Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 104

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill M206 — Reducing Waste Act, 2018

J. Johal

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Journée de la francophonie

N. Simons

Wildfire preparedness

C. Oakes

Women in Business Awards in Surrey

R. Singh

Kelsey Serwa and soccer dome project in Kelowna

B. Stewart

Indigenous law program

R. Kahlon

Overdose response in Surrey

S. Cadieux

Oral Questions

Overdose deaths

J. Thornthwaite

Hon. J. Darcy

S. Cadieux

Evidence-based decision-making and quarry proposals

S. Furstenau

Hon. G. Heyman

Monitoring of prescription opioids

T. Stone

Hon. J. Darcy

Addiction prevention education in schools

J. Isaacs

Hon. J. Darcy

Monitoring of prescription opioids and role of Mental Health and Addictions Ministry

A. Wilkinson

Hon. J. Darcy

Hon. J. Horgan

Ministerial Statements

U.S. anti-dumping duties on newsprint

Hon. J. Horgan

A. Wilkinson

Petitions

T. Shypitka

R. Leonard

Orders of the Day

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 2 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2018

Committee of Supply

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

(continued)

J. Rustad

Hon. D. Donaldson

A. Olsen

E. Ross

L. Throness

G. Kyllo

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy (continued)

Hon. G. Heyman

M. de Jong

P. Milobar

N. Letnick

J. Tegart

T. Shypitka

13:50:17, J. Johal, "Mero" corrected to "Metro"

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 2018

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

[1:35 p.m.]

Introductions by Members

T. Redies: Today in the House we’re joined by Deb Abma and Gordon Matchett from

the Take a Hike program. This program works with at-risk youth to provide a

full-time alternative high school opportunity. They provide adventure-based

learning and community involvement and therapy in conjunction with high

school academic requirements.

Over the past 17 years, they’ve helped hundreds of students achieve

success, through their program. They currently run programs in Vancouver,

Kootenay-Columbia and Burnaby school districts, and I’m just delighted that

they are working with the Surrey school district to launch a program in

September 2018.

Would the House please welcome Gordon and Deb.

R. Kahlon: I want to recognize two guests here. One is my LA. Raj Virk is here.

She does an amazing job as my legislative assistant, telling me what to do,

when to do it and how fast to do it. I really appreciate all her work,

supporting me in my work.

Also, I have some friends, Lionel and Nadene, who are in the chambers,

visiting here from Likely, B.C., and I want to make them welcome. I hope the

House can make them welcome as well.

R. Leonard: In the House today are a number of people I’m privileged to introduce.

The first, the ever-smiling Liz Rhodes, from Croteau Beach in a rural area

of Courtenay-Comox, is here today with her mom, Kate Rhodes. The Rhodes

family holds a special place in my heart. The voice at the other end of the

phone telling me the vote count, when I was first elected to Courtney

council in 2004, was Liz’s father, Rob Rhodes.

Also joining us today are Maddie Bentley and her three-month-old son

Henry. If you’re ever wondering how the children of busy women politicians

fare, Maddie’s life story will set your mind at ease. Her mother, Barbara

Price, has been a local politician for most of Maddie’s life. Today Maddie

is a bright, successful businesswoman and an avid — actually, I think I

should say aggressive — outdoor recreationalist, following in her father’s

footsteps. I believe she hiked the West Coast Trail while she was pregnant

with Henry.

Speaking of avid recreationalists, also in the gallery today are some

of a group of cycling enthusiasts from the Comox Valley who I first met

shortly after the May 9 election. FORT, short for Friends of the Rails to

Trails, pitched a non-motorized recreation trail on the old E&N Railway

outside the capital regional district, much like the Kettle Valley line in

the Interior.

Here today to witness the presentation of a petition that they worked

on through the summer are Denise Savoie, a former Deputy Speaker in the

House of Commons in Ottawa; Les Anderson; Sherry Durnford; and Mary Jean and

Larry Cossman. May the members please join me in welcoming them to the House

today.

Hon. S. Robinson: I have a special guest joining us today here in the House. His name is

Fred Soofi. He’s joining us here today to celebrate Nowruz. Fred is a

restaurateur in my community. He came to Canada from Iran in the early

1970s. He worked in restaurants to pay his way through university, when he

was going to school in Saskatchewan, and he soon become a chef. Before long,

he had an empire of restaurants.

Fred has always believed in giving back to communities. He’s been a

very generous man, supporting food banks, Amnesty International and refugee

groups. He eventually made his way to B.C. in 2001 with his family — with

his wife, Mary, and his daughter Shireen — opening up Pasta Polo in

Coquitlam, which is a favourite place for my family and many others in the

community, and Club Ilia, which is on Burnaby Mountain.

Fred is a tremendous supporter of charities throughout the Tri-Cities.

He was a director of the Tri-Cities Chamber of Commerce. He was also

celebrated and honoured as a Business Person of the Year some years ago. He

is a spectacular entrepreneur and a preserver of heritage homes.

I just want to introduce people to Fred through a quote that he says

quite often. He’s a kind, wise and generous man, and this is something he

always says: “I ask myself every day: when I die, how will the community and

the people who worked for me remember me — a businessman who died a

millionaire or a businessman who contributed and helped his

community?”

Would everyone please help me welcome Fred to the House.

A. Wilkinson: It’s a great pleasure to welcome back here someone known to all of us,

not only for his sometimes flamboyant dress code but also for his wisdom and

insight and long service to this institution.

[1:40 p.m.]

I would ask the House to welcome the now Member of Parliament for

South Surrey–White Rock, the man who made the national news for having the

most notable dress code in the House of Commons in the history of Canada and

someone that we are delighted to see back here in this institution, Mr.

Gordon Hogg.

Hon. J. Horgan: I certainly want to join with the Leader of the Official Opposition

and acknowledge the triumphant return of one G. Hogg from Surrey–White

Rock.

He was absolutely a delight to be a colleague with in this House.

Although a member of government for almost all of his time here, he did

spend a bit of time in opposition. I think that shaped his character and

made him a better person. I know that all members are delighted to see him.

Any time Gordie’s in the room, it’s a good day.

I’ve been trying to get him to play one-on-one with me. He gives up

about a foot and a half in height, but apparently, he’s got springs like no

tomorrow. One day we’ll have that game of one-on-one.

The other introduction I want to make is to introduce the special

adviser in my office who recently started working with me, Don Bain, who

will be known to many from the Lheidli T’enneh in northern British Columbia

— an outstanding young man who’s agreed, I think with some cajoling, to come

and assist the government of British Columbia in implementing our

reconciliation agenda as well as a variety of other issues. He doesn’t just

have one shot in his bag. He can do many, many things.

Don is going to be a great asset to government. I know all members

would want to make him very, very welcome to his new role and also to

question period today.

S. Gibson: Today we have students visiting from Heritage Christian Online School

and Traditional Learning Academy in Abbotsford: Rayne Ross, Brandon Grohmann

and Nolan Rempel. They’re joined by their tutor, John van Vloten.

Also with us is someone well known to both sides of this House, Jason

Goertzen from Leading Influence.

Would the House please give these visitors a traditional legislative

welcome.

Hon. C. James: I first want to say thank you to the Premier and the Minister of

Children and Families, who reminded me that I have a surprise guest in the

gallery today who I’d be in big trouble if I didn’t introduce.

Many of us — in fact, all of us — in this House know that we couldn’t

do the work we do without the support of people in our lives. I want to say

I love you to the love of my life, Albert Gerow, my husband, who’s here

visiting today.

D. Routley: It gives me great pleasure to welcome my CAs: from Nanaimo, Sarah

Miller, from Ladysmith, Cayla Masur, and my LA, Rajmeet Virk.

As people know, in this House, we can’t do the work we do without the

support of our CAs and our LAs. A few years ago I saw a cartoon that was

depicting CAs. It was a person standing with a dart and a blindfold on. They

were throwing the dart at a wall that was covered with little stickers with

the names of issues — education, health care, transportation, ferries. The

caption was: “Today I’m an expert in.” And throwing at the wall.

That’s what our folks in our offices are expected to do — be experts

in everything, build relationships in every ministry. They do that for the

benefit of our constituents, and they do that in conjunction with the staff

here in the Legislature. Without them, I think none of us would be even

close to being able to do our jobs. We all owe them a debt of

gratitude.

R. Singh: In the House today, we have members from the HeartLife Foundation.

This organization does amazing work to support the patients of heart

failure.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Hon. K. Conroy: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce one of my MAs,

Sarena Talbot, who’s here with her lifelong friends, a couple of women that

she grew up with, who were introduced by the member for Courtenay-Comox.

She, too, grew up in the Courtenay-Comox area. Would the House please join

me in making her most welcome.

[1:45 p.m.]

A. Kang: It’s my great pleasure to introduce two of my great friends, Simka

Marshall and Steve Beasley, who are here today with a group of students from

Douglas College. They’re here talking to MLAs about affordability for

students and their families. I would ask the House to help me make them

welcome.

Hon. M. Mark: I, too, would like to echo the warm welcome to the students that are

visiting the chambers and the House to lobby government to address things

like student housing, which we’ve taken action on in Budget 2018.

I’d like to give a shout-out to Pierre-Paul Angelblazer from the

University of Victoria Students Society, Alannah James from the Victoria

Students Society, Prab Bassi from the Simon Fraser Student Society, Jamie

Zhu from the Simon Fraser Student Society, Sally Lin from the UBC Alma Mater

Society, Isabella Picui from UBC Alma Matter Society, and Caitlin McCutchen

from the Kwantlen Student Association and the chairperson of the Alliance of

B.C. Students.

Students have been advocating for student housing. They want us to

address mental health. They want us to address safety on campus. I look

forward to meeting with them this afternoon.

Would the House please join me in welcoming them.

S. Furstenau: To echo the theme that we’ve heard a bit today about the people who

support us, we all know in this House that our success is commensurate with

the amazing support that we get from the staff around us. In the House today

is my assistant, Maeve Maguire, but also the people who support her: Maura

Maguire, her mother; Patrick Maguire, her father; Richard Young, her

husband; Susan Dutfield; and the people who bring her joy — Eilish Young,

Clodagh Young and Caoimhe Young, her three daughters.

My support and rock are in the House as well today — my husband,

Blaise Salmon, and my wonderful, joy-bringing daughter, Eleanor

Salmon.

B. Ma: It is my pleasure, as well, to be able to introduce to the House a

woman who is one of my most valued volunteers. Shideh Javadi is here with us

today. She’s always helping around at the office. She’s always out at

events. She’s always taking care of me. She’s one of the very many women in

my life who really have cared for me throughout this entire

process.

I would like to take an opportunity to welcome the very many members

of the Iranian community who gathered here in the Legislature today to

celebrate Nowruz. I’d like to wish them a happy Nowruz in advance, which

سال نو پیشاپیش

مبارک

and welcome to the Legislature, which is

به مجلس خوش آمدید

[Persian text provided by B. Ma.]

I would also like to ask the rest of the House to please join me in

making them feel all very welcome.

Hon. R. Fleming: I just wanted to add an introduction to a friendly face I see in the

gallery. It’s been some time, but my old colleague and friend Denise Savoie

is here, who was a distinguished and much-beloved Member of Parliament for

Victoria and is joining us in the gallery. We sat on city council for a

number of years together.

It’s great to see her. I think she’s a model for a politician who has

retired in style. I understand she moved up to the northern part of the

Island. That can be forgiven, because it was to spend more time with her

grandkids.

