearly gave notice to the province

that they want old-growth logging in their territory deferred. Squamish

Nation spokesperson Khelsilem said: “The government is infringing on our

rights by allowing these sites to be logged without our permission and

without our consent.”

In his response last week to the Huu-ay-aht, Ditidaht and

Pacheedaht request for deferrals, the Premier said: “The first step in

protecting old growth must be respecting Indigenous Peoples’ land

management rights in their territories.” The Minister of Forests was

also eager. She said: “True reconciliation means meaningful

partnerships, listening to Indigenous Peoples and trusting their

stewardship of their territories. This is a step in the right direction,

but we know there’s more work to do.”

If the Premier and this minister are sincere in their promises to

respect land management rights of Indigenous Peoples in their

territories, we will see an immediate positive response to Squamish

Nation’s assertion of their rights.

Simple question to the Minister of Forests: has she accepted

Squamish Nation’s request for deferrals on old-growth harvesting in

their territory?

Hon. K. Conroy: I thank the member for the question. Our government has received

several requests from First Nations to implement deferrals. We’ve

responded to all incoming requests and are committed to working with

them. We have been working with the Squamish Nation since last fall and

have deferred some areas in their territory, as we speak.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Saanich North and the Islands on a

supplemental.

A. Olsen: I think Squamish Nation is being clear, and I’ll be clear. They

don’t want talks about protecting bits and pieces, small areas here and

there. The nation is calling for an immediate two-year deferral in its

entire territory. They’ve identified at least 20 cutblocks with

old-growth logging planned for the next five years, a point the minister

does not want to talk about.

The minister said recently: “The first step is putting Indigenous

Peoples at the centre of land management in their respective

territories.” That’s a dramatic difference than the response that we

just heard, which is just more rhetoric.

The Premier set a precedent in his riding. Finally, after more

than 100 years, Indigenous nations have a pathway to stewarding and

conserving their lands and can negotiate better economic terms than the

pittance that this government has ever offered them. It’s an exciting

time. For decades, this province has been operating a cut-and-run

forestry policy. Now the decisions can be made by people who live on and

care for the land.

My question, again, is to the minister. The minister and Premier

have said they’re embracing a new era of Indigenous people making

decisions in their territories. Our relatives in Squamish have made

their decision. They’ve been clear about what that decision is to this

government.

Will the minister do the honourable thing and immediately grant a

full set of deferrals, pausing old-growth harvesting in the Squamish

Nation territory?

Hon. K. Conroy: I thank the member.

Our government is committed to reconciliation and environmental

protection, which we believe must go together. The days of making

unilateral decisions without Indigenous Peoples are over. The member is

quite accurate.

We’ve been clear that the first step to protecting old growth is

putting Indigenous people at the centre of land management in their

territories. That’s exactly why our government is working with the

Pacheedaht, the Ditidaht and the Huu-ay-aht First Nations to defer

old-growth logging in their territories — discussions that have been

ongoing for a while.

The member has said that we are reaching out to nations. We have

responded to nations that have asked for deferrals. We are having those

important, confidential government-to-government discussions.

[10:45 a.m.]

We will continue to do that with nations across the province who

are looking to have more access to the land management in their

traditional territory, to be able to have a say in how their land is

managed. It’s critically important to this government. We are moving

forward. We will have more deferrals to announce this summer.

AMBULANCE RESPONSE TIMES

AND SERVICE

MANAGEMENT

R. Merrifield: Well, we’ve heard a flood of stories of people who have had to

wait unbearably long hours for an ambulance. The government says it

doesn’t happen that often. But to the people who are waiting in

excruciating pain, it’s happening far too often.

Troy Clifford, the head of the paramedics union in B.C., says that

delays and waits are becoming the norm: “We need to modernize the

service delivery model, recognize this profession is vital to public

safety and health care and recognize the professionals doing the work

and treat them similar to other health care professionals.”

Seniors shouldn’t have to wait hours in their own waste. Accident

victims shouldn’t have to drive themselves to the hospital after waiting

five hours. No one wants to hear that the Premier wants to deflect

blame.

Can the Premier tell British Columbians what he’s going to do to

fix this crisis in our health care system?

Hon. A. Dix: What we’ve done since 2017 to address the situation amongst

ambulance paramedics I think should be well known to the member. We’ve

more than doubled the increases the ambulance service gets every year,

compared to the four years prior to my becoming Minister of Health and

the Premier becoming Premier. We’ve added, since last fall, 263

positions, and as of July 2, 434 additional positions will be posted,

based on a plan that we worked together with the union, with CUPE Local

873, the Ambulance Paramedics of B.C, and on a contract we negotiated

together.

Of course, every time someone calls 911 we need them to get the

service they deserve. Every time there’s a problem with that, it’s a

subject of concern for every ambulance paramedic and for the B.C.

emergency health services. That’s why we’ve put together an

unprecedented investment. We’ve added an unprecedented number of

ambulance paramedics.

Yes, we’ve treated ambulance paramedics with respect, rather than

taking away their rights at the bargaining table. We’ve added to those

rights since 2017, treating them as other health care workers are

treated: with respect and with dignity.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kelowna-Mission on a supplemental.

R. Merrifield: Well, despite the minister’s urging that more money is being

spent, more money is not the answer for mismanagement. Troy Clifford has

been clear that mismanagement has been leading to these delays becoming

the norm: “They have an obligation to staff ambulances and put two

paramedics in them, to make sure we have enough dispatchers to answer

the call, to make sure that we can provide medical assistance while they

wait for the ambulances. That’s not happening right now. It hasn’t been

happening for a while.”

In my area of the province, the problem of vacant cars is posing a

serious challenge. This includes no advanced life support for the

Okanagan two nights a week for a few months now. In other regions,

stations like Kimberley and Pemberton are being downgraded to part-time

and on-call, despite increases in population and calls. This is putting

people’s lives at risk.

Again to the Premier, when will he move to fix this crisis before

someone pays a heavy price with their life?

Hon. A. Dix: Well, since the pandemic began, we’ve added 55 ambulances across

B.C., particularly in rural and remote communities, who were

particularly underserved before. Since the pandemic began, we’ve added

five new air resources to our ambulance system to improve services,

again in rural and remote communities. Since last fall, we’ve added

260-plus ambulance paramedics positions, and we are posting more than

400 on July 2.

We’ve done this because of the priority we give to the ambulance

service everywhere in B.C., moving to more full-time paramedics,

hundreds of new positions. All of the efforts we’re making are necessary

because we do have to modernize the ambulance service into the 21st

century.

[10:50 a.m.]

Some of that work, it should be said, occurred under the previous

government, particularly the actions of George Abbott when he was

Minister of Health, in adding community paramedicine, which stabilized

the ambulance services in rural and remote communities.

We have built on that work, the best that was…. But we also added

resources that were never put in place to ensure that rural B.C. gets

the ambulance service it deserves and that we add ambulance paramedics

everywhere in B.C.

The member wants a plan. There is a plan. That’s why we’re adding

hundreds of positions.

C. Oakes: Quesnel is one of five rural remote stations that is being deeply

impacted by this transition that happened in April, under this new model

that this minister has been talking about, which is now leaving us with

a single ambulance.

Quesnel receives 1,300 calls per year. The reality is that the

second car is no longer staffed. That means the local station is serving

a population of 35,000 people with one car. Further, the station covers

a very large geographic area. It can take hours to get to one call in

Nazko. What happens if there’s an accident on Highway 97 near McCleese

Lake many, many hours away, or what happens if someone is under cardiac

arrest in Quesnel, where the timing is the difference between life and

death?

People are worried now. They’re worried about what happens when

they call for an ambulance and there just simply isn’t one because we

don’t have the staffing. Again, in Quesnel, they could get 12 calls in a

six-hour period, and they cannot possibly meet all the requests. What

happens when staffing becomes even more challenging in July and

August?

Please, will the Premier step up, do the right thing and fix this

crisis so that the people in Quesnel have proper ambulance

care?

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you to the member for her question. As the member will know,

55 new ambulances in rural and remote communities. Significant addition

in full-time paramedics in the Cariboo since 2017. Additions to

community paramedicine. That focus. The focus on improving service in

rural B.C., as we do transition to a model of more full-time people,

which is exactly what rural B.C. deserves….

The old model of ambulance service didn’t work adequately for the

people of rural B.C. in the modern reality of rural B.C. That’s why

these very significant investments, the most significant investments

ever made in paramedic services in rural B.C., have been made in the

last three years. It’s what I think MLAs across rural B.C. have been

calling for, for a long time. It is what we intend to continue to

deliver.

These were added to when the Premier announced on April 20, 2020,

additional resources and services for rural and remote communities at

the time of COVID. This priority is real. We continue to add spaces and

add services, including in the Cariboo, in order to ensure that we give

people the service they deserve. It is a challenge, in a very big

province, to provide such services.

B.C. emergency health services has been given the resources and

been given the direction to deliver those services across rural B.C. I

think the significant investment over the last three years is a

demonstration of that.

[End of question period.]

A. Olsen: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to introduce a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

A. Olsen: Today I stand to introduce a petition on behalf of the Fawkes family,

Emma Epp and Ella Hale. Twenty-five hundred people in just two weeks from

across B.C. have rallied around the disgraceful treatment they received at

the hands of the Royal Jubilee Hospital to call for an independent review of

psychiatric emergency services in the Vancouver Island health region. That’s

what the petition is here.

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour to table the Legislative Assembly

Management Committee Account­ability Report

2019-20 .

I also have the honour to table the Auditor General’s report,

Community Living B.C.’s Framework for Monitoring Home-Sharing

Providers , and the Ombudsperson’s special report 48, Alone: The

Prolonged and Repeated Isolation of Youth in Custody .

Hon. M. Farnworth: I have the honour to present the 2020 Annual Report of the

Forest Appeals Commission.

[10:55 a.m.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued estimates debate, Ministry of

Finance.

In the Douglas Fir Room,

Section A, I call continued estimates of the

Ministry of Health.

In the Birch Room,

Section C, I call continued estimates debate for the

Ministry of Transportation.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

FINANCE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B);

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 10:56 a.m.

The Chair: We’ll take a five-minute recess to get this all set up. Then

we’ll return for the estimates for Finance. Thanks,

everyone.

The committee recessed from 10:56 a.m. to 11 a.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

On Vote 26: ministry operations, $307,466,000

(continued) .

M. Bernier: Good morning, everyone. Good morning to the minister and her staff

that are assisting her. We’ll move right into it.

Obviously, yesterday we spent a bit of time, kind of high level,

on some issues. I just want to go back to finish off where my train of

thought was, if the minister will indulge me. This is around the

increased employment incentive. We had just about finished wrapping up

some questions I had in there.

There is some interesting information that came out of that. We

have all these employers who were applying for this 15 percent tax

credit. I was quite surprised to find out that we don’t really have a

lot of data that’s collected through that application. The minister

acknowledged that they were trying to make the process as simple as

possible, as quick as possible, which I completely support. At the same

time, interested…. As we’re running these government programs, sometimes

the data is important.

We did find out yesterday that we didn’t really know how many were

full-time or part-time employees. We did find out that there was around

$5.5 million of $190 million that’s been expended to date. I won’t get

into that too much further.

Since we don’t have the part time, full time…. I was wondering. In

the data that’s being collected, though — I’m assuming, at least, when

people apply for this credit — do we have the information on how many

are new hires and how many are just wage increases that they’ve applied

for?

Hon. S. Robinson: Yes, we did canvass this program significantly yesterday. I had

read into the record that we had net new employees. We had 4,163 net new

employees, which is good. It’s doing what the program intended, which

was to have these people employed in the last quarter of

M. Bernier: I’m going to move on to a different train of thought. This is

around the contingency funds.

Budget 2021 contains about $3.25 billion in pandemic-related

contingencies, $1 billion the year after and $300 million the year

after. Also, reading through the budget documents, it appears that

there’s $1.1 billion that’s devoted to unanticipated recovery measures.

One of the concerns or one of the trains that I want to canvass here

is….

[11:05 a.m.]

Moody’s credit-rating agency has highlighted that 58 percent of

projected annual deficits are accounted for in contingency funds. I look

at that. We have a lot of unallocated contingencies that have taken

place. So when the minister announces, through a budget document, I

would argue, a fairly large deficit, but within that deficit it appears

there are large contingencies that are unallocated funds….

Now, the minister will say or has said in past conversations in

this House…. Of course, there are a lot of unknowns. We’re in the middle

of the pandemic. Hopefully, towards the latter part of the middle of

that pandemic…. We continue to use the phrase “middle.”

My question is…. There is a large contingency built in. What is

the plan? Does the minister have a plan to fully utilize those

contingencies at her disposal that are within this budget, and what

would they be used for?

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m grateful for the public service that are speaking in my ear

and helping me find the right page so I can get the correct information

for the member. As you can see, there are a number of binders here, and

understanding exactly which binder information is in can sometimes take

a little bit of doing.

[11:10 a.m.]

I think it’s really important to get on the record that the

pandemic and recovery contingencies allocation, as the member rightly

pointed to, at $3.25 billion for this year, has some notional

allocations, recognizing, again, that this pandemic has continually

evolved and shifted over these last 15 months.

It’s why, for example…. The circuit breaker is a perfect example

of a program where we needed to be quick on our feet, recognizing that

the pandemic was getting away on us as a province, so public health put

in orders to change our behaviour and, essentially, shut down

restaurants. So having the circuit breaker grant available — and then

extending it, when that got extended, was really about being a

responsive government. It’s for that reason that we’ve put in

significant contingencies — pandemic and recovery contingencies — so

that we have the flexibility to adapt to the changing landscape of this

pandemic.

It’s with that in mind that we put together these pandemic

recovery contingencies. The notional allocations are $900 million for

health and safety measures. We continue to recognize that there are

challenges, going forward, around making sure that we are responsive. We

still need contact tracers, for example. We still need extra cleaning

protocols. I know that we’re all looking forward to schools opening up,

but we want to make sure that they continue to be safe. What does that

look like, going forward? So we need to have some flexibility built

in.

We have $1.2 billion for supports for businesses and people.

Again, not sure when borders are going to open. What is the impact going

to be on the tourism industry? How are things going to be, moving

forward? And remember, when we put this budget together, we were just

hearing about how quickly we could move on our vaccination, but the

expectation was that we wouldn’t be fully vaccinated until well into the

later part of this year, perhaps by the fall.

It looks good. Things are moving more quickly, but, again, not

having any certainty about anything meant that we needed to be ready for

whatever inevitability might present itself. We’ve allocated notionally,

again, $200 million for preparing for recovery. We want to make sure

that we can help businesses adapt to the new landscape.

Then we have set aside…. The remainder is for unanticipated urgent

health or recovery measures. Again, we have been through 15 months of

unprecedented times. The word is overused. I will freely admit that. I

think it’s overused. But I can’t think of another word, and if the

member has another word, I’d be happy to incorporate it into my lexicon.

But at this point, it just feels so unprecedented. Making sure that we

are ready for whatever this pandemic may throw at us, I think, is really

important.

I just want to finish off with this. The decision of public health

to vaccinate more people with a single dose was seen as controversial

back in the day. It was a decision made based on science, but we didn’t

know what the impact was going to be. Certainly, now, finding out that

that’s better than double-dosing everybody else and leaving people

without any vaccination — is the better way to go. It was the right

decision.

But, again, it’s hindsight that we know. But at the time…. You

know, we trust science, and we certainly trusted public health. But we

really felt…. I think it’s being a responsible government to make sure

that you have your inevitabilities covered off so that you can continue

to take care of people, as we have over the last 15 months.

M. Bernier: I was trying to brainstorm for another word other than

“unprecedented,” but I’m actually stuck as well, to come up with another

one at this time. But unprecedented in the sense that I think many of us

didn’t see this coming. But it has been here, now, for a year and a

half.

During that year and a half, I hope that we have — government has

— learned a lot about what’s working and not working and how to help

people. So I do acknowledge that sometimes, obviously, contingencies for

the unknowns are important. Can the minister, then, for the record, just

confirm…? Because contingencies are supposed to be for those unknowns.

That’s my understanding, anyway. Does that mean that there is no routine

or structural spending that will be utilized? None of this money will be

utilized for routine measures or structural spending?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: If I recall the question — and I’m trying to remember which way it

was phrased — our commitment and this commitment that I’ve made,

certainly, before, in this House, is that any spending that is not used

for pandemic response and recovery, health response and recovery, will

go to pay down the deficit. It’s not to be used for other

purposes.