It’s great to see you back in Victoria, Denise. Welcome to the

Legislature.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to see students from the grade 11 social studies

class of Sir Charles Tupper here with us, accompanied by their great teacher

Bonnie Burnell as well as other teachers and adults. Tupper is known to just

be a terrific, dynamic school, having not only a great curriculum but

terrific sports and community programs, and really celebrating

diversity.

I ask everybody to please give a very warm welcome to students from

Charles Tupper here today.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL M206 — REDUCING WASTE ACT, 2018

J. Johal presented a bill intituled Reducing Waste Act,

J. Johal: I move that a bill intituled Reducing Waste Act, 2018, of which

notice has been given in my name on the order paper, be introduced and

now read for the first time.

There’s no doubt Canadians love their coffee. In fact, every year

1.5 billion single-serve coffee pods are used in Canada. These coffee

pods inevitably fill up our landfills.

[1:50 p.m.]

Even though many of the pods are marketed as recyclable, in many

cases, aluminum lids have to be removed, and the coffee has to be

removed as well. Thankfully, we are seeing more compostable coffee pods

now coming onto market. They’re made of plant materials and can

biodegrade in five weeks.

However, even when single-serve coffee pods are compostable, the

acceptance of compostable plastics in the Metro Vancouver region is

primarily determined by the licensed composting facilities that operate

in the region. As private businesses, they decide what they accept and

what they do not, based on their individual processing technologies,

operational needs and business norms.

The bill today would prohibit the sale of single-use coffee pods

unless they are fully compostable. The act would come into force four

years after it receives royal assent.

Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

J. Johal: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for a

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M206, Reducing Waste Act, 2018, introduced, read a first time

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

sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

JOURNÉE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE

N. Simons: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Merci, Monsieur le Président.

Tomorrow we’ll celebrate la Journée de la francophonie en la

Colombie-Britannique, B.C. Francophonie Day, in advance of international

francophonie day, which is celebrated around the world on March 20. The

celebration will start early in the morning tomorrow, with the raising

of the B.C. francophonie flag outside the Legislature. The flag brings

together the fleur-de-lis and the province’s official flower, the

dogwood. Blue stripes symbolize the sea, and raised lines represent the

mountains.

La Journée de la francophonie en Colombie-Britannique est une

occasion de célébrer les deux langues officielles du Canada. C’est ce

qui contribue à l’unité canadienne et permet d’assurer la force de notre

pays et de notre province.

Tomorrow British Columbia will honour the contributions that

francophones have made and are making to strengthen the social, economic

and cultural fabric of our province. Francophones in British Columbia

come from all parts of the world, and tomorrow we’ll celebrate the

diversity of the province’s community.

The theme of this year’s B.C. Francophonie Day is:

There are more than 40 francophone associations in B.C., working in

partnership with the province to successfully deliver services and

programs in French to the more than 70,000 francophones and more than

300,000 francophiles in B.C. One such group will be honoured at

tomorrow’s event in the Hall of Honour.

Je vous invite, donc, à célébrer demain avec tous les francophones

et francophiles de la Colombie-Britannique la Journée de la Francophonie

en Colombie-Britannique. Merci beaucoup.

[French text provided by N. Simons.]

WILDFIRE PREPAREDNESS

C. Oakes: As we head out to meet with constituents over the next few weeks,

what is top of mind is how we can ensure our people are safe and

prepared in the event of another wildfire season. As we head into

spring, there are things that you can do to fire-smart your

property.

Do not use bark or pine needle mulches within ten metres of your

home. Instead, consider using gravel or crushed rock, as it can

significantly reduce the risk of wildfire. Wood piled against a house is

a major fire hazard. Moving your firewood pile may be a key factor that

allows your home to survive a wildfire. If you have a firepit barrel or

a burn barrel, please make sure it is placed as far as possible from

structures and trees. Keep the area within three metres of a burn barrel

free of combustible material.

A fire-smart yard includes smart choices for plants, shrubs, grass

and mulch. Selecting fire-resistant plants and materials can also

increase the likelihood of your home surviving a wildfire.

Fire-resistant plants include vegetation with moist, supple leaves that

have minimal accumulation of dead vegetation and plants that produce

water-like sap or resin material. Try to avoid planting cedar, juniper,

pine, spruce trees or tall grasses. Grasses shorter than ten centimetres

are less likely to burn intensely.

Also, every home should have readily accessible shovels, rakes,

axes, hoses, sprinklers and ladders to assist in suppressing wildfires.

Keep power lines clear of branches and other vegetation.

[1:55 p.m.]

Common sense, I know, ladies and gentlemen, but please do a quick

check around your property. A full homeowner manual can be picked up at

our constituency office, or you can go online at

www.bcwildfire.ca.

WOMEN IN BUSINESS AWARDS IN SURREY

R. Singh: On March 8, 2018, the Surrey Board of Trade hosted the ninth annual

Surrey Women in Business Awards lunch. This recognizes the hard work of

Surrey businesswomen and their contribution to the community of

Surrey.

For this year, there were 18 nominees in six different categories.

This year’s winner in the entrepreneur category was Yvonne Hogenes,

owner of Malary’s Fashion Network. Since starting the business, Yvonne

has made Canadian designs, customer service and personalized shopping an

essential part of Malary’s service.

The not-for-profit leader this year was Ingrid Kastens, with the

Pacific Community Resources Society. She leads a multi-award-winning

not-for-profit that works with the most marginalized persons in British

Columbia. She has transformed the team to be reflective of the breadth

of gender, age and ethnic diversity.

In the corporate leadership category, Rowena Rizzotti, with the

Lark Group, was this year’s winner. A highly successful health care

leader, Rowena has extensive experience in an executive-level leadership

role across multi-site, complex health and business

environments.

This year’s social trail-blazer award winner was Elly Morgan, at

KPU. Elly is an expert in the field of leadership development, as she

has transformed and led a career program for women called Career Choices

and Life Success at Kwantlen Polytechnic University for 25

years.

In the Indigenous category, this year’s winner was Roxanne

Charles. Roxanne is a mixed-media artist of Straits Salish and European

descent. She’s an active and proud member of the Semiahmoo First Nation

in Surrey, where she promotes art, language and culture. She’s also a

contemporary storyteller whose goal is to touch, move and inspire others

through her work.

I would love the House to congratulate all of the women of the

Surrey Women in Business Awards.

KELSEY SERWA

AND SOCCER DOME PROJECT IN

KELOWNA

B. Stewart: Last month Canadians from across the country joined Kelowna in

celebrating our native Kelsey Serwa as she took home gold in Pyeongchang

for the women’s ski cross. Eight years ago in Vancouver, she placed

fifth. At Sochi, in 2014, she placed second. It was only this year when

she finally clinched the top spot on the Olympic podium.

That kind of upward trajectory is a result of thousands of hours

of hard work. But it all starts with a child’s dream, perhaps sparked by

a family member, a picture in a magazine or maybe a film. The hard

part

is cultivating that spark and turning it into reality, taking passion

for sport and crafting it into an intense desire to hone your skills and

strive to be the best that you can be.

That same dedication that rewarded Serwa gold in Korea is what

took Taya Hanson and the Kelowna Owls to victory last week in the

provincial AAA senior girls basketball champions. But the hours of hard

work that advance sport in our community are not committed by young

athletes alone. Parents, coaches and organizers sacrifice as well.

Sometimes it’s not only the youth who dream big.

In 2015, the Westside Youth Soccer Association suddenly found

themselves with far more registrants than spaces, limited by the lack of

covered, all-season fields. Gord Wiebe, chair of the organization,

dreamed of the West Kelowna soccer dome. Pledging $666,000 to fulfil

that dream, the West Side Youth Soccer Association went to the city with

a plan.

Now, after approval from city council, I am pleased to announce

that the soccer dome is moving forward as the Westside sports complex.

Whether young or old, all it can take is a dream to advance sport in our

local communities and get the proverbial ball rolling.

INDIGENOUS LAW PROGRAM

R. Kahlon: I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered in the territory

of the Lekwungen-speaking people, the Songhees and the Esquimalt First

Nations.

[2:00 p.m.]

As a society and a country, we have a lot of work to do to

transform the colonial legacy that is present in the policies and

practices in our shared legal system. This work is critical if we want

to create conditions of justice and equality for Indigenous people,

which, I’m sure, we can all agree is long overdue.

The Indigenous law program is one of the initiatives and another

step in B.C.’s commitment to work with Indigenous peoples to build true

and lasting reconciliation. This commitment is anchored by the

government’s commitment to the United Nations declaration on the rights

of Indigenous peoples. The program was conceived by two of Canada’s

foremost Indigenous legal experts, both of whom are at UVic: John

Borrows, Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Law, and Val Napoleon, Law

Foundation Chair in Aboriginal Justice and Governance.

It is truly groundbreaking, the first in the world. We are

honoured to be supporting this inspired calling. The intensive study of

both Indigenous and non-Indigenous law will allow people to work

fluently across both realms. It is a vital part of rebuilding the

Indigenous law together to meet today’s challenges.

The road to self-determination and justice has been difficult for

Indigenous people in Canada. The legal system has been used to make that

journey harder. In 1927, Canada amended the Indian Act to make it

illegal to obtain funds or legal counsel to obtain Aboriginal title

cases. Up till 1950, First Nations people were stripped of their Indian

status, any supports they had and the right to live within their

communities on reserve if they became a lawyer or obtained a university

degree.

I’m looking forward to the day, in the not so distant future, when

new Indigenous law degree graduates enter our judicial system. Slowly

but surely, we are seeing progress toward recognition and reconciliation

of Indigenous issues in British Columbia.

OVERDOSE RESPONSE IN SURREY

S. Cadieux: In the last two years, there were 367 overdoses and 20 deaths in

Surrey-Guildford; 665 overdoses and 43 deaths in Surrey-Whalley; 278

overdoses and 17 deaths in Surrey-Cloverdale; 1,030 overdoses and 56

deaths in Surrey-Newton; 2,582 overdoses and 73 deaths in Surrey–Green

Timbers; 252 overdoses and nine deaths in Surrey-Fleetwood; and, in my

riding, 251 overdoses and ten deaths. Of the deaths, 185 happened

indoors.

This issue is non-partisan. It’s affecting every community, every

socioeconomic bracket, every MLA’s constituents.

Surrey’s fire department is leading the charge in saving drug

overdose victims with new technology that tracks overdose clusters and

warns when a bad batch of opioids hits the street. With help from GINQO,

the Surrey fire department is mining real-time data collected through

dispatch calls. If, in any four-hour period, three overdoses occur

within a square kilometre, it’s flagged and an alert is sent to the

senior officer of the fire department and the chief medical health

officer of Fraser Health. As a cluster is detected, extra resources

converge on that area, and leaflets warning about bad drugs can be

distributed in the area.

Despite the common belief that most overdoses happen on the

streets, as the data shows, most people actually die in their homes. Our

strapped first responders need all the tools they can get to help them

be in the right place at the right time. This is one of those

tools.

What more can be done? Are we as a society and as legislators

looking at the issue from all sides, or are we concentrating our efforts

on one or two obvious but necessary response points? Are we looking at

the root causes and the broader data indicators that could lead to other

avenues to attack this most urgent crisis?

For now, I thank the Surrey fire service and our fire chief, Len

Garis, for not leaving any stone unturned in finding solutions in our

city.

Oral Questions

OVERDOSE DEATHS

J. Thornthwaite: The Minister of Mental Health and Addictions was appointed on July

18, 2017. That month there were 116 overdose deaths and a further 509

during the remainder of the year. In January of this year, there were

Does the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions agree that the

only acceptable result of her ministry is to reduce the number of

deaths?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. J. Darcy: Thank you to the member for her question. I am deeply honoured to

be British Columbia’s first Minister of Mental Health and Addictions

and, indeed, to lead the first Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions

in all of Canada.