I want to remind the member that, just like last year, we will be

reporting out quarterly on where these particular resources are going as

part of our response to the pandemic and recovery initiatives that

government is undertaking, again, to support the people of British

Columbia. This is about making sure that people have the health

resources, have the supports that they need to get through to perhaps

what we’re calling the tail end or the beginning of the end. I’m not

quite sure what to call this phase that we’re in. Phase 2, but it feels

like we’re coming to an end and making sure that communities can

recover.

That’s, I think, the key focus for all of us. What does recovery

look like? How do we support the opportunities that come with recovery,

because I think it’s important to be really clear that there are

certainly opportunities for us. I’m looking forward to working with all

members of the House to capitalize on the opportunities that are before

us as we move through to this final leg of this pandemic and into a

normal and a time when we can actually put the pandemic behind

us.

M. Bernier: Maybe the minister can just clarify for me one of her comments

there, just so I understand. Maybe the House understands. The minister

said: “If the money was not utilized, it would be used to pay down the

deficit.” What I think the minister would acknowledge, for the first

time in quite a while, we’re in a deficit budget situation. So we

wouldn’t be paying down the deficit. I assume it would be borrowing less

money and the deficit that the minister would announce at year-end would

be less than projected.

Hon. S. Robinson: Perhaps I misspoke. It’s about reducing the deficit.

Yeah.

M. Bernier: Just wanted to give the minister the opportunity for

that.

One of my concerns on this is we’ve seen to date, on a lot of the

different programs, that we have been unable to, for varieties of

different reasons, get a lot of the money out the door. Some programs

have been a bit more successful than others, and some have been

struggling — as we’ve heard in the last one that we campaigned of only

$5.5 million out the door out of $190 million.

Where I’m going with this is: where is the certainty that the

minister will, hopefully, give the House that we’ll have this money in

the budget, that we have these programs that are within contingencies?

Because, of course…. Just to back up a moment, when the minister comes

out with her budget document…. She’s talking about a

60-plus-billion-dollar operating budget; plus, we’re over $100 billion

in debt. I mean, there are a whole bunch of different things built into

a budget. We’ll get into some of the specific details after.

Obviously, one of the concerns — Moody’s raised it, and I’ll maybe

talk about that a little later — is when we’re putting these large

contingencies in the budget, is it to overinflate to make the budget

look worse than it is, just to come out later and say: “Hey, it’s not as

bad”? The whole intent, I would assume, is to actually get this money

out the door, to actually help people.

The minister has been very forthright with her comments yesterday,

and I assume today as well, that that’s the intent. But there are so

many people that are falling through the gaps right now, so many people

that are needing help. A lot of these programs are to support those

people.

[11:20 a.m.]

What flexibility is there within government? What mandate or

direction has the minister given to the other ministers that are

responsible to ensure that this money and these programs are successful

and the money gets out the door to help people?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: In response to the member’s question, certainly, $6.7 billion in

the last fiscal year went out the door to support people in businesses

and communities. That’s about being a responsive government. Whether

it’s rent supplements, worker benefits, it was just really about

supporting people in the moment, when they needed it.

We’ve certainly continued that as the pandemic has evolved. We’ve

remained nimble, because that is what responsible governments do: to

remain nimble to the uncertainties. For example, we have the circuit

breaker, and $125 million is the estimated amount that has gone out to

and will have gone out to businesses, as a result of public health

orders.

Again, this is about being nimble to the changing nature of this

pandemic. I also think, to the member’s question about building prudence

into this budget, it’s the responsible thing to do when you’re faced

with uncertainty.

I think we can all agree in this House that, if anything, the

pandemic has become this uncertain beast that we’ve all had to face in

trying to figure out how to best manage not just as individuals but,

certainly, as families, as businesses and as communities — about how we

keep ourselves safe and how we keep each other safe. That has meant

people having to make other choices, like not participating in community

events, not going to the gym, not going to restaurants and not

participating in life as we know it. That has had

implications.

What that means for us as government is: how do we help people to

get through it? We will get through it. We are getting through it.

That’s really exciting for all of us. Again, when we built this budget —

we need to remember that we built this budget earlier this year —

certainly, what we were faced with was a lot of uncertainty. Here we are

into this beginning of the end, the end of the beginning, or the end of

the middle — I don’t know what it is — of this pandemic, and we have a

bit more certainty, for sure.

We know that vaccinations are working. We are in the next phase,

which is really exciting. Again, that builds certainty, and that’s a

good thing for all of us. At the same time, I don’t want to get too

cocky in the face of this pandemic, because it continues to throw

punches at all of us. I think the responsible thing is to have

significant provisions available in the face of uncertainty. As I said

to the member earlier, our commitment is to reduce the size of the

deficit, if these resources aren’t needed.

M. Bernier: Thank you to the minister for that. Nobody’s arguing the fact that

we want to get the money out the door and that we try to help people.

The biggest concern, obviously, that we continue to hear is that there

are a lot of people falling through the gaps still. We want to ensure

that we find those mechanisms in place to help them.

Now, the minister, if I understood her correctly — and, somewhat,

with her last answer as well — is confirming that none of this money

will be used for routine spending within ministries, that these are

earmarked toward specific, if I may say, COVID-related challenges, which

are unanticipated and which are not routine. We assume the money will

not be spent in those areas, because, otherwise, they should have been

allocated and defined specifically in the budget, if that was the case,

if they were structural or routine spending. That’s why I wanted to just

ensure that we had that discussion.

I don’t want to get into the political debate too much with the

minister on this — because I think I’ve been enjoying the back-and-forth

dialogue to date, just trying to get factual information on the record,

for the public, as we go through this — but I’d just remind the

minister, too, that the whole idea, the minister said, of delaying the

budget by a couple of months, to April, was to try to avoid the

uncertainty.

We look at this, and there still seems to be…. I assume the

minister will stand up and say: “Of course, there is uncertainty,

because we’re still in the middle or, hopefully, at the end of a

pandemic.” But the financial prudence and the responsibility is still to

try to determine as many certainties as possible as we move forward.

There’s still $1.1 billion, though, within this that’s

unanticipated.

[11:30 a.m.]

I should say, by the way, that the money we’re talking about

within the budget is notional. I should clarify that, if the minister

has not already. These are notional dollars that we’re talking about —

$1.1 billion of unanticipated measures, I believe — to be covered under

unallocated.

My question. In a perfect world, a lot of these dollars will be

fully allocated; a lot of the dollars within the contingencies will be

fully spent. We will get that out the door. The minister mentioned the

circuit breaker. We haven’t seen success yet, but arguably, we want to.

So if, for instance, the minister responsible is able to get all the money out the door

for the circuit breaker funding for the different programs and finds

that there is still need, has the — I don’t want to say cabinet —

Finance Minister highlighted, for the other ministers responsible, that

we have $1.1 billion still sitting here — so if there are programs that

are fully allocated, they can come back to the Minister of Finance and

ask for additional funds to continue on in the programs or reannounce

next phases of programs, especially if there’s still need out

there?

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m pleased to answer the member’s question about how, as Finance

Minister, I work with my cabinet colleagues, because I think that that’s

really what the member is asking.

I engage regularly with my cabinet colleagues, of course. In

putting together this budget and presenting a budget, this was built

with their input, for sure, around what they were anticipating or not

anticipating. That’s really the challenge we had before us in putting

this particular budget together, that there were so many unknowns.

Putting together a budget with so many unknowns is certainly a

challenge.

It’s based on their best advice — on the advice of the public

service in all of our various ministries — about what they had seen,

what they had learned over the year of having lived through a COVID

pandemic, and doing their best to identify what the needs were that were

temporary needs that relate to COVID and what, perhaps, unanticipated

needs might be. It was their sound advice and their recommendations that

got built into this budget. So my colleagues are well aware of what’s

available should there be need. Again, I want to get on the record that

it is really about: should there be need.

This is about dealing with the pandemic, dealing with recovery.

It’s not to be built into the budget — the base budget, I think, is what

the member was referring to. It’s really about continuing our nimble

response as we see our way through to the very end of this pandemic. We

know that we are going to need to continue to have a response. I would

imagine, even once we’re completely vaccinated, there may be still some

fallout that may present itself that we need to respond to.