We all know in this House and in this province that four people a

day are dying. Every single one of those people leaves behind a father,

a brother, a mother, a loved one, a dear friend. The impact of those

deaths is unspeakable. The number of families from all walks of life and

all corners of B.C. — so many families, so many communities — have been

devastated to their core.

That is why, from day one in our ministry, we hit the ground

running. I am so proud that our government committed, in the September

Budget Update 2017, $322 million in order to escalate our response to

the overdose crisis. That is exactly what we have been doing.

We need to be bold. We need to be innovative. Every day, every

week, we are escalating our response. We will continue until we turn the

corner on that death toll and we can say in this province that the death

toll is coming down and, indeed, that people are not dying because of

poisoned drugs on the street.

We are doing everything in our power. We welcome all suggestions

from the opposition. I’ve been consulting with British Columbians and

people on the front line, especially families with lived experience,

from one corner of this province to the other. This is not a partisan

issue. This is about saving lives, and we will continue to do everything

in our power to save lives right across British Columbia.

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

supplemental.

J. Thornthwaite: The first objective of the minister’s service plan is to deliver

interventions and support that reduce overdoses and overdose deaths, but

the minister has not committed to a single performance measure that

monitors the death rate.

Again, will the minister agree that the most important performance

measure for her ministry is a reduction in the overdose death

rates?

Hon. J. Darcy: We have opened dozens of overdose prevention sites and eight safe

consumption sites across British Columbia. We now have naloxone kits

available at over 1,000 locations across the province, including 80

percent of community pharmacies. Through our harm reduction measures, we

have saved thousands of lives. The people on the front lines — the

people in community agencies, the people in those overdose prevention

sites, the first responders — have saved thousands of lives that would

have been lost otherwise.

We know that harm reduction and saving lives is not enough. That’s

why we created the overdose emergency response centre, which is working

through community action teams and people on the ground to ensure that

after we save someone’s life, we are also doing everything in our power

to connect them to treatment as soon as possible.

I can say that we have hundreds more people now who are providing

opioid substitution therapy across the province, and we’re adding nurse

practitioners to that list, not just doctors. The number of new patients

who are now on opioid substitution therapy, in order that they do not

die of overdose, is up by 126 percent. We are going to

continue.

All of the staff on the front line are pouring their hearts and

their souls into saving lives every single day, and that’s exactly what

we’re going to continue to do until we turn the corner on what is the

worst public health emergency in British Columbia in decades.

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

supplemental.

J. Thornthwaite: Mr. Speaker, 125 people died from suspected drug overdoses in

January, yet there is no accountability or attempt to measure progress

against this disturbing death rate.

[2:10 p.m.]

Will the minister establish performance measures that set the goal

of reducing the overdose death rate?

Hon. J. Darcy: I’m not sure what the member opposite missed in my response

earlier. We have significantly increased the number of providers who are

able to prescribe opioid substitution therapy. We have increased by 126

percent the number of new patients who are now on opioid substitution

therapy.

The other really important part of my mandate is that we need to

build a better system for mental health and addictions care in the

province of British Columbia. That is an enormous challenge, especially

after 16 years of neglect by the B.C. Liberal government of mental

health and addictions care.

Every single week, every single day, I hear from family members

who have lost their kids due to overdose. They share their stories with

me. These parents are spending every waking moment trying to keep their

kids alive. They also share with me the challenges that they have faced.

They have reached out everywhere to try and get help for their kids.

Very, very often those supports are not there.

We need to get to a place in British Columbia where people living

with addictions and mental health issues are treated with the same

dignity and respect and receive the same quality of care as people with

any other illness. We’re not there yet. Our government is committed to

doing that, but there is a lot of work to do after 16 years of neglect

by people on the other side of this House.

S. Cadieux: Overdose deaths in British Columbia rose in January to 125

suspected cases. As the minister said, this means four British

Columbians die from the use of narcotics every day. We hear the stories

in our offices too.

Does the minister agree that harm reduction and naloxone kits will

not be enough to prevent the majority of these overdose

deaths?

Hon. J. Darcy: If I can just reiterate what I said a moment ago, harm reduction

is absolutely critical. I know that it has become something that people

on the other side of the House have started to criticize — a focus on

harm reduction. I would say that someone has to be alive if we’re going

to be in a position to connect them with treatment.

We do not apologize for focusing on harm reduction that saves

lives. But is harm reduction enough? Of course not, and that’s why we

have also been focused intensely, through our overdose emergency

response centre, on connecting people. There are some really good

examples of this that have been shared with me as I’ve met with people

on the front lines.

In Kamloops, for instance, there is a clinic that is connected

with the emergency room. When someone is taken there with an overdose,

and they’re revived, and they’re willing to be connected with treatment,

that’s done. The goal is to do it within an hour but at least within 24

hours, and that’s happening. That’s what we’re focused on now, like a

laser beam — connecting people whose lives we’ve saved with treatment so

that they can get on a pathway to hope and a pathway to

recovery.

I repeat where I started. You have to be alive in order to have a

pathway to hope.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey South on a supplemental.

S. Cadieux: In January, 65 percent of overdose deaths occurred in private

homes, and the majority of the victims were using drugs

alone.

Will the minister accept that those harm reduction programs will

not solve the problem of narcotic overdoses in private

residences?

Hon. J. Darcy: The member is right that 80 percent of the people who are dying

are dying at home or dying alone. That’s why it is absolutely critical

that we combat the stigma that means that people are not willing to tell

their friends, their families, their loved ones that they’re using

drugs. They’re not willing to talk to them about the fact that they’re

living with addiction.

[2:15 p.m.]

Stigma is also a barrier to people reaching out for care. It’s a

barrier to them seeking the care that they need in order to get on a

pathway to hope. I’m very proud that we are working intensively. We have

a wonderful partnership that’s happening right now with the Vancouver

Canucks. Many of you may have seen the posters, the ads on TV. We are

reaching out in order that all British Columbians understand that we’re

talking about our fathers, our brothers, our drug users and hockey fans.

We’re talking about sisters, our fellow students, our co-workers who are

drug users. Everyone who uses drugs….

People who use drugs are also real people. That’s our message. Get

informed. Get involved. Get help. Go to stopoverdosebc.ca. It’s critical

that we combat the stigma and tear down those walls of silence so that

people are not suffering in silence, so that people are reaching out to

help and so that we’re connecting people to the treatment and the care

that they may need.

EVIDENCE-BASED DECISION-MAKING

AND QUARRY

PROPOSALS

S. Furstenau: Evidence-based decision-making is not a slogan. It’s an approach

to governance that is desperately needed across all jurisdictions. At

the root of evidence-based decision-making are processes with integrity,

processes that ensure that all information is considered in an objective

manner and — this is essential — without a presupposed outcome. Getting

to yes undermined evidence-based decision-making in this province for a

long time and has created mistrust by the public.

The current Minister of Environment has taken concrete steps to

address this mistrust, with reviews and reforms of the professional

reliance model and the environmental assessment process. Two

applications before these reviews started are currently in front of this

government, and two communities anxiously await decisions that could

have significant impacts. In Squamish, there is an application for a

gravel quarry at McNab Creek in one of only three estuaries in Howe

Sound, an estuary that supports wild salmon and endangered orca

populations.

My question is for the Minister of Environment. Will he commit to

looking at all of the evidence pertaining to this application when

making the decision, including the reasons why DFO twice rejected this

application, and the forthcoming Howe Sound cumulative effects

environmental assessment report?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the Third Party House Leader for the question and her

concern about this issue. The matter, as the member knows, is with

myself and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, as the

statutory decision–makers. We will be carefully considering all of the

material referred to us by the environmental assessment office, as we

are duty-bound to do. We will do that.

I cannot comment very specifically on the decision at this time or

the details of the material before us, but I will note that the EAO held

three public comment periods and five open houses during the process.

The review was extended by 115 days to allow sufficient time for public

and working group review and comment on the draft final assessment

report.

Extensive consultation was held with a range of First Nations with

an interest. Once the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

and I have made a decision on the project, we will ensure that the

entire package, including all of the decision materials that were

considered, along with our reasons for decision, will be posted on line

to ensure a fully transparent process.

Mr. Speaker: The House Leader for the Third Party on a supplemental.

S. Furstenau: I thank the minister for his response.

In Campbell River, citizens are also growing increasingly

concerned over the application by Upland quarry for a permit to deposit

contaminated soil at their site, which is located adjacent to Rico Lake,

the drinking water source for Campbell River.

Two hydrogeologists, Dr. Wendling and Patrick Consulting Inc., are

in agreement that more testing and data are needed in order to fully

understand potential hydrological connections between the landfill site

and Rico Lake so that it can be accurately determined what risks this

site may pose to drinking water and aquatic environments. These experts

agree there is a potential for movement of water through fractured

bedrock underneath this site.

My question is again for the Minister of Environment. Will the

minister acknowledge the deficits in this permitting process and commit

to reviewing these reports and addressing the concerns raised by these

hydrogeologists?

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you, again, to the House Leader of the Third Party for the

question. I understand, as decision-makers in the ministry understand,

the concern over this issue in the Campbell River area.

I have met, in fact, with the concerned citizens from Campbell

River, along with Mr. Wendling. I received, along with my assistant

deputy minister, a presentation on his findings in his report. The

ministry has both the Wendling report and the Guy Patrick report. Those

reports are currently being reviewed and considered. The ministry is

aware of the concern, is doing testing, has requested additional

information, and Upland is working on a response to answer the

ministry’s questions.

Prior to any final decision, a draft of the operational

certificate will be shared with stakeholders for comment, which will be

their first chance for comment. Before any final permitting decision,

including on stakeholder comments, there’ll be an opportunity for a

second chance for input. Any new operational certificate will only be

issued once there are sufficient technical reviews, including the

studies that will be considered, which the member referenced, as part of

the review.

MONITORING OF PRESCRIPTION OPIOIDS

T. Stone: Many people develop a dependency on opioids after being on

prescribed medications for pain relief. Will the Minister of Mental

Health and Addictions implement a prescription opioid monitoring program

that refers chronic prescription narcotic users to pain

specialists?

Hon. J. Darcy: The issue of addiction to opioids, as we know, is a very, very

complex issue, and this overdose crisis has many roots. Certainly, one

of them has to do with an overdependence on opioids for pain medication.

New guidelines were brought in by the College of Physicians and

Surgeons, going back some time now, which were intended to reduce

dependence on opioids but also, in some cases, meant that people turned

to street drugs. I know that the College of Physicians and Surgeons is

now revising some of those guidelines.

The member raises the issue of pain and pain clinics. As part of

our strategy going forward, we are certainly working with pain

specialists and working with the Ministry of Health and with health

authorities in order to increase access to pain management services so

that people are not forced to turn to street drugs in order to address

what is often severe pain, often going together with psychological pain,

trauma and intergenerational pain.

I can tell you that our starting place here is that we have pain

clinics across this province — for which, as a result of the previous

government’s neglect, there are some people waiting as long as two years

in order to get into those pain clinics. This is part of our strategy

going forward. There is an awful lot of catching up to do.

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

supplemental.

T. Stone: The minister could take further action on this, and she could take

action immediately. Has the minister developed any plan to begin

monitoring prescription opioid use so that chronic users of prescription

narcotics will be referred to pain specialists?

Hon. J. Darcy: One of the things that the member should maybe go back and take a

look at, and that we’re very proud of, in Budget 2018 was the commitment

to expand primary care teams, interdisciplinary teams across the

province, and to ensure that people across B.C. have greater access to

primary care teams.