We started off our discussion yesterday around, “This is really

about people,” that we can go back and forth around numbers, and we

have. I want to acknowledge that my colleague has continued, also, to

talk about people, which is good, and businesses, because that’s really

what we’re here to talk about. Again, we need to make sure that however

things play out, we remain nimble, continue to be responsive to the

needs of people.

That’s really how the circuit breaker response played out, which

was: we know we have a contingency. We’ve had an order that we weren’t

expecting. What do we need to put in place to help people get through

this next bit? Then, of course, we extended it, because it went longer

than we anticipated. So again, we extended it.

This is really about making sure that we’re nimble and continuing

to respond, and my colleagues around the cabinet table know that as a

Finance Minister, they can always come to me and identify where

additional supports are needed for the people of this

province.

[11:35 a.m.]

M. Bernier: Thank you to the minister.

With $1.1 billion of unallocated, notional…. I appreciate what the

minister is saying. Obviously, we want to get the money out the door,

but like I said, we’ve seen some of these programs that do not get fully

utilized, subscribed, by the people for a multitude of different

reasons. Some people know there’s a program there and may choose not to

apply. There are other reasons outside of government, I would say, for

people not applying.

To that, though, we are hopefully — I think as a lot of us were

saying as we moved into stage 2 — starting to see the light at the end

of the tunnel. The minister and I used that phrase quite a bit last

fall: the light at the end of the tunnel. It was coming. We just didn’t

know how long the tunnel was, I think we were saying. But the end of

that tunnel, hopefully, is getting closer, and the light is getting

brighter.

With that, the question then…. We’ve got these programs in place.

Is the $1.1 billion going to be treated the same way as contingencies

and unallocated dollar amounts? If all of these programs are not fully

subscribed, or they are fully subscribed and no need, hopefully, for

continuation for the supports, because the economy is starting to come

back and people are back at work….

Is the $1.1 billion going to be treated the same way, then? It

will just not be borrowed? It will not be part of the deficit? It will

not be allocated in any way? It can be scratched off the list, and

that’s less money the taxpayers need to borrow?

Hon. S. Robinson: Yes, that is accurate. It is part of the global $3.25 billion

pandemic and recovery contingencies. It will be used only as

needed.

I want to point out, just to again get it on the record, that we

are…. A full account of spending under the pandemic and recovery

contingencies will be disclosed as part of the regular quarterly

financial reporting. The member, everyone in the House and all British

Columbians will be able to see how those funds get expended.

M. Bernier: It’s really important on those quarterly reports. That brings me a

little bit to Moody’s and other credit-rating agencies who look at the

books, who look at the province, look at our budget, our spending and

projections around our credit rating. This might be odd. I want to

actually congratulate the government and the minister for continuing to

have what, when we were in government, is a triple-A credit rating. I

think that’s really important on behalf of taxpayers. That’s really

important, and it’s good to see that this government for now has and

hopefully continues to have that triple-A rating for that

base.

But the baseline credit assessment, though, did drop a little. It

was downgraded to a double-A-1 for the baseline credit assessment that’s

done. It was highlighted in there by Moody’s some of the concern of the

province…. The possibility of not being able to rein in spending when

you look at the projected deficit, not only this year, but into future

years with no certainty of when that may or may not end.

Moody’s also notes that the multi-year structural deficits expects

our debt to double. They expect our debt to double over the next five

years. In fact, I found a quote here, that the BCA downgrade — which I

just referenced — reflects the resulting further deterioration of the

province of British Columbia’s debt burden. “The debt burden was already

on a rising trajectory pre-pandemic, and Moody’s now projects it to

double over a five-year period.”

I guess that puts me to a question. Does the minister feel Moody’s

assessment of our provincial budget is accurate? Does she actually see

our debt possibly doubling over the next five years?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: While I will acknowledge that Moody’s did provide the province

with a triple-A credit rating which puts us in…. And we have maintained

it the entire time that we’ve been in government. We are committed to

making sure that we have a strong fiscal framework for delivering

services for British Columbians, and maintaining our credit rating is

absolutely critical to us.

[11:45 a.m.]

Moody’s assessment is seen as a recognition of the province’s

priorities. I think, certainly, they acknowledge that we’ve made our

priorities at a time to repair the economic damage that the pandemic has

done and support people through the pandemic. They recognize what we’ve

done.

They also recognize that recovery won’t happen over­night. I

think that they see how, globally, this pandemic has impacted economies

all around the world. But they also recognize that our focus, our

priorities of focusing on people and focusing on businesses and focusing

on communities and creating new opportunities for people, building

certainly a more affordable province…. We can ensure a strong economic

recovery. So all of these things I think — I believe — as well as our

history in having a strong economic performance have provided them with

confidence about what the future looks like.

Now, the member talked about Moody’s having lowered our baseline

credit assessment from a triple-A to a double-A-plus equivalent. It does

reflect a deterioration in the credit profile, given multi-year

deficits. We look out on a three-year plan, and we can certainly see

that as well — the rising operating capital expenditures accompanying

rising debt, for sure. They certainly recognize that.

However, in spite of that — and I think this is the part that I

want to emphasize — and because of our diverse economy and the prudence

built in the budget that we were just talking about and discussing here

in this House, they have confidence in our ability to implement the

measures to sustain our fiscal strength. I think that’s the compliment

to us as legislators, as stewards — that they recognize that in spite of

all those things, they see our path. They see our cultivation of making

sure that we can get through these next number of years. They also note

that we have the most affordable debt burden in Canada, which, among our

peers, is also very significant.

This is really, I believe, a more than half-full-glass sort of

story, especially given the pandemic and given all the challenges that

our peers are experiencing, with our diverse economy and with the people

of this province. We have incredible people here. Moody’s recognizes

that the future does, indeed, look bright, albeit we need to be cautious

and build in prudence, which we’ve done. They recognize that we are

worthy of a continued triple-A credit rating overall.

M. Bernier: You know, I have never been the Finance Minister, but I’ve had

many friends, including this minister, who are Finance ministers. I

think every single one of them would say it’s one of the more difficult

jobs in government. I think that’s fair to acknowledge. There’s a big

burden there, because if you lose a credit rating, if you lose a notch

through that fiscal planning, it’s a big responsibility of the minister

on behalf of not only her political party, obviously, but the taxpayers

for British Columbia.

I think it’s also fair that Moody’s also points out — and the

minister doesn’t need to comment, because it’s part of the reality to

this — that a big help to this provincial government and all provincial

governments was federal bailouts, as well, that took place in the last

year, 18 months, the majority of that due to the pandemic.

I’m just looking at the chamber getting a little busier there,

Chair. I might have time for one more question before lunch.

Since we’re on the topic of the credit ratings, can the minister

quickly tell me…? Maybe I shouldn’t use the word “quickly,” because

that’s not always fair. Is the minister able to tell me what the annual

debt-servicing payments are right now? I’ll just go for this fiscal —

the debt-servicing payments based on the debt we already

have.

[11:50 a.m.]

And then — her staff can help her with this, I’m sure — if we

actually were to lose a notch on our credit rating, instead of it being

a triple-A, what impact would that have to the budget for increased

costs that we would have to incur in debt-servicing?

Hon. S. Robinson: I’ve still got lots to hear from my folks, so I move that the

committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:54 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. S. Robinson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

HEALTH

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Yao in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:06 a.m.

On Vote 32: ministry operations, $23,725,698,000

(continued) .

R. Merrifield: Where we left off was on rapid testing. Just to remind the

minister, we were talking about, asking, if there was funding allocated

towards the expanding use of the rapid testing. I believe the minister

said the short answer is yes. I was wanting to follow up with another

question, which is: who is being consulted on the rapid testing

framework at this time?

The Chair: I do apologize, but due to technical issues, we’re taking a

one-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 11:09 a.m. to 11:18 a.m.

[H. Yao in the chair.]

The Chair: I now recognize the minister.

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you very much, hon. Chair. I’m unhappy to say that I think

we lost four or five rating points there, but fortunately my colleagues

are still steadfastly staying with us. I’m honoured by that.

The member may know that we’re working closely, through both the

Ministry of Jobs and Economic Recovery and through the provincial health

office, with the Business Council of B.C. to support businesses

interested in a point-of-care screening program. This is a program

they’re developing with us, which will provide support to businesses

interested in this.

[11:20 a.m.]

Businesses obviously will have to meet an eligibility requirement

and sign an agreement with the Provincial Health Services Authority,

which is very much involved in this around quality assurance.

What the BCBC program — the member will know Greg D’Avignon, who

has taken a leadership role in this area, with the B.C. Business Council

— will provide is a concierge-type support to make it easier for

businesses to do so.

The plan in that program includes support for businesses with the

application process, of course; understanding the quality assurance,

which is critically important in such a program; training on the use of

point-of-care tests; implementation of a screening program; and

reporting solutions that meet federal and provincial reporting

requirements. All of this is consistent with the broader Canadian

initiative that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce is involved in. But

here in B.C., it will almost certainly be the Business Council program,

because we don’t need two programs, that will support all of these

initiatives.

Public health and, obviously, others are consulted. There are

further discussions that are beyond the realm of the Business Council

with the non-profit sector, which also, as the member would imagine,

would have its own interests in this regard. Those consultations are

taking place as well.

It involves public health; it involves health authorities; it

involves, significantly, the Provincial Health Services Authority, which

houses the B.C. Centre for Disease Control. It’s obviously being led in

consultation with what we sometimes call JERI, or the Ministry of Jobs,

and the Business Council of B.C.

R. Merrifield: Just to clarify, the minister is referencing businesses and

framework around businesses and rapid testing. But during last week’s

estimates, the minister said that rapid testing was going to be used in

long-term-care homes, schools and workplaces across the

province.

With respect to the…. Whether it’s the schools, the post-secondary

institutions, the food-processing plants and the congregate care or

living; whether it be farms with housing or work campuses or work camps,

how are all of those being brought into the framework that the minister

just spoke of, with respect to the businesses?

Hon. A. Dix: What I said, I believe, to the hon. member — I’m happy to be

corrected on this — is that it has been used in a significant number of

long-term-care homes. I’d be happy to provide the member with a list of

long-term-care homes. Very significantly in rural and remote

communities, very significantly in B.C. Corrections, where it plays a

useful and important role in that congregate and other congregate

settings. In some of the school outbreaks, it’s been used, and so

on.

Those are the things that have been used since December but, most

importantly, since March, where rapid testing has been used by public

health to address, principally, exposure events and outbreaks in

different settings across B.C.

What we have is…. Rapid point-of-care testing is another tool for

public health to use, in addition to the more significant PCR testing

program they have to address and to support communities and workplaces

and get information to public health sooner, so they can help people

sooner. Those are all places and examples of places where point-of-care

testing has already been used. Obviously, it would be our intention to

continue to do so.

R. Merrifield: As the minister knows, COVID-19 is likely to be around with us for

a long time. What I am attempting to ascertain is whether or not the

minister has looked at an overall framework for deployment of rapid

tests that expand to all of the different sectors that he’s already

mentioned, as well as the business sector, to really give British

Columbians that security and confidence when they are moving into an

open economy and moving into the next stages of our opening.

Would the minister again consider deploying a rapid testing

community program that would encompass all of what has been mentioned

previously and that would also allow for the evolution of rapid testing

as more of these types of tests are available?

Hon. A. Dix: What the member is describing is exactly what public health has

been leading with its point-of-care testing program since they became

available in B.C.

[11:25 a.m.]

Public health started by validating the tests — which, as the

member will know, the federal government is unable to do. We released

our testing strategy on March 1, which provided wider use in workplaces

and settings where there is a higher risk of outbreak and transmission.

That includes industrial camps, food processing plants, post-secondary

residences, and so on. That process continues to expand.

The other thing that’s changing — transforming, I think it’s fair

to say — is that through the early stages of the pandemic, the

technology around testing didn’t move as quickly as the technology

around vaccines, I think it’s fair to say. So there are, now in Canada

and largely I think in other parts of Canada, some home-based tests that

are available. As the technology changes and as the needs of the

pandemic change, the strategy will evolve. This work that we’re doing

with the business council is a reflection of that ongoing

strategy.

The key testing continues to be PCR testing. The good news, of

course, on that is that our testing program, which has the capacity of

over 20,000 but it’s not obviously being used to that capacity, is the

results of that have become dramatically better, such that I think the

seven-day rolling average of test positivity for people who are largely

symptomatic in those testing environments was 2.4 percent over the last

seven days.

R. Merrifield: Of the approximately — I didn’t check the number this morning —

146,000 cases in B.C., how many individuals are suffering from long

COVID?

Hon. A. Dix: I think we are, right now in the pandemic, at 15 or 16 months. I

think it’s fair to say that many people — and it reflects the

seriousness of COVID-19 as a virus — and especially people with

associated conditions, pre-existing conditions, are affected and

sometimes dramatically affected over the long term with COVID-19. For a

virus that came into existence in our consciousness, really, at the end

of 2019 — at least that’s when I first heard about it — and then,

obviously, a pandemic was declared in March. In some ways, we’re still

at the early stages of understanding.

What we have done is establish five centres to address the issues

of people who are having ongoing effects in their COVID-19 diagnosis.

There have been…. We are in the stage of obviously doing our own reviews

of that through the BCCDC and support for people at the grassroots level

by our clinicians and, of course, family doctors and nurse practitioners

across B.C.

There are, across the world, studies being done. But those studies

are in the initial phases. We have to…. I think part of it is

understanding that when the member asks for a number, well, that effect

on individuals may be different. So you need to establish

definitions

before you can establish numbers.

But what we do know and what it reminds us of and why everyone

needs to get vaccinated and why we need to continue to follow public

health guidance and measures is that no matter what your age is, getting

COVID-19 is a big problem.

For some people, perhaps not, or it’s less of an impact. But the

potential of having long impacts beyond mortality or hospitalization is

significant. There have been some studies, but most of the studies

around long COVID in the world have focused on those who have been

hospitalized.

[11:30 a.m.]

Obviously, the overall percentage of people who are suffering

ongoing illness is more significant amongst those that already have

significant illness. They’re either in hospital or critical care. That

group of people — clearly the recovery time is different than it is for

someone who isn’t hospitalized. So this is obviously an ongoing

area.

This is a significant area of study everywhere in the world.

Everyone sees the same thing. I don’t think there’s a place in the world

where people would say: “Well, there is X number of people right

now.”

What we do know is that COVID-19 is a vicious, nasty, rotten virus

and that it can affect…. Of course, it can lead to people’s deaths and

serious illness and hospitalization, but it also can have long-standing

effects.

That is something that the world community, I think, is going to

significantly address. It is going to be one of those primary care

issues, principally, that we’re going to be addressing in the coming

days and weeks and months. In fact, we’re already addressing it at five

specialized centres, but to be effective, we’re going to have to deliver

care through communities everywhere. That means by providing excellent

information and support to primary care physicians, to primary care

nurse practitioners, to nurses and, obviously, to communities everywhere

in B.C.

R. Merrifield: What I heard the minister say was that right now we don’t really

have a definition of long COVID. We have five centres that are providing

some form of resource for these individuals. To date, we haven’t really

quantified or studied, and we need to expand how we are treating

patients with long COVID through our GP network. I believe that is what

the minister said. If I said anything incorrect there, I’ll leave it to

the minister to correct me.

My biggest concern is that we’re not collecting the data on these

individuals. We don’t have a way to actually quantify what’s happening

or quantify the impact on these particular individuals.

How much is the ministry investing in the research, in the

definition and in the expansion of services for long COVID?

Hon. A. Dix: First of all, I’d say that there is a significant group of

researchers, which is the post COVID-19 interdisciplinary clinical care

network, the PCN-ICCN, if you’re keeping track at home and you like the

acronyms. It’s the first network of its kind in Canada to standardize

post COVID-19 care through health authorities and to integrate real-time

research, which was really necessary in this case because of the

immediacy of this, into clinical care.

Involved in this are the B.C. academic health sciences network,

the Simon Fraser University faculty of health sciences, the University

of British Columbia’s Faculty of Medicine and Nursing, the School of

Population and Public Health at the University of British Columbia, the

Canadian Institute for Health Information and the Michael Smith

Foundation for Health Research where there’s a significant…. I’ll

provide the member with a list of recent grants that have been provided

related to COVID-19. And the Canadian COVID-19 prospective cohort

study.