Certainly, we see, as part of that strategy going forward, having

mental health and addictions specialists who are a part of that. We are

working closely with Pain B.C., working closely with pain specialists

and working with the Ministry of Health in order to ensure that more

people across British Columbia have access to alternatives to opioid

prescription therapies.

[2:25 p.m.]

If the member opposite would go back just a little bit further in

history, back to when the Gordon Campbell government was first elected,

he might recall, as some of his colleagues, no doubt, know, that it was

the Liberal government that, back then, delisted coverage for things

like physiotherapy, massage therapy and some of those alternatives to

prescription therapy medication.

I think the members opposite need to take a hard look at their own

record and look themselves in the mirror when they’re talking about lack

of access to alternatives for pain therapy in the province for people

who are suffering today. We’re working on it, we’re redoubling our

efforts, but there’s a lot of work to do.

ADDICTION PREVENTION EDUCATION

SCHOOLS

J. Isaacs: To stand a chance of defeating the overdose crisis here in British

Columbia, we must begin to better address the problem holistically. That

means appropriately addressing addiction.

From the $5 million spent last year from the ministry’s budget and

the $10 million this year, how many nurses and counsellors were hired to

increase addiction awareness education in schools?

Hon. J. Darcy: I’m very proud that the approach that this government has taken

is, precisely, a holistic approach. The cabinet working committee, the

mental health and addictions working group, brings together people from

across ministries. We absolutely understand that we need to deal with

the social conditions that affect addictions and mental illness and that

we absolutely have to start early in our schools. That’s why, going

forward, as we develop our child and youth mental health strategy, that

is going to be an essential piece of it — investing in more mental

health professionals in our schools.

We have also invested in expanding the Foundry youth hubs, which

are a wonderful initiative. These are, really, hubs in communities that

serve youth who are most at risk. It’s a one-stop shop. You walk in the

door, no questions asked. Whether you walk in with an issue related to

mental health, whether you walk in with a substance use issue or any

other issue, you are connected immediately to care, no appointment

necessary, and then a wraparound team supports you.

They’ve had really important success. We plan to build on that in

the future. We have been mandated…. A central part of my mandate from

the Premier is to develop that strategy for child and youth mental

health, and the biggest focus there is going to be on prevention and

early intervention so that our kids get the support they need early on

in their lives and so that mild and moderate mental health issues don’t

turn into severe mental health issues and, in turn, into substance use

issues.

Mr. Speaker: Coquitlam–Burke Mountain on a supplemental.

J. Isaacs: Additional mental health professionals such as registered

psychiatric nurses and counsellors are needed for school districts so

that they can address mental health and addiction issues early. Yet

looking at the minister’s budget, there is no money whatsoever for

front-line education and prevention.

Again to the minister, how many registered psychiatric nurses and

counsellors have been hired to deal with addiction awareness

education?

Hon. J. Darcy: If the member opposite or other members opposite have spent time

talking to people in their communities and have spent time talking to

parents who have been seeking out support for their kids, they would

know that there are enormous gaps in the system at the present time. Our

system for mental health and addictions and for child and youth mental

health is broken. It is broken as a result of 16 years of

neglect.

It is tragic to hear the stories of parents. They break my heart.

They break everyone’s hearts to whom they speak. They talk about all the

doors they knock on and all the doors that are closed to

them.

This is a central part of our mandate as government. We are

working incredibly hard on building a better strategy for mental health

and addictions, starting with child and youth mental health. We need to

get to a place where every door is the right door and where you ask

once, and you get help fast.

[2:30 p.m.]

MONITORING OF PRESCRIPTION OPIOIDS

AND ROLE OF MENTAL

HEALTH

AND ADDICTIONS MINISTRY

A. Wilkinson: I and one of the members of the audience — Mr. Klein, who was

formerly with the Ambulance Service — are probably the only people in

this room who have injected intravenous naloxone into a patient and

watched them sit bolt upright, from being nearly dead and deep blue, and

come to life.

This is a daily occurrence in British Columbia — dozens, if not

hundreds, of times. Every day four of those patients don’t come back.

They die. This is an emergency that we have dealt with, as a society,

for the last three years. A public health emergency was declared. An

unprecedented access to naloxone was made possible. It doesn’t matter by

which side of the House, in terms of being in government. Also, the

opening of supervised intervention sites…. These have been critical

steps to address an oppressive emergency in our society.

There is a very important step, available to this minister, that

could be brought into effect within weeks. That’s a prescription

monitoring program. PharmaNet has been available. Every prescription

filled in British Columbia since 1993 is available on line.

The obvious question is: working with the regulatory bodies — the

College of Physicians, the College of Registered Nurses, the college of

dentists — will the minister take this important next step, which is

readily available to her, and implement a prescription monitoring

program? It’s so people who have been on narcotics for five or six or

seven weeks are referred promptly to a pain specialist so that they

don’t go down this dreadful pathway toward addiction.

Hon. J. Darcy: We certainly welcome the Leader of the Opposition’s suggestions,

and I will go back and discuss this issue further with our ministry. It

is an issue that we are working on, but we certainly take all

suggestions, from both sides of the House and from people on the front

lines across the province, very, very seriously.

I do think it’s absolutely critical that we not use the overdose

crisis to political advantage. We have not done that since we assumed

government. I have not done that as the Minister of Mental Health and

Addictions. I welcome any suggestion, from any member of the opposition,

at any time. I have not heard any up until today, so I certainly welcome

receiving them in this House. As we have said time and time again, this

is a crisis that demands that we have all hands on deck.

That means both sides of this House. That means us reaching out to

businesses, to employers, to trade unions. That means bringing community

agencies together. It also means that we are working in very, very close

partnership with the First Nations Health Authority because this

overdose crisis is devastating Indigenous communities at an even greater

rate than it is the population at large. Indigenous people are dying at

a rate three times higher than the population at large.

We are very proud of the partnership that we’ve built with the

First Nations Health Authority. It’s about reconciliation in action.

We’re working very closely with them and have given them the support in

order to put in place harm reduction projects and overdose prevention

projects in 55 First Nations communities across British Columbia. It’s

going to take everyone in this province, working together, to turn the

tide on this horrible crisis.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: I must compliment the minister for taking a positive approach to

question period. We have an opportunity here to refine, hone and improve

our public policy, and of course, that requires substantive answers. I

compliment the minister for saying she’s prepared to respond to a

substantive suggestion so that we can move ahead, as a society, to

address this crisis. Unfortunately, it also raises a point that must be

addressed.

In my own experience — I’ve worked as a deputy minister and as a

cabinet minister — the knowledge is that roughly 10 percent of the

Ministry of Health budget goes into mental health issues, directly and

correctly. Currently that’s almost $2 billion. That is a legitimate

expenditure of this government. But one must question why we have

duplication of administration, with a ministry with a $10 million budget

that delivers no services, with a $7 million budget for executive and

support services.

Surely the experience of government over the last 20 years

indicates that we must reduce this bureaucratic duplication, focus the

money on front-line services and have the Minister of Health run mental

health and addictions services because they are delivered through health

authorities and the Medical Services Plan.

[2:35 p.m.]

The question obviously arises. We’ll be back on the anniversary of

the creation of this ministry to ask: first of all, has it accomplished

anything that has not been done, actually, through the Ministry of

Health; and secondly, has a prescription monitoring program been put in

place? We’ll be back.

Hon. J. Horgan: First, I want to commend the Leader of the Opposition and his

entire team for taking the approach they did to question period today.

It’s not often that we have the opportunity to have a genuine exchange

of ideas about a critical issue to all British Columbians. So my hands

up to those on the other side.

Too often we get caught up, as all members know, in the

hurly-burly of this half an hour in the day. Quite often it’s the only

time all of us are in this place, and it’s the only time that we can

demonstrate our character and our commitment to the people that we

represent. Again, my hands up to the Leader of the Opposition and his

team for their line of questioning today.

Having said that, I’m fiercely proud of the work that we’ve been

able to do in a short period of time. It was a crisis; it is a crisis.

All members acknowledge that. We felt, when we were sworn in as

government, that dedicating an individual to be the point person every

single day on this issue was the best start we could make on addressing

the issue.

I have every confidence in the Minister of Health that he will be

able to deliver the services, in cooperation with the Minister of Mental

Health and Addictions, to realize progress every single day. I welcome

all members of the House — the Third Party, the members of the

opposition and the members of the government caucus — to work with all

of us to address this issue.

I know we all want to get to the same place. Again, if we work

together and we keep that in mind over the weeks we’re away — that we

are all here for the same reason — we will make progress for the people

that we represent and the ones that sent us here to do the good work

that we try to do each and every day. Today is a stellar example of

that.

[End of question period.]

Ministerial Statements

U.S. ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES

NEWSPRINT

Hon. J. Horgan: I rise to make a ministerial statement. Today workers in paper

mills up and down the coast have received news that threatens their

livelihoods and their communities. The United States has yet again

imposed new anti-dumping duties on B.C. newsprint exporters. Catalyst

Paper, for example, which creates thousands and thousands of jobs in

British Columbia, is now at risk, and our entire industry, which creates

billions of dollars of economic activity, has been

compromised.

With the combined countervailing duties that were announced today,

this means tariffs of over 28 percent for B.C. uncoated groundwood

paper. Our government believes — and I think on this day of cooperation,

I’m going to hear from the Leader of the Opposition that he agrees as

well — it is absolutely unacceptable that every time the United States

decides to turn and look north, they look north with the view to reduce

trade, to put in place barriers. Instead of working cooperatively for

the best interests of both communities, they’re working against the

interests of British Columbians.

Their recent duties are unfounded. They’re unwarranted. This

protectionist activity is not only discouraging investment in the United

States, but it’s making life very, very difficult for people in our

coastal communities.

My job as leader of the government is to make sure we’re building

stronger relationships with our trade partners. I’ve done my level best,

however, to achieve that. I travelled to Washington in the first couple

of weeks of my time in this office to try and build bridges on the

softwood lumber issue. Then of course we had just last week another

moment of harmony between the government and the opposition with respect

to duties on steel and aluminum that were, fortunately, carved out by

the President at the last moment.

This is yet another example directed explicitly at British

Columbia by a protectionist administration that is doing everything they

can to make life difficult for people in our communities. I think that’s

unacceptable, and I think all members, certainly, in this House would

agree with that.

I rise today to advise British Columbians that we stand foursquare

with the industry. We will work with industry, with workers, to ensure

that we fight aggressively against these unfair duties. I know all

members of the House will want to join with us to work cooperatively,

with the approach that happened today in question period, so that we can

protect jobs in British Columbia and continue to have a robust, dynamic

trade relationship with those who are prepared to trade with

us.

If the U.S. administration in Washington doesn’t want to do that,

we’re happy to work with Washington state, Oregon and other members of

PNWER and those border states that have looked to British Columbia as

friends, allies and good trading partners for many, many decades and,

hopefully, many decades to come.

[2:40 p.m.]

A. Wilkinson: It’s very important that we address this issue substantively here

today. The lumber industry in British Columbia depends on a number of

legs to the chair. The most important one, of course, is the production

of softwood lumber, which is usually used in construction. The second

one is the pulp and paper industry, which complements the lumber

industry, using the scrap wood and the sawdust and all of the other

products to create value out of the forests.

There are other angles to this, including making waste-wood

products such as pellets, but the key ones are the pulp and paper

industry and the sawmill industry. They’re in the same communities not

just for access to fibre. The entire community depends upon both of them

being there. We’ve seen major mill closures in recent years in Prince

Rupert, Kitimat and Campbell River, and that affects the very heart of

those communities as to whether they can continue to exist.