The intent is to provide truly evidence-based care, to have a core

of supports that would be around the centres but, clearly, to provide

that evidence-based care and to deal with the best possible evidence as

soon as possible across the B.C. health system. What is going to be

required, as with, I think, all good care, is both specialized work and

research, and that is happening here in a way that I think, to date, is

unique in Canada. That’s a good thing, and that reflects the approach of

the very committed people that are dealing with this subject. Also,

obviously, the assurance of that information and that research can

inform practice.

What COVID-19, as with other…. For people who have long impact, it

has the effect of a chronic disease. The care that we provide for all

other things through the urgent primary care centres, primary care

networks, doctors’ offices, nurse practitioner centres and public health

around the province….

[11:35 a.m.]

The work we’re doing on COVID-19 and for those who are still

dealing with those lasting consequences on their health has to be a part

of that. It is not, obviously, the only thing that people in the

province struggle with, but it’s an important thing and an immediate

thing right now and one which we’re learning more information every

single day.

One of the things I have the privilege with is obviously meeting

on a daily basis with Dr. Bonnie Henry. Dr. Henry will — I don’t think

the right word is regale — describe the most important research that’s

ongoing on COVID-19. I’m not sure…. I think it’s very advantageous

basically not to take any time off and to read everything as she does.

Her and her team are obviously both focused on this and delivering the

best possible and the highest level of support and research to people

across the province.

It’s not an issue of not knowing numbers. But when there’s going

to be different effects of COVID-19, it’s not just going to be one

effect. It’s going to be a number of different effects and people

dealing with a number of different conditions. The research work that

we’re doing now, across these platforms, is important work for the

future of people’s health in B.C.

R. Merrifield: There are quite a few

definitions already in use throughout

studies across, really, the globe. I am a little bit curious as to why

B.C. wouldn’t choose to use some of those other

definitions and then

study those that are presenting with those symptoms, within our own

communities, and also to formulate a support system around

them.

Having said that, I’ll go back to what the minister was talking

about, in terms of the different research centres and then how patients

will be treated. What is the amount of money that is being allocated to

this research, in terms of studying, data collecting and treating

long-haul COVID patients?

Hon. A. Dix: Just to put this in context, in terms of financial implications,

and this involves COVID-19-related research. In total, approximately

$58.7 million from provincial and federal sources. So $34.4 million of

that is provincial, and $24.3 million of that is federal. It’s being

invested to support the research response of the pandemic.

What I’ll do, because we’ve had some interruptions this morning,

is share the details. I could read them all out, if the member would

prefer. This involves many of the agencies, both within…. And the

support that we’ve given to the BCCDC Foundation to do so. I think those

are the significant research investments.

Of course, it’s undoubtedly the first of many, with respect to our

recovery clinics, three of which were opened at the time when this note

was done. As of May 4, 656 patients have visited post-COVID recovery

clinics in B.C., and 1,400 people have registered — 135 of those to the

Jim Pattison Outpatient Centre; 235 to Vancouver General Hospital; 277

to St. Paul’s Hospital; and nine, at the time of just opening as a soft

launch, at the time of May 4, the Abbotsford Regional General

Hospital.

Just to note that a significant portion of that and the work is

this patient registry and biobank, so that we have a standardized set of

tests performed, biological samples if the patient agrees that these

tests can be used for research and stored in the biobank.

This is how research is done and, obviously, our researchers, who

are amongst the best in the world, are working closely with

international researchers all the time. The idea that we’re behind or

not listening to other jurisdictions is not correct. If I gave any

impression of that, I wish to correct that, because that’s not the case.

In fact, B.C. is a leader in Canada in this research.

This is a struggle for people. It’s a struggle for people with

COVID-19 who are dealing with its lasting impacts. That’s why these

resources have been proposed, why this research is there and why

COVID-19 and the impact of COVID-19 — its lasting impact — both on our

physical health and, I’d argue, on our mental health, as well, will have

to be the subject of both resources and study and effort, starting now,

but throughout the coming years.

[11:40 a.m.]

R. Merrifield: Much appreciated. I do appreciate the answer to the question, and

I also salute any time that B.C. can be a global leader. So thank you

for that further clarification, Minister.

I’m going to turn over the next question, actually, to my

colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to my colleague from Kelowna-Mission for the time

today.

Last week my colleague asked the Minister of Agriculture, Food and

Fisheries about the health concerns posed by fur farming of transmission

of COVID-19. As you know, there have been several COVID-19 outbreaks

linked to ten of the fur farms across British Columbia. In January 2021,

jointly, the WHO, UN Food and Agriculture and World Organisation for

Animal Health documented the risks and estimated the risk of spillover

from fur farms to humans in Canada as very likely and the transmission

of COVID-19 from fur farm animals to susceptible wild populations as

likely.

The minister, when asked, confirmed that there have been some

concerns that have come with COVID, as COVID-19 can transfer from mink

to human and human to mink. “We have had some positive tests that have

come back from fur farms…. We’ve been working with the Ministry of

Health on that.”

“As far as making decisions,” she said, “around mink operations

and COVID and shutting farms down or not, we take our guidance from the

public health officer on that.”

My question to the minister. I’ll put two together for the sake of

time here. Was the advice of the public health officer sought prior to

the breeding season for mink in British Columbia? Second part of that

is: why didn’t the Ministry of Health recommend the closure of these

farms prior to the breeding season?

Hon. A. Dix: This is an issue in which, obviously, the provincial health

officer and the BCCDC have been very involved, and Dr. Henry and our

really remarkable team in Fraser Health as well. The group of people

that have been involved in this include the Public Health Agency of

Canada, of course; the Canadian farm inspection agency; the Ministry of

Agriculture, which played an important role in addition to that of the

BCCDC; and Fraser Health.

Overwhelmingly, if the member is talking about mink…. All of those

people have been involved in terms of the development of surveillance

and testing. So at every stage, these decisions are made by public

health based on the evidence and based on their involvement in

consultation with all these groups.

What I’d suggest to the member, and she might appreciate this, is

that I would be happy to arrange a briefing on the details of that

testing, should she wish, with public health — either with the team at

Fraser Health, which does a lot of this work on the ground, or with Dr.

Henry’s office — and take her through the step-by-step details. This

question and these farms — in particular, fur-bearing animals but

principally, the mink farms — have been a significant issue for public

health for the last number of months of the pandemic.

Very significant actions have been taken, always under the

guidance of public health. I think the response has been both useful and

effective for them. What I would offer to the member, though, because I

think there are a lot of scientific details…. Should she be interested

in that, I’d be happy to arrange that for the member.

Do you want to…?

Interjection.

Hon. A. Dix: I will sit down and allow the follow-up before I move the

motion.

The Chair: Member for West Vancouver–Capilano, do you have a

follow-up?

K. Kirkpatrick: Yes, thank you very much.

What I understand is that the benefit of continuing mink farm

operations in the province outweighs what has been described as a

significant risk of COVID transmission. That was a statement that can be

corrected.

[11:45 a.m.]

One final question is: do all fur farms in British Columbia

require a health management plan for licensing? That is my final

question.

Hon. A. Dix: There are two roles. Public health — in other words, those who

work on the mink farms — is the responsibility of the provincial health

officer, so that process. There’s also a very significant role for — I’m

sure this is not this person’s title — the provincial vet. But I think

you get the idea. The member will know, as a member interested in this

thing, who I’m referring to.

The decision on issues around breeding animals are obviously made

by the provincial vet, in consultation, in this case, because of the

pandemic, with public health and the BCCDC. As respects those working on

the farms — the humans — the final decision around that is made by the

provincial health officer. With respect to the animals, there is a

responsibility for the provincial vet, and they have been working in

tandem on these issues.

That’s the appropriate division. I think the member will

understand that. But I think it would be useful…. I have to say that

I’ve learned more about mink farming than I would have anticipated — I

think that’s fair — over the last little while. But I think the full

briefing of mink farming should come from the people who taught me all

that I’ve recently learned about mink farming. If the member is

agreeable to that, I’d be happy to arrange that. Perhaps she could just

indicate that to my office, if that sounds good.

With that, if it’s okay, I’ll move that the committee rise and

report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

TRANSPORTATION

AND INFRASTRUCTURE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); M. Dykeman in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:08 a.m.

On Vote 43: ministry operations, $948,948,000

(continued) .

M. Lee: I just wanted to come back to the May 21 letter and ask the

minister: would he please table a copy of that letter to this

committee?