We know that our pulp industry has had a lot of trouble in recent

years, and we know that it’s an industry that requires a thriving forest

industry and a fair and open market in which to trade its goods. We now

see an American administration which is part of a worldwide move towards

protectionism. This is deeply destructive to the Canadian economy and,

particularly, to the British Columbia economy.

We only have to look back to the famous Smoot-Hawley tariffs of

1930 that were the real trigger for the Depression — seven years of

utter misery in the 1930s triggered by protectionist trade measures, not

by the financial meltdown in 1929.

We as a legislature must unite on this issue and make the effort

to get to Ottawa because this is a national issue. There are pulp and

paper mills across Canada in virtually every province. We must not let

the agenda be driven by New Brunswick or Ontario or Quebec. We must

stand front and centre for British Columbia. It is the federal

government that will have the influence in Washington, D.C., not the

government of British Columbia.

I would suggest to the Premier and to his government that it’s

time for 83 seats in this House to be united behind an initiative to go

to Ottawa. I would strongly suggest that the Premier, his Forests

Minister and his Trade Minister get on a plane to Ottawa next week.

Members of our caucus would be glad to accompany them and present a

united front to the federal government on this issue.

The GLOBE conference is coming up in Vancouver. Whoever is meeting

with the federal minister from this Legislature, it is incumbent on them

highest priority because it affects the heart and soul of every forest

community in this of province.

In the tenor of being constructive in this House, we have laid at

the feet of one minister an objective and a goal that we will want a

report back on in the foreseeable future. This is another one where we

lay at the feet of the government an offer to do something very, very

constructive for British Columbians. We leave this offer on the table

for the Premier, and we urge him to take it up as soon as

possible.

T. Shypitka: I ask leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Petitions

T. Shypitka: The constituents in my riding are very passionate about the outdoors

and the wildlife it represents. There are numerous issues surrounding our

back country. We’ve seen a loss in habitat as well as a sharp decline in our

ungulate populations, more particularly the deer and elk.

I have a petition in my hand here from 668 wildlife-caring residents

from around my riding of Kootenay East that would like to make three key

hunting regulations be changed immediately as this is extremely time

sensitive.

R. Leonard: I table a petition of 1,500 signatures from the Comox Valley, which is

the northern terminus of the old E&N Railway, now known as the Island

Corridor. The Friends of Rails to Trails petition relates to removing the

tracks and converting the rail corridor into a continuous non-motorized

trail for recreation and tourism.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: Bill 2 has been reprinted. It is in all members’ binders. I call third

reading of Bill 2.

[2:45 p.m.]

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 2 — BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT,

Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2018, read a third

time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 44

Chouhan

Kahlon

Begg

Brar

Heyman

Donaldson

Mungall

Bains

Beare

Chen

Popham

Trevena

Sims

Chow

Kang

Simons

D’Eith

Routley

Elmore

Dean

Routledge

Singh

Leonard

Darcy

Simpson

Robinson

Farnworth

Horgan

James

Eby

Dix

Ralston

Mark

Fleming

Conroy

Fraser

Chandra Herbert

Rice

Krog

Furstenau

Weaver

Olsen

Glumac

NAYS — 40

Cadieux

de Jong

Bond

Polak

Wilkinson

Lee

Stone

Coleman

Wat

Bernier

Thornthwaite

Paton

Ashton

Barnett

Yap

Martin

Davies

Kyllo

Sullivan

Isaacs

Morris

Stilwell

Ross

Oakes

Johal

Redies

Rustad

Milobar

Sturdy

Shypitka

Hunt

Throness

Tegart

Stewart

Sultan

Gibson

Reid

Letnick

Larson

Foster

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this House, I call continued debate on the estimates of the

Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural

Development. In the Douglas Fir Room, Committee A, I call continued

debate on the estimates for the Ministry of Environment.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS,

LANDS,

NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS

AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); L. Reid in the

chair.

The committee met at 2:54 p.m.

On Vote 28: ministry operations, $473,452,000

(continued) .

J. Rustad: To the minister: once again, thank you for yesterday, for being

able to accommodate those questions that we wanted to inquire about from

the Ministry of Agriculture.

[2:55 p.m.]

We’ll start off today with a couple of questions or a little bit

of inquiry with regards to tenure, shellfish aquaculture, as well as

finfish aquaculture, for which the tenuring components, of course, are

within the minister’s purview.

Maybe I can start just by asking a couple of simple questions. How

many shellfish tenures do we have in the province of British Columbia?

As well, how many finfish tenures are there?

Hon. D. Donaldson: For the finfish aquaculture, there are 125 tenures, but 105 of

them are Atlantic salmon finfish tenures. As far as the shellfish goes,

there are hundreds of tenures. We’ll get you an exact number. But

suffice to say, it’s in the hundreds.

J. Rustad: With regards to the tenures that are out there…. I appreciate that

you might not have the number for shellfish at your fingertips. I’ll

look forward to receiving that when you do have it available. How many

of those tenures are actively being utilized at this stage, if not all

of them?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Of the finfish tenures, 65 to 70 have fish in the

water.

J. Rustad: Out of those tenures that are active or those that are not active,

how many are set to expire in the next, say, two- to three-year

window?

Hon. D. Donaldson: If the member is asking about the land tenures, which are the

provincial responsibility associated with the federal licences that have

jurisdiction over the licensing of the finfish farms, the provincial

land tenures for the 65 to 70 that are active…. The question was: how

many of those are coming up for renewal over the next two to three

years? We can at least let you know that 20 of them will be coming up at

the end of June.

We’ll get you numbers on the other remaining ones. We’re just

compiling those numbers now. For the other 45 to 50, we’ll be able to

provide you with that information shortly.

[3:00 p.m.]

J. Rustad: These tenures, of course, have been in place for many years and

gone through renewal for many years. What is the average length of time

of these tenures? It starts with that question.

Hon. D. Donaldson: On a site-specific basis, the length of tenure time for the land

tenure that’s under provincial jurisdiction, under my ministry, is

anywhere from five years to 30 years. As far as the federal fisheries

licence, when it comes to the main authority over the aquaculture and

what happens in the aquaculture farms, the ones that were mentioned —

the 20 that come up in June — have another two years on the federal

licence.

J. Rustad: I want to thank the minister for that information with regards to

those.

On the tenure, I understand that the tenures…. I understand the

difference between the licensing for the federal government and the

tenures from the provincial government. On the tenure issue, is it

common for the tenures to be out of sync with the licensing?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Just a correction on what I informed the member of previously. The

federal licences expire on the 20 fish farms, which we have expiring on

the land tenure side, in 2022 — not two years from now but four years

from now.

The member asked about the harmonization between the federal

licences and the land tenure licences. We attempt to harmonize them.

That’s the aim, but the assertion that they’re not harmonized by the

member is probably correct in most cases.

J. Rustad: These licences, obviously, as I mentioned before, have been

renewed a number of times. They’ve been in place for many decades now. I

guess the question is…. There’s a fairly straightforward process in

terms of renewal. Is the process for renewal of these licences changing

in any way?

Let me rephrase that — the process for renewing the tenures, not

the licences. I just want to be sure what we’re talking

about.

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: There’s a rigorous process for replacement of existing tenures.

There’s information gathered and taken under review. If any changes have

occurred, First Nations consultation is part of the process. Then a

designated statutory decision–maker makes a decision on the replacement

of the tenure or not replacing the tenure and the length of time

associated with that.

That’s been the standard procedure under the Land Act, and we’re

not changing that policy.

J. Rustad: I thank the minister on that question. I’m glad to hear that there

isn’t a planned change for the process of renewal of those tenures. I’m

a little curious about that.

I’ve got to digress into a little bit of politics on this. I’m

curious, as the letter that went from the Minister of Agriculture to the

sector — in particular, to Marine Harvest — talked about how the tenures

may not be renewed potentially. It obviously was viewed as being a bit

of a threat. I understand that letter did come through the minister’s

office with regards to a review, whether by staff or others, before that

was sent out.

I guess the question to the minister is: if there are no planned

changes to the process of renewal of the tenures, what was the purpose

of that letter?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, I’ll entertain the question. It’s removed, I would say, from

the budget questions around this ministry, but I would like to offer an

answer. It’s that the statutory decision–maker makes the decision about

whether to replace or not replace the licence.

I can’t presuppose what the statutory decision–maker’s decisions

would be. That person makes them, based on the current Land Act and the

policy, and they can’t be fettered in any way. That’s the statutory

decision–maker’s responsibility.

J. Rustad: Thank you for that answer. I am just noting, through an FOI

request, some information that came through. The letter did go through

the minister’s office and was approved before going out, which is why I

felt the question was relevant in terms of the minister’s responsibility

— around the tenures, the tenures being renewed and the commentary with

regard to whether those pens should be restocked, given the potential

issue of renewables. However, it’s good to hear that the process is in

place. I’m sure that the industry will be interested in knowing

that.

The minister, on at least one occasion if not more occasions, in

the media talked about the desire to move to a closed-containment

system. I am curious whether or not the minister is considering that

approach to the tenures and the issue of tenures moving

forward.

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Just to clarify the roles here, the role of my ministry is in

tenuring around the Land Act for aquaculture initiatives like the

open-net fish farms. The aquaculture policy lies within the purview of

the Ministry of Agriculture. In fact, the interest in exploring the

possibilities of closed containment, where feasible, is part of the

Ministry of Agriculture’s mandate and of overall government

policy.

J. Rustad: One of the reasons why I ask this question — obviously, with

tenures coming up, there’s a process going through — is that industry

needs to know whether or not they can be stocking and whether or not

they’re going to be at risk. The Minister of Agriculture was quoted as

saying that the status quo was not good enough. That’s why I’m asking

whether or not there are any plans, or whether the ministry will be

signalling to the industry that there was potential for changes to the

way that finfish aquaculture is currently being tenured and operated in

the province of British Columbia.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Just, again, to emphasize that the restocking is within a

federally licensed regime. That’s the responsibility of the federal

government. The tenure process, as far as the Land Act goes, for these

facilities is under my ministry. That’s the responsibility that we have

provincially.

I have met with the industry. We continue to meet with industry on

the future of technology when it relates to aquaculture. We really

welcome those discussions. It’s been very interesting, some of the

progress that’s been made in other jurisdictions — in Norway, for

instance — on closed containment.

J. Rustad: It’s interesting. I think the minister’s comments, in particular,

were around “where feasible.” There has been one onshore example, I

believe, in British Columbia, where the operations for raising the

Atlantic salmon were undertaken, and that has failed. Is the minister

considering furthering that type of an approach, or pilots, with regard

to how finfish aquaculture is handled in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Donaldson: That would be aquaculture policy, which is under the purview of

the Minister of Agriculture.

J. Rustad: Along these lines, as well — back to the process of

decision-making around renewing the tenures — how does UNDRIP play into

the tenuring process, the renewal of the tenures? Will that change any

particular approach in terms of the engagement with First

Nations?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: How the United Nations declaration may or may not apply to the

federal licensing I can’t comment on, but the related impacts of the

Land Act tenures currently involve — and have, in past licence

applications — First Nations consultations. Legally, First Nations must

be consulted in the process of the statutory decision–maker making a

decision on the replacement of existing licences.

J. Rustad: I’m aware of the requirement for consultation with First Nations.

The question is whether or not the UN declaration on the rights of

Indigenous people, in the mandate letters of every ministry, will change

the process of consultation and, if it is to change the process of

consultation, to what extent. What goal is trying to be

achieved?