[11:10 a.m. - 11:15 a.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: I was just checking whether there were any issues with the release

of the letter. I would be happy to provide the member with a copy of

it.

M. Lee: Thanks very much to the minister for that. I appreciate

that.

Just where we were in discussion yesterday afternoon, I had asked,

for the purpose of this discussion here in terms of the purpose of the

correspondence: was it talking about technical stops? The minister

replied: “There are points in there about technical stops.”

I wanted to bring us back to that discussion, in terms of the May

21 correspondence, just so I can have an understanding as to what is on

the table, so to speak, between the province and the federal government

around technical stops, including around May 21.

What were the specific points around technical stops that were

raised with the federal government in that letter in terms of what

involvement there would be to put those in place? Was there a view

expressed, which the minister talked about yesterday, in the last few

months — before May 21, presumably — about technical stops? Just so I

can get greater clarity about what the position between the province and

the federal government was about adopting or putting in place technical

stops at that period of time.

Hon. R. Fleming: I’ll answer this question. I will note that we’re several hours

into this set of estimates, and the member has not asked a single

question that’s linked to the operations capital plan or service plan of

this ministry. But I’ll indulge him a little bit further on this. I’ve

just offered to give him a copy of the letter so he can read it for

himself.

What I asked, specifically, Minister Alghabra to convey to the

senators on technical stops and offered assistance from public health

officials in B.C. to facilitate the means to do that safely. We asked

them to consider taking a position that would facilitate some resumption

with our Safer Operations Working Group, which is chaired by members of

the B.C. Centre for Disease Control.

M. Lee: I appreciate that response. As the minister responsible here,

including for the cruise ship industry in this province…. Can I ask…? At

what juncture has the minister sought direct input and engagement with

the entity called the Cruise Lines International Association, which does

represent 95 percent, as I understand, of the cruise ship

industry?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: As I outlined yesterday, we’ve covered this well. Now that I have

met with my counterparts in Transport Canada, the Minister of

Transport’s office in Ottawa has been in touch, primarily on the issue

about port reopening, with port authorities — so Vancouver Port

Authority, Greater Victor Harbour Authority.

My understanding is that other ministries have been working with

individual cruise lines and meeting, hearing their concerns. The member

is welcome to pursue that in another set of estimates.

In terms of our primary stakeholders and those we work with, the

port authorities were our primary organizations that we were working

with on the issue around the American request around the feasibility of

a science-based approach in Canada that may provide an opportunity to

amend the federal government decision that imposed the port closure to

cruise ships until February 28 of 2022.

M. Lee: Well, I certainly note the letter dated April 28 to the minister’s

colleague. As the minister indicated, if Minister Mark was the lead with

the cruise ship industry, perhaps that’s where the breakdown in

communication might have occurred.

But I presume the minister is aware of statements made in this

letter, which was copied to the Premier and the Minister of Health here

in this province, as well as to numerous other port authorities —

Vancouver-Fraser Port Authority, Greater Victoria Harbour Authority,

Nanaimo Port Authority, Prince Rupert Port Authority. All of the

stakeholders that the ministry deals with were copied on this letter as

well.

The letter, of course, clearly indicates, again, the

consideration, the urging from the industry of putting in place

technical stops where passengers and crew would not get off the ships. I

appreciate that over the last number of weeks, in answer to questions

from the opposition, particularly since March 23, there’s been a lot of

deflecting onto other considerations. But to be clear, what was being

asked for by the Alaska delegation back on February 12 was, effectively,

technical stops without passengers getting off the vessels.

The reason why we’re pursuing this, of course, is that the letter

also indicates that when the cruise ship industry had also brought this

to the attention of Public Health of Canada as well as Transport Canada,

they made clear that they were operating under considerable deference to

the views of the B.C. government and the provincial health officer. So

clearly, the federal government, to the extent that they were getting

the same sort of request being put to them, was turning it back to the

province.

[11:25 a.m.]

Let me ask the minister: what assessment did the Ministry of

Transportation do in terms of the impact of the elimination of the

requirement for foreign port stops under the PVSA?

Hon. R. Fleming: I think the member is quoting from another letter written to the

Prime Minister, so I’ll do my best, not having been directly written to,

in this case or in the case of the U.S. senators. What we have

suggested, in conversations and meetings that I’ve had with the Minister

of Transportation, is that the substance of the request, which later

became a bill in the House of Representatives, was one that we felt that

B.C. could work with, that our public health officer would work with as

well.

I should say, though, that the Minister of Transportation had a

number of requests to consider back in February of 2021, including a

demand from Premier Ford in Ontario to close the Pearson Airport. While

we were talking about hypothetical scenarios, at a time when about 2

percent of Canadians were vaccinated with a first dose and 0.1 percent

of Canadians with a second dose, about whether a summer cruise industry

could be rescued in Canada, there were other provinces making it

difficult for the federal government, in fairness, to take a

pan-Canadian approach. Also, their order to extend the port closure was

only made on February 5, 2021.

We have had, as I mentioned, a working group of public health

officials and the BCCDC that has helped guide the reopening of

workplaces and businesses across the province. They have made it known

that they are of service to Canada as it considers the border reopening.

There is an announcement pending, from the Prime Minister, on June

Certainly, B.C. is getting ready and in better position every day

that goes by, in terms of where we are with the pandemic. Yesterday was

a significant announcement on stage 2 reopening. Stage 3 is around

Canada Day, and stage 4, which is almost a resumption of normalcy,

pending on the Labour Day weekend.

I think it’s fair to say that the Prime Minister’s, the government

of Canada’s, original order, extending all the way to February 28 of

2022 — looking at it from where we are today, not, necessarily, back in

February — could be viewed as excessive.

If there’s a science-led approach, both by Dr. Tam and Dr. Henry

and other provincial health officers, on border reopening, which deals

with the land border in question, which deals with ports, which deals

with airports, we could be in a situation…. Certainly, this is being

views. We’ve given our views. We’ve made our views known to them. That

could provide an amendment to the order that was made on February 5,

It’s interesting to note, though, that in the letter I quoted

earlier in question period, from the CEO of the Greater Victoria Harbour

Authority, Mr. Robertson made a request to the Prime Minister that said,

at the very least, all we’re asking for is to indicate that there will

be no further port closures beyond February 2022. So I think the idea

that there might be an opportunity to have B.C. ports participate,

potentially, in a fall cruise season — not a summer one, at this point

in time; I don’t think Canadians would support that — is something that

may be possible. It’s a federal decision.

We gave them our opinion on technical stops. Subsequent events and

opinions from the U.S. customs and border patrol suggested that they

didn’t feel that technical stops satisfied the PVSA, but that was what

we were requested to review.

[11:30 a.m.]

We made our opinion known that we felt we could accommodate it,

that it would be safe to do so, as long as American passengers didn’t

disembark onto Canadian soil while they were tied up in our ports. That

was the correspondence. I’ve offered to table the letter to the

member.

I would note that we’re now about 3½ hours into estimates, and

he’s yet to ask me a single question about the budget and service plan

before him on the Ministry of Transportation.

M. Lee: We’re actually about just under two hours. It may seem like 3½

hours that we’ve been at this discussion, but with respect, I want to

get clarity on the numerous documents in front of me. It’s all over the

map.

The discussion that I’m hearing back…. I’m talking about specific

dates to get an understanding of how we got to this point. There’s a lot

of noise that’s been created around this issue, and the reason for that

is we have a complete lack of clarity.

I appreciate that the minister just said, on May 21…. For the

first time, he said — if I hear him correctly — that the government of

British Columbia said that we are comfortable with technical stops,

provided that the passengers don’t get off the ship. Thank you. It’s

taken an hour and 55 minutes to get to this point.

Interjection.

M. Lee: Excuse me. The minister said — the transcript says — in answer to

my question, did the letter…? What was the purpose of the letter? Was it

still talking about technical stops? The answer was: “There are points

in there about technical stops.”

In terms of what we’re trying to get to and understand, it’s the

fact that back in February, the Alaska delegation was asking for some

cooperation, collaboration, and it wasn’t until May 21 that we see the

government of British Columbia, at least from the Transportation side,

making a direct statement about that, as far as we can

understand.

The letter I’m referring to at the end of April — April 28 — was

not addressed to the Prime Minister of Canada. It was addressed to the

Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport of this province and copied

to the Premier and to the Health Minister.