Hon. D. Donaldson: The United Nations declaration is something that we, as a

government, have endorsed. It’s a political statement, and it really is

about deepening engagement with First Nations to reach

reconciliation.

The legal objective, when it comes to First Nations consultation

that exists where my ministry has jurisdiction — which is under the Land

Act, in relation to the topic we’re discussing here currently — is

embarking on deep consultation with First Nations, when it comes to

renewal of the tenures. That’s one of the aspects that is incumbent upon

a statutory decision–maker to undertake. It’s about creating more

certainty, it’s about reconciliation, and I think the application of the

consultative process in the tenure renewal is an example of

reconciliation in action.

J. Rustad: Thanks to the minister on the question. I need to ask this on the

record. The minister has been fairly clear that UNDRIP, or the UN

declaration on the rights of Indigenous people, is a political

statement, but we’ve lots of concern with regard to free, prior and

informed consent and whether or not that represents a veto by nations

with issuing tenures and tenure renewals.

I just want to ask whether or not the minister is considering

providing an opportunity for a veto through the tenure-issuing or

tenure-renewing process for finfish aquaculture.

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Many authorities have spoken on this topic, and I would be glad to

quote one well-known authority in the province, Grand Chief Ed John, who

has made it clear that the principles of free, prior and informed

consent do not mean a veto. Whenever that has been brought up, it is

essentially brought up in a negative context. I think it can damage the

atmosphere that we’re trying to create around investment. So I caution

anybody who wants to bring up free, prior and informed consent and then

follow it or precede it with the word “veto,” because none other than

Grand Chief Ed John has stated publicly that that’s not the

case.

What we’re trying to do here is reconcile with First Nations in a

broad way and create more certainty around investment. Specifically, the

topic that we’re discussing here is the jurisdiction, through the Land

Act, that this ministry has over making a decision about replacing

tenures when it comes to fish farms.

J. Rustad: I believe it was Chief Bob Chamberlin — it may have been someone

else — who said that the current operations do not have their consent,

in the north end of Vancouver Island. Those are the operations, I

believe — the 20 licences that we’re talking about — that are up for

renewal in the very near future here, in June.

The reason for asking the question is that obviously, there seems

to be some difference of opinion with regards to what that may mean,

which is why I asked the minister for clarification. I’m pleased to hear

that, in terms of clarification.

I do have a few other questions with regards to this. However, at

this time, I’d like to offer an opportunity for the member for Saanich

North and the Islands to be able to enter the debate on finfish

aquaculture tenures.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the member for Nechako Lakes.

To the minister: in the 2017 election campaign, your party

committed to implementing the findings of the Cohen commission. One of

the primary findings…. There are lots of findings, but one of the

findings was about the siting of fish farms.

Being as you make the decisions about tenures and where they’re

allowed to anchor to the ocean floor, will this commitment that you’ve

made factor into determining whether or not you’ll renew the tenures

that are upcoming?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thanks for the question. When it comes to wild salmon, we’ve made

it clear, as a government, that we’re very focused on the protection of

wild salmon in migratory routes.

Now, I have to point out that the primary decision of the siting

of aquaculture activities, such as open-net fish farms in the water, is

the federal government. We have jurisdiction through the Land Act over

the anchoring and provincial jurisdiction over seabed and land access to

the sites.

[3:25 p.m.]

In the bigger scheme of things, that is a minor jurisdictional

authority compared to the primary authority over the siting and the

choosing of the sites, which is a federal responsibility. That’s why

we’ve been working to get the federal government involved to a greater

degree than they are at this moment.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for the answer. There is some authority

that the provincial government has that it could exert, based on the

vision that the minister, the Premier and other ministers of this

government have stated — a commitment to wild salmon.

Clearly, the responsibility that the minister’s ministry has on

tenures isn’t a non-authority. There is some authorization that the

province is required to give, or else we wouldn’t be having this

conversation.

Can the minister explain that? It appears that there’s an ability

for us, as a province, to grant tenures to anchor to the ocean floor.

While the federal government has the main authority for where it’s

sited, what role do we have?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ll try to lay this out to the member as best I can.

Once a decision is made for siting in a general sense by the

federal government, then we have the ability through our tenure system,

through the Land Act, to work with the federal government to make minor

relocation decisions and conditions — for instance, how close to a fish

stream one of these facilities is actually anchored once the general

site is determined. We can issue conditions around where the attachments

to the land or the anchors in the water are located.

Those are the kinds of authorities we have under the Land Act,

under my ministry, when it comes to the actual siting of the fish farms,

but the major decision authority is with the federal government about

where they’re located.

A. Olsen: So the ministry cannot…. Essentially, then, the ministry must

grant renewal of these tenures if the federal government has licensed

them and chosen the site?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: We, as in the province, under the Land Act under this ministry,

are not compelled to grant a renewal. That’s up to the statutory

decision–maker, who can grant a renewal or not grant a renewal. But we

do have, under the act, the ability to make mitigative measures. If the

anchoring is going to cause what our scientists decide is environmental

damage, we can insist, through conditions, on mitigative measures that

will avoid that environmental damage as a direct result of the anchoring

process.

That’s the level of jurisdiction and of decision-making that’s

split between the federal government and the provincial government on

this topic.

A. Olsen: The minister’s party was very clear that they would ensure that

the salmon farming industry does not endanger wild salmon by

implementing the recommendations of the Cohen Commission, keeping

farmsites out of important salmon migration routes and supporting

research and transparent monitoring to minimize the risks of disease

transfer from captive wild salmon.

That was the commitment. There’s science that’s coming forward

pretty clearly from the strategic salmon health initiative that there is

disease in the Johnstone Strait fish farms and that they threaten the

wild salmon fisheries — as in the commitment and a commitment to the

Cohen Commission.

Presumably, the government — specifically, this ministry — could

use its authority over the tenures to enforce what was said during the

campaign and enforce providing safety to the Fraser River

sockeye.

Hon. D. Donaldson: The member is accurate in saying that the tool that we have at our

disposal is the Land Act when it comes to how tenure is granted through

the province and that it’s not the tool that addresses the siting.

That’s within the federal government jurisdiction. We’ve been able to

connect with the federal government on this. We’re not happy that we

haven’t been able to connect enough at the minister level and the

minister responsible. They need to step up on recommendations around the

Cohen, and we’re willing to work with them on that.

What we’re trying to achieve in meeting with First Nations who

have concerns around fish farms is getting to certainty and getting to

reconciliation and using a consent-based process to do that.

This particular topic we’re discussing here, around the

replacement of tenure, is an operational consultation. It’s something

that a statutory decision–maker has within a very limited framework.

That’s what’s underway, as well, with our ministry, with the 20-odd

tenures that are coming up at the end of June.

A. Olsen: I believe it’s happened in the past where government has created a

policy that provided direction to the statutory decision–maker as to the

vision and the direction the government was deciding to go.

[3:35 p.m.]

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I understand that the statutory decision–maker makes the decision

about whether or not a certain item, a certain net or operation, can be

tied to the ocean floor, but the statutory decision–maker makes those

decisions under the direction of the government, of the

ministry.

Am I correct in this statement — that the ministry could and the

minister could create a policy that no new salmon farm applications will

be considered and no renewals will be given due to the Cohen Commission;

that if wild salmon are going to be threatened by the fish farm

industry, they would be moved; and that under that, this government’s

not going to renew these fish farms because of the threat that it poses

to wild salmon?

Hon. D. Donaldson: That scenario is not what we could do under the Land Act. What the

member is bringing up is overall aquaculture policy, and that’s

something that’s under the purview of the Minister of Agriculture. But

under the Land Act, the legal obligations are very defined. Under the

Land Act, there’s no ability to undertake what the member has pointed

out.

I have some answers from a previous question, if you just give me

an opportunity, Member. Thank you very much. The critic asked about the

number of shellfish aquaculture tenures. There are 468 aquaculture

sites, and those are licensed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans

in our waters. On the licence length that is possible under the federal

legislation for those kinds of activities, the maximum term of that

licence is nine years.

A. Olsen: Just to clarify this and get this correct. If the Minister of

Agriculture creates an aquaculture policy directing the government to

follow the commitments to the Cohen Commission, should it be determined

that wild salmon be threatened by the finfish aquaculture industry, then

the minister of this ministry — Forests, Lands — can direct the

statutory decision–maker to not proceed with granting tenure

renewals.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you for the question. Under the Land Act, we have legal

obligations and can’t fetter, can’t be seen to fetter, the statutory

decision–maker. So that’s not the tool that the member is getting

at.

There could be policy created by the Ministry of Agriculture when

it comes to finfish aquaculture. But again, it’s the federal government

that issues the finfish licences. So it would take…. Any kind of policy

that the Minister of Agriculture is interested in pursuing in connection

to the finfish aquaculture is dependent on the federal government taking

the same direction and being on board.

A. Olsen: Okay. I understand all that. I understand that the federal

government’s got its finfish aquaculture policy and it creates the

siting and it grants licences. But we can also stand up for wild salmon,

or we could also decide as a province that we’re not going to allow nets

to be attached to the ocean floor, correct?

[3:40 p.m.]

However, the government has to determine, whether it be through

the Minister of Agriculture or another ministry…. We have the ability to

say: “No, you can’t attach that to the ocean floor.”

Hon. D. Donaldson: If there’s some type of environmental harm directly related to the

anchoring process or whether it’s underwater or on land or there are

considerations of moving the finfish farm because it is in too close

proximity to a stream on land, those are the kinds of conditions that

can be placed through the statutory decision–maker. But again, the

overall authority when it comes to aquaculture is with the federal

government.

I understand this can be frustrating to some people. I just have

to give a little history. Because it was so frustrating to many people

under the previous government, a court case was launched by concerned

parties. The result of that court case was that in 2009, federal

jurisdiction became the primary jurisdiction governing aquaculture

industry in B.C. waters. That was unfortunate.

Directly as a result of the ignoring of concerns, some of which

you have mentioned, we lost control, because of the court case, over

much of what you’re talking about.

A. Olsen: I guess part of the confusion that’s created is the commitments

that were made in the election that we were going to get a certain type

of policy — policy that implements the recommendations of the Cohen

commission, policy that keeps fish farm sites out of important salmon

migration routes. All of this was created with the understanding that

perhaps this government would have a different approach and, bringing it

back to the budget, that we would be looking at other sources of revenue

and other opportunities than finfish aquaculture. That would be the

expectation, I think, of British Columbians when it came to this

government.

What I’m hearing right now is that, in fact, that’s not what is

possible — what was suggested in that commitment. Is that

correct?

Hon. D. Donaldson: This government is committed to protecting wild salmon and the

migratory routes. What is the issue here that you’re bringing up is that

the replacement of tenures is not the tool to address concerns that

people might have around the impact of fish farms on wild salmon. The

replacement-of-tenure process is a process under the Land Act that a

statutory decision–maker undertakes.

We are very concerned about wild salmon and protecting the health

of wild salmon. The Cohen commission recommendations — the province has

acted on a number of them. A number of them are still in the federal

government’s court. But the tool to get there is not the tenure

replacement process.

A. Olsen: Yeah, you have to, I guess, excuse me then, because I…. The

frustration here is that on one hand, I’ve been told, with the tenures,

from other ministries: this is the place to come. I’ve been with the

Minister of Agriculture, and I’ll be going to other ministries as well,

but I was led to believe — and, in fact, have been told — that this was

one of the tools that was at the disposal of the provincial

government.

[3:45 p.m.]

That is, I think, where the frustration and the confusion is

coming up in this ministry. It was that the government — Forests, Lands,

Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development — is going to be

making decisions about the tenures for these 20 licences which the

federal government has already granted.

The expectation and the confusion in the public is…. There’s an

expectation that the minister actually has a decision-making authority

on the future of those farms. Indeed, I think one of the fish farms that

we met with had that same expectation, so perhaps some clarification is

needed. We keep getting “Go to this ministry” or “Go to that ministry”

on this. I think that’s where some of the confusion is.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I agree. In the public, there is a perception that the province

has way more jurisdiction over aquaculture activities than, in fact, is

reality, especially when it comes to tenure renewal through the Land

Act. Aquaculture licensing is primarily a federal

responsibility.

However, I have read the transcripts the member had with the

Minister of Agriculture in her estimates. What she pointed out…. Maybe

this will help alleviate some of the confusion. I don’t want the member

to get the feeling that he’s been given the runaround: “Go ask this

ministry. Go ask that ministry.”

This ministry, when it comes to legal obligations, has the

ability, during these estimates, to answer questions about tenure

renewal under the Land Act. I have also been charged by the Premier to

be the coordinator when it comes to the process that we’ve embarked upon

with six First Nations around finfish, Atlantic salmon, open-net

aquaculture in the Broughton Archipelago. That, perhaps, is where the

member heard from the Minister of Agriculture to refer questions to

myself when it comes to that particular topic.

A. Olsen: If, in fact, the provincial government has, say, 10 percent or 2

percent of the decision-making of this — whatever it is today — why is

it that the provincial government is leading on that relationship? It

leads with the First Nations. It leads the public to believe that the

provincial government has more authority than is being expressed here

today. If the federal government owns everything, why is the federal

government not leading that? Why are they sitting in the back of the

room as an observer?

Hon. D. Donaldson: What an excellent question and an excellent observation. We have

been asked by First Nations to become involved, and to further

reconciliation, we have. It’s something that they’ve asked previous

governments, and previous governments haven’t been getting involved to

the extent that we have.

We have been successful in bringing Department of Fisheries and

Oceans staff to meetings that we’ve had with the six First Nations, who

we met with on January 30, and we have ongoing efforts.

It’s an excellent question. This is primarily…. The member quoted

right. I would say it’s 90 percent federal jurisdiction as a result of

that court case in 2009. So far, I think the federal government is not

living up to that majority decision-making authority that they have.

We’re continually in touch and trying to bring them to the table

more.

In relation to the member’s question, the reason we’re involved is

that the First Nations who have concerns asked us to get

involved.

E. Ross: To the minister, thank you for your questions to date.

If you haven’t done it already — you don’t have to spend too much

time here — I just want to have a really quick

summary in terms of what

goes into renewing a tenure in regards to fish farms.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you for the question. I did review this a little bit

earlier, but I’ll go into it in more detail now. I’m happy to go into

more detail.

The type of criteria that the statutory decision–maker considers

when it comes to a decision about renewing or replacing or not replacing

a tenure under the Land Act would be things like environmental impacts

of the anchoring, related to the fish farm; the past performance of the

proponent when it comes to issues under the jurisdiction of the

statutory decision–maker under the Land Act, such as whether docks have

been kept up to standard and other maintenance issues that could have an

adverse environmental impact; and First Nations consultation.

Those are some of the factors that would go into a decision around

replacing or not replacing a tenure under the Land Act.

E. Ross: Thank you to the minister for that.

Environmental impacts in terms of anchoring. That makes sense,

because it’s connected to the land and past performance. And standards….

When you’re talking about the standards, I’m thinking you’re talking

about the standards as delivering something under, say, safety

standards, for example, or standards related to protection of the

environment as it relates to anchoring, for example.

Does it go as far as safety standards? Or does that go across

different jurisdictions? Or do you work with different ministries within

the government to actually address these safety standards?

Hon. D. Donaldson: No. Safety standards aren’t part of it, in the way that the member

presented. The past performance I’m talking about is in relation to the

anchoring and the environmental impacts around the facility but not

safety.

E. Ross: I won’t get into the safety issues I have with fish farms in

relation to unlawful occupation, then. I’ll save that for a different

ministry. But in terms of the renewal of fish farm tenures, we were

talking about past performance and issues related to the Land Act,

including anchoring. I’ve brought this up before in other estimates as

well.

I was glad to see that the House Leader of the Third Party

actually brought up evidence-based decision-making. I’m sure that

relates to your ministry, as well, when you’re talking about past

performance and environmental impacts. I’m sure you’ve got a lot of

things to consider when you make these decisions. But how important is

professional reliance, as well as evidence-based decision-making, in

your deliberations about renewing tenures for fish farms?

[3:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Just to be clear, I don’t make the decision. That’s a designated

statutory decision–maker who makes the decisions under the Land Act for

whether to replace or not replace a tenure.

Perhaps I’ll give an example of what I meant about past

performance. Past performance would be, for instance, whether the

operator has been in compliance with the tenure conditions under the

Land Act. Those might be something as straightforward as rental

Land Act, of rental payments?

I believe that the member, if referring to professional reliance,

might be referring more to the activities that are covered under the

federal government, which is the actual aquaculture licence and the

activities that are under federal jurisdiction. When it comes to the

performance of the operator within the water column, that lies within

the fish farm licence.

E. Ross: I don’t want to put words in your mouth, and I understand the

statutory decision–maker’s role in this respect. What I’m really trying

to get at is at the heart of the controversy for the fish farms up in

the north end of Vancouver Island. As far as I can understand it, the

standards have been met in terms of past practices as well as past

performance, and in other respects as well, including environmental

impacts regarding anchoring. I’m assuming, as well, that these fish

farms have actually been compliant in terms of the conditions you’re

talking about — especially, say, something like rental

payments.

The only outstanding issue I can see that may be in question is

First Nations consultation. Am I kind of in the same ballpark as the

ministry?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you to the member for seeking further clarification on how

the Land Act process applies. It would be presumptuous of either of us

to assume that all the conditions associated with the Land Act tenure

have been met or not met — that’s what the statutory decision–maker does

in reviewing the application for replacement of the tenure — but he is

right that a part of that review process is a referral to First

Nations.

E. Ross: That’s what I don’t want to do — make assumptions. Everything I’ve

seen coming out of the controversy off the north end of Vancouver Island

doesn’t mention anything about objections to environmental impacts,

anchoring, past performance in general or standards that were breached

in the past. I’ve read nothing about non-compliance when it comes to

rental payments.

Again, I just want to know if the only outstanding issue, in terms

of the renewal of the tenure, is the First Nations

consultation.

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, again, we can’t presume. That’s going to be the review

that’s undertaken by the statutory decision–maker when the replacement

of the tenures comes up. That review will cover the topic

areas.

We haven’t got to that review yet. I can’t tell the member right

now whether all the conditions have been met under the current tenure.

That’s something that will be assessed by the statutory decision–maker.

This is in regards to the Land Act, strictly. So what might be some

concerns or issues that are outside of the Land Act and that are

happening in the fish farm water column are federal

jurisdiction.

[4:00 p.m.]

As far as the specific tool around the tenure renewal or

replacement process, this is something that’s underway. It’s a normal

course of procedures and a legal obligation. That’ll be undertaken by

staff within the ministry, a statutory decision–maker. I can’t comment

on whether all the criteria at this point have been met or not met. I

was just trying to give an example of criteria that will be evaluated

during the replacement process.

E. Ross: Thank you, Minister. I think what we’re really trying to

understand…. Even my colleague from North Saanich was trying to get at

this. There are so many different jurisdictions and responsibilities

from different levels of government, including within the B.C.

government, whether it be the Ministry of Agriculture, your ministry,

Department of Fisheries and Oceans and maybe, to a certain extent as

well, Attorney General.

I’m just trying to understand the issues related to each ministry,

but as I understand it, the issues kind of cross the different

ministries. I’ll leave it at that. Assuming that the reports from past

reviews are actually public domain, I’ll go check the website, as well,

to see if there were any issues regarding environmental impacts or past

performance or non-compliance.

In terms of First Nations consultation…. I understand your

ministry, just like every other ministry, had a mandate to implement

UNDRIP. And I’ve said this before. I don’t oppose the concept of UNDRIP.

I just don’t understand how it will get implemented in terms of

statutory decision–making — or, in the case of this, your job as

renewing a tenure for a fish farm.

The Chair: Through the Chair, Member.

E. Ross: Sorry about that. I retract that.

To the minister through the Chair, is there any up-to-date

explanation of how UNDRIP will get implemented, in terms of consultation

in regards to the renewal of tenure to the fish farms?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I welcome the question. If the member is interested in a broader

discussion around the United Nations declaration on the rights of

Indigenous peoples, the principles that are encompassed in that, then

that would be an excellent question to bring up during the Minister of

Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation’s budget estimates.

I’ll re-emphasize what I talked about earlier, as far as what is

going on within the ministry I represent, when it comes to the finfish

aquaculture statutory decision–making. Just going back to the previous

comments by the member, we know that 90 percent of…. That’s just a rough

estimate, but I would be confident to say 90 percent of what happens

around fish farm aquaculture in B.C. is under federal jurisdiction when

it comes to health concerns with wild salmon and things like

that.

When we have the jurisdiction of this ministry, when it comes to

referrals to First Nations around Land Act tenure decisions associated

with the anchoring of fish farms, consultation is required. Deep

consultation is required, and part of that follows, I would say, the

United Nations declaration. But this is an operational consultation

process around the permitting applications and renewals under the Land

Act. That’s the focus of that kind of consultation.

E. Ross: No, I’m not looking for a broader discussion on UNDRIP. I’m

looking for a specific conversation in relation to the minister’s

responsibilities in terms of renewing the tenure, because it is in the

mandate letter to your ministry.

[4:05 p.m.]

If it’s just an operational consultation to First Nations, if I’m

hearing that correctly, that poses problems as well. It is probably more

specific if it was under existing rights and title case law. But this is

my issue with UNDRIP in general: there is no specificity to it. There is

no definition. I’ve heard from this government that it’s either a human

rights document, a blueprint for success — and I can’t remember what the

other…. But really, no definition yet.

Just to be clear, the way I think about this is it creates a lot

of uncertainty not only for the government and not only for the fish

farm operator itself but also for First Nations. Ultimately, I don’t

want to see First Nations end up in court trying to define UNDRIP, when

we’ve spend the last 35 years in court trying to define, with great

success,

section 35 of the constitution.

If it’s an operational consultation only, under UNDRIP, do the

First Nations in question — those that support fish farms as well as

those First Nations that oppose fish farms — understand that this will

only be a consultation on the operational side of things, in regards to

the renewal of tenures of fish farms?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, I can agree with one part of the member’s question. That is

that it’s unproductive for all parties, First Nations and the provincial

government, to end up in court over a multitude of issues on the land

base, whether it’s aquaculture or forestry or…. That’s totally

unproductive time. That is why we want to embark on a better process of

reconciliation.

The uncertainty was created, in regards to finfish aquaculture, by

the previous government not paying enough attention to concerns that

were consistently raised by those concerned about aquaculture, open-net

Atlantic salmon fish farms, in their region. We’re trying to address

that and create more certainty.

As far as the Land Act process goes, the First Nations who have

open-net Atlantic salmon fish farms in their waters will be part of the

replacement process as far as consultation. That would include First

Nations that have a range of views on the fish farm issue.

E. Ross: I wasn’t around for the previous government’s handling of the

consultation with fish farms. But as I understand it, the consultation

with First Nations in regards to fish farms will not address the larger

issues in relation to what would usually be addressed under rights and

title consultation and accommodation case law principles.