I would have expected that this letter was shared with the

minister, and perhaps I could ask: is that the case? At what time was

the minister briefed on this letter? Did the minister respond, in any

manner, to the Cruise Lines International Association–North West and

Canada branch of that association in response to their concerns about

technical stops?

Hon. R. Fleming: I have a copy of the letter now, and it’s a letter that I was not

cc’d on. So what I can say — and say it again, because we’ve been at

this for some time now — is that I had direct conversations with the

Minister of Transportation, the Hon. Marc Garneau. In 2020 and 2021, I

have had conversations on a number of occasions with Minister Omar

Alghabra, the current Minister of Transport in Ottawa, about borders,

about transportation issues that cross our borders, about the port

closures.

[11:35 a.m.]

The letter I sent on May 21 was essentially a recap of some

conversations that we had. Our position was made known to Minister

Alghabra around technical stops. The letter, which the member will

receive a copy of, also references the development of a set of safe

sailing guidelines by the United States Centers for Disease Control, and

brings to his attention — because he’d requested any information from

our provincial health officer about whether there was a science-based

opinion on safely reopening ports in advance of the government of

Canada’s decision to keep them closed until February of 2022.

It references the work that has been done by our scientific public

health community, including organizations like WorkSafeBC. That was the

purpose of the correspondence: to reiterate our position that we thought

we could accommodate technical stops and that our medical health

community was ready to work with federal officials that could help them

influence their deliberations on a comprehensive border reopening — one

which, by the way, is expected to be made public next week, in about six

days’ time.

The Premier has been on the record saying that the Prime Minister,

at the same time as he considers reopening the land border, should deal

with airports and should deal with ports and have a comprehensive

announcement. We hope and expect that that will be the case next week,

with us.

I would also note again, because I noted this yesterday, that all

of the Premiers of the provinces and territories are having an

additional meeting with the Prime Minister when he returns from the G7

this week, about exactly this — about the border reopening.

Any additional suggestions and advice, I presume, are part of the

discussion that the Premiers of the country intend to have with the

Prime Minister, following up on what I expect has been a considerable

amount of work from public health officials and federal officials on a

very difficult and complex question about how to arrive at when it’s

safe to reopen the border.

What are the risks? How can they be managed? All of the sorts of

science-based questions that one would expect and, certainly, that we

have expected and received, to great effect, from our own provincial

health office here in B.C. to guide us through a number of tricky

questions, including — if the minister cares to ask

transportation-related questions that are attached to the service plan —

guidelines that have allowed the safe operation of the trucking

industry, guidelines that have allowed for the movement of goods through

our major trade corridors and guidelines that have kept transit

operators and public transit employees safe.

TransLink and B.C. Transit are Crown corporations that serve 130

communities. So we would expect the same approach from Ottawa that we’ve

taken provincially to keep workers and to keep passengers safe in the

transportation sector. That’s what I fully expect will be announced by

the Prime Minister next week. The Premier will have an opportunity to

additionally engage with his counterparts provincially, from all

provinces and territories, this week, when the Prime Minister returns

from the G7.

M. Lee: Just to recap, in answer to a question that I had asked I think

two questions ago, I didn’t hear an answer in terms of whether there’d

been any assessment done from the Minister of Transportation in terms of

the potential impact of what is now the temporary measure under the

Alaska Tourism Recovery Act.

If that’s the case, the minister also just said that the letter of

May 21 to his counterpart reiterated the government’s view. That is what

we discussed yesterday, the way the minister described it — that it’s

the view of the government that technical stops would be considered by

the province. And now we’re hearing that the province was comfortable

with that on May 21.

For the record, here, when the minister says “reiterate,” when

else was that communicated to the federal government, in terms of the

government’s view?

Hon. R. Fleming: That was asked and answered yesterday. We’ve been through this.

I’ve told him, to the best of my ability, the numbers of conversations

I’ve had with two successive Transport Ministers in Ottawa. I’ve told

him, to the best of my ability, the conversations I’ve had with the

industry and CEOs of port authorities in British Columbia.

I’ve indulged the member here. We’ve just been through question

period. He had an opportunity to ask. Estimates process is not an

extension of question period. He hasn’t asked a single question that is

linked to a single line in the budget for the Ministry of Transportation

and Infrastructure, and we’re hours into the process.

So my patience is thinning a bit for the abuse of this legislative

process. I would ask him to…. I’ve offered to table him a letter. He

will receive a copy of that later today. I look forward to questions

that are related to the ministry’s budget and service plan.

[11:40 a.m.]

M. Lee: Well, again, I had expected, of course, to deal with this issue

yesterday. The reason why we’re into today is that I didn’t get the

complete clarity I was looking for yesterday. That’s the reason why

we’re still continuing with this discussion today.

Let me say this, then. In terms of the industry itself, there have

been statements made by this government about the cruise ship industry

in terms of the state. Can I ask: what’s the overall view of the

provincial government in terms of the activity in the cruise ship sector

around the world? What is the current number, say, of passengers that

have travelled on cruise ships since last summer?

Hon. R. Fleming: It’s a bizarre question, completely unrelated to the estimates,

but I believe the number is about 100,000 passengers around the world.

It’s resumed in very, very recent months. There have been some issues

around outbreaks and transmission that are concerning, but I think the

industry is gaining confidence that it can do this safely, just as the

air travel industry is gaining confidence that it can do it safely as

well.

There’s active discussion by many jurisdictions, ours included, as

it relates to our American neighbours on what vaccine passports might

look like. I know that the United States was actually one of the latter

countries that has resumed, or intends to resume, the cruise ship

industry’s activities. The Centers for Disease Control in the United

States only completed their significant draft about safe sailing

guidelines about six weeks ago. I believe it was May 6. I referenced

that and brought that to the attention of Minister Alghabra in my

letter. The member will receive a copy of that.

Again, I look forward to a question that relates to — I don’t know

— the Broadway subway line, which will create thousands and thousands of

construction jobs in his constituency, open up economic opportunities to

build affordable housing, animate what is already one of North America’s

strongest job corridors on this continent. I don’t know, something like

that, or maybe even ask about a different part of the

province.

He may even want to ask about how it was that our ports were able

to expand trade during the middle of a pandemic and serve the supply

chain and logistics of this country so well — a burden that falls to us

in British Columbia, of course, because we have the No. 1 port in the

country by a long shot. We are close to surpassing the Port of Montreal

to have the No. 2 port, through Prince Rupert. Our government has used

the pandemic to advance grants to create jobs and expand capacity to get

Canadian goods to market and to get other goods from around the world

into the Canadian and American economies.

Questions like that I look forward to the member

asking.

M. Lee: Well, the minister, in a previous response to my previous

question, talked about an abuse of process. Again, with respect, now the

minister’s talking about other questions that I’m yet to ask. I

appreciate the minister’s suggestion, but in response to my questions

yesterday, for an hour and 40 minutes, he could not stay on the time

period that I was referring to.

The reason why I asked the question, “Is this government

understanding how many passengers have travelled on cruise ships in this

world since the summer of 2020…?” It’s not 100,000; it’s over 500,000.

It’s been happening on a slow stage, careful health protocols, in

Europe, Asia, Australia, other countries.

The minister does refer to the United States. It has been

reported, of course, that Alaska has gone from the destination least

likely to host cruise ships in 2021 to the first destination to welcome

cruise ships from U.S. ports.

This is all about Alaska. I only raise the cruise ship industry

generally, globally, because this government, including the Premier and

this minister, seems to lack a real appreciation and understanding.

Perhaps if they talked to the cruise ship industry directly, as opposed

to this general answer I received, they would understand

that.

[11:45 a.m.]

We see, certainly, that cruise ship sailings through us to Alaska

are commencing in summer of 2021, with the Serenade of the Seas

on July 19. There are numerous sailings that are happening from

Seattle directly to Alaska — Skagway, Ketchikan, Juneau — going

directly, bypassing British Columbia. This will be occurring from the

middle of July all the way up to the middle of October.

Why is that occurring? It’s because this government couldn’t get

in place technical stops that the Alaska delegation was asking for in

the middle of February, technical stops which this government seems to

appear to have been comfortable with on May 21, two days before

President Biden signed that act into law. Well, that’s too little, too

late.

Is the minister aware of all the cruise ships that are bypassing

British Columbia, from Seattle to Alas