They’ll probably have the same questions as I will. Where will

that consultation take place, then, if it’s not going to be through

FLNRO? FLNRO will only consult on operational subjects, such as

environmental impacts of anchoring, for example, past performance of a

fish farm and other standards, as well as compliance, including rental

payments.

When the ministry is going to consider the rights and title

interest or the First Nations interest, whether it be under UNDRIP or

under existing case law, what will the minister use to weigh, in terms

of whether or not they’ve fully engaged First Nations and understood all

their concerns — both supporters and opposers of fish farms?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ll cover a bit of ground that I covered with the critic. I

appreciate that the member might not have been able to hear that. And I

appreciate the question.

The United Nations declaration falls in the realm of a political,

principled document. So we have a cross-government exercise where we are

looking at how the UN declaration applies. That’s a cross-government

exercise. Sorry, a cross-ministry exercise, not cross-government.

Cross-ministry. It informs our approach to reconciliation. So that’s, in

a broad way, how the United Nations declaration applies.

When it comes to the consideration under the Land Act of the

renewal or replacement of tenures, specifically to do with aquaculture

and the Land Act, there’s a legally obligated consultative process with

First Nations. That’s got parameters around it, and it’s typified as

deep consultation.

That would be specific to the impacts of what happens under the

Land Act tenure. So consultation around environmentally mitigative

measures when it comes to anchoring into the seabed or the final

position within a location of the fish farm in relation to streams and

things like that.

It’s a very determined, defined and legally obligated consultative

process when it comes to the actual tenure replacement. But it’s not the

overall large exercise about how we’re approaching reconciliation under

the principles of the UN declaration.

E. Ross: The grey area in between that is what I don’t understand and how

it merges to either deny or approve the replacement of a tenure, for

example.

One is a protocol initiative, basically brought to us by the UN.

The other is case law developed in the courts of B.C. and Canada over

the last 35 years that’s actually been translated into policies,

regulations and the duty to consult and accommodate all levels of

government. What I don’t understand is how the two interact or they

don’t interact.

[4:15 p.m.]

It goes back to what was brought up in the House today in terms of

evidence-based decision-making. Because on one hand, when you’re talking

about the duty to consult, the company in question here has made

tremendous efforts to consult and accommodate.

They’ve got tremendous amounts of documents relating to the amount

of times they’ve requested meetings through emails, phone calls, going

to the office in person. That is a portion of what it means to consult

and accommodate that’s got really nothing to do with the United Nations

declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

In terms of the renewal of the tenure, where will the emphasis be

applied to? Will it be applied to the evidence created over the last few

years, in terms of the company trying to consult and accommodate, or

will it be more emphasis placed on the principles of UNDRIP?

Hon. D. Donaldson: The replacement of tenure is a specific process under the Land

Act, under provincial government jurisdiction. Part of the criteria

under what the statutory decision–maker considers when he or she is

making that decision around replacement is a referral and a consultation

with First Nations. It’s not the company’s purview or how much

consultation the companies have done in regards to the First Nations

involved. It’s part of the legal obligation of the province to refer the

replacement applications to First Nations for consultation. I want to

make that clear.

What the member is referring to around whether or not a company

has consulted with First Nations on aquaculture could apply to a lot of

jurisdictional arrangements that are under the federal jurisdiction

licensing-wise. But as far as what’s under the authority of this

ministry regarding the Land Act and aquaculture, it’s a statutory

decision–maker’s responsibility to consult with First Nations as part of

the tenure replacement process. That consultation deals within the

parameters of what this ministry has under its jurisdiction around the

anchoring of the sites and the land access to the sites.

E. Ross: Well, that’s not entirely correct. There is a duty from the

proponent to actually consult and accommodate where delegated by the

Crown. In most cases, the proponent is actually requested to deal with

some of the technical consultations that you’re speaking of. More

importantly, they’re always delegated to actually address the

inescapable economic component of rights and title, and that’s where the

consultation and accommodation provisions kick in.

If the proponent here is not able to basically provide

evidence-based proof of their efforts to consult and, where appropriate,

accommodate the First Nations in relation to the overall tenure process,

or maybe even the overall fish farm, where does a proponent have an

opportunity to prove their best efforts at engaging First

Nations?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Definitely the proponent has a role to play. The best scenario is

where there is engagement with the proponent and First Nations and the

government and also the federal government in matters pertaining to

aquaculture and other issues on the land base.

I have to point out, and I know the member has a perspective…. I

know that I’m not a lawyer, but the ultimate responsibility for

consultation lies with the Crown. If the member has a different

perspective than that, I suggest he bring it up at the budget estimates

with the Attorney General.

J. Rustad: Perhaps a couple more questions to wrap up, and then we’ll be

moving on from fish. Just to start off with a couple more questions on

this, in particular: are there any current tenure applications, and will

the ministry be entertaining new applications for tenures for finfish

aquaculture?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Specifically, I want to clarify…. I believe this was the member’s

question, but I want to make sure on the record that I’m clarifying that

tenure applications under the Land Act are what I’m responding to. Yes,

currently under the Land Act, as far as replacement of tenures, there

are 20.

I think the second part of the question is: must we consider them?

Well, it’s our legal obligation to consider the applications.

J. Rustad: The question I actually had was whether there were new

applications, not renewal applications, for tenures.

Hon. D. Donaldson: The member is referring to whether there are new applications for

finfish aquaculture, which would come through an application to the

federal fisheries, a federal fisheries licence. We’re not aware of any

new applications to the federal government, and we don’t necessarily

track that, but we learn about them in due course once they’ve been

applied to, to the federal government.

J. Rustad: I actually meant whether there are new applications for tenures,

not for licences. But perhaps I should, given my lack of knowledge of

the topic….

[4:25 p.m.]

Are tenures a process that falls after a licence? I’m seeing a nod

from the deputy, so I won’t need to worry about asking the minister to

respond to that. Thank you for that.

A couple of other quick questions. The aquaculture industry is

somewhere between $500 million and $800 million. I think it’s one of the

largest export products, largest agriculture components, within the

province. All of that, of course, is not within the minister’s

ministry.

Neither is the fact…. I find it interesting that the run up in the

Skeena is troubled this year, and there’s not going to be recreational.

But the run in the Fraser, where it goes by all of these fish farms,

seems to be okay for this year, and it’s collecting to be able to have

that operation there.

Regardless of all of that, because obviously that’s not in the

purview of the minister, I do want to go back to something the minister

said, which was working to get the feds more involved. I understand from

another answer that the minister gave that the federal officials were

involved in the meetings — I think it was on January 30 — with various

groups.

To what extent is the minister looking to further involve the

federal government — as well as for future meetings or perhaps other

meetings since or around the time of January 30? Have they met with

First Nations leaders and/or employee groups that are currently involved

in the fish-farming process?

Hon. D. Donaldson: There’s been a lot going on, so I just wanted to make sure that

we’re going to cover it all. We have ongoing, regular meetings with the

aquaculture industry through staff in my ministry and through staff in

the Agriculture Ministry. As well, I’ve had meetings directly in my

office with Marine Harvest, with the president and CEO of Marine

Harvest, and with the Aquaculture Association, in B.C., as

well.

We do, as well, have ongoing meetings and dialogues with the

federal government on this topic. We believe, and we are correct in

saying, that the primary responsibility jurisdictionally is with the

federal government. We’re trying to elevate their involvement in this

particular discussion, so we’ve been working on that. I did have one

meeting back in the fall with the federal minister. The Agriculture

Minister, as well, has been in touch with the federal

minister.

We have meetings lined up between the deputy minister in this

ministry and the deputy minister in Agriculture. They are lining up and

meeting with the federal deputy minister as well. Lots going on, on that

front.

[4:30 p.m.]

Since January 30, we’ve been back in touch with the five First

Nations bands representing six First Nations overall in the Broughton

Archipelago. We’re coming to an arrangement for another meeting on their

concerns and proceeding forward together.

J. Rustad: Thank you to the minister for the answer. One last question that I

have at this time on this topic is around shellfish

aquaculture.

There are many First Nations that have an interest in acquiring

tenures and expanding the opportunity. The federal government, I think,

came out with zoning — sort of go or no-go types of areas. I’m wondering

if the minister can, perhaps, provide us with some details with regards

to the minister’s efforts to be able to issue some of those tenures so

that they could then approach the federal government in looking for

licences.

As you know, shellfish aquaculture has an enormous potential for

growth in this province, but the key is to be able to get tenures

through a process, and obviously the federal government holds the

ultimate key in terms of allowing for production.

I’m wondering if the minister could elaborate on any attempts, or

what the minister might be doing with regards to those tenure interests,

particularly by First Nations for shellfish aquaculture.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I totally agree with the member’s assessment that there is great

potential in shellfish aquaculture, and it’s something that we’re

engaged in with First Nations, in consultation and through

reconciliation, as another avenue to further our relationship and reach

reconciliation. We’ve been meeting with Department of Fisheries and

Oceans officials to try to move it along on behalf of First Nations and

in conjunction with First Nations.

The member is correct. Until the federal government issues a

specific shellfish tenure…. That’s what triggers our process on the Land

Act tenures. So we’re very aware of the situation. I’ve met with a

number of First Nations who are interested in pursuing those kinds of

federal tenures, and we’re engaged with them on it and see it as a big

part of reconciliation. We need to bring the feds in, in a bigger way,

as well.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

J. Rustad: That’ll wrap up my questions with regards to this topic. I just

want to note that we spent a fair bit of time on this, as well as, of

course, on cannabis and rural development. I put that at the front end

of estimates because last fall, when we got into estimates, we really

didn’t get a chance to canvass those. We spent more time, obviously, on

wildfires and forestry-related issues.

What I’d like to suggest is that we’re going to move now to

forestry questions, but with that, I would ask the Chair for a brief

recess to allow staff to change and an opportunity for

refreshment.

The Chair: This House will stand recessed for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:34 p.m. to 4:41 p.m.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

J. Rustad: B.C., obviously — with part of its coastal forest industry, in

particular — exports logs to various places, various other

jurisdictions. I’m curious as to what the log export numbers are and

what they’re projected to be over the next year or two. I’ll start with

those numbers.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I’ll provide some numbers that we have for 2017. The export off

Crown lands in 2017 was approximately 3.6 million cubic metres. That was

down 1 percent from the 2016 export level. The exports from federal

private forest lands in 2017 was 2.6 million cubic metres. Although that

adds up to 6.2 million cubic metres of logs that had permits to be

exported, six million cubic metres were actually exported.

As far as predicting, those are business decisions that I wouldn’t

be able to give an accurate answer on for 2018. It all depends on prices

and markets. But those are the numbers for 2017.

J. Rustad: I’m just trying to do the math. I think, given the harvest numbers

for the past year, that would represent about 5 percent or less of logs

harvested from the Crown lands, then, that would be exported. If that

number is wrong, the minister could correct me on that.

[4:45 p.m.]

Given that there have been statements in the throne speech, as

well as commentary at the Truck Loggers Convention by the Premier — and,

I believe, some comments, as well, by the minister — could the minister

explain whether or not there will be policies coming forward that would

change the current process for exporting logs?

Hon. D. Donaldson: The number is 6 percent. That volume represents 6 percent, in

2017, that was exported off of Crown lands. The member was pretty close;

5 percent is what he said.

We’re interested in looking at mechanisms to ensure and promote

that more B.C. logs are processed in B.C. mills. I think that’s

incumbent on any government. It’s a particular focus of this government

that we get more employment out of every log that comes out of the

forest. So we’re interested in that. We’ve been turning our minds to

that.

As far as the log export dynamic goes, I’m fully aware that log

exports have always been part of the business model for forest companies

to be able to maintain their viability and also to maint