British Columbia Hansard — 16 May 2019, p.m., Issue 260 (41st Parliament, 4th Session)

20190516pm-Hansard-n260

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session, 41st Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (HANSARD) Thursday, May 16, 2019 Afternoon Sitting Issue No. 260 THE HONOURABLE DARRYL PLECAS, SPEAKER ISSN 1499-2175

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

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

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

Jinny Sims Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................ Hon. Rob Fleming Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources ...............................................................................................Hon. Michelle Mungall Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy............................................................................................. Hon.

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

Scott Fraser Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology............................................................................................................................ Hon. Bruce Ralston Minister of State for Trade...............................................................................................................................................Hon. George Chow Minister of Labour ...................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

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

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

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

Raj Chouhan Assistant Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................................................................... Joan Isaacs Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ................................................................................................................ Spencer Chandra Herbert Acting Clerk of the Legislative Assembly...............................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Clerk Assistant — Committees and Interparliamentary Relations ..........................................................................................Susan Sourial Sessional Law Clerk...............................................................................................................................................Loredana Catalli-Sonier, QC Parliamentary Counsel ...................................................................................................................................................................... S.

Suzie Seo Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz Acting Sergeant-at-Arms......................................................................................................................................... Randall Ennis, MMM, CD

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Penticton Bains, Hon. Harry (NDP)...............................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ................................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Beare, Hon. Lisa (NDP).............................................Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Begg, Garry (NDP) ..................................................................... Surrey-Guildford Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal) .......................................................

Peace River South Bond, Shirley (BC Liberal)......................................... Prince George–Valemount Brar, Jagrup (NDP)..................................................................... Surrey-Fleetwood Cadieux, Stephanie (BC Liberal)....................................................... Surrey South Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) ..................................... Vancouver–West End Chen, Hon. Katrina (NDP).....................................................Burnaby-Lougheed Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ............................................................... Burnaby-Edmonds Chow, Hon.

George (NDP)............................................... Vancouver-Fraserview Clovechok, Doug (BC Liberal) ................................ Columbia River–Revelstoke Coleman, Rich (BC Liberal) ...............................................................Langley East Conroy, Hon. Katrine (NDP)......................................................... Kootenay West Darcy, Hon.

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

Doug (NDP).....................................................................Stikine Eby, Hon. David, QC (NDP)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP)....................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Hon. Mike (NDP) ...................................................... Port Coquitlam Fleming, Hon. Rob (NDP) .....................................................Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal)........................................................... Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Hon.

Scott (NDP) ................................................ Mid Island–Pacific Rim Furstenau, Sonia (BC Green Party) ........................................... Cowichan Valley Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ................................................. Abbotsford-Mission Glumac, Rick (NDP)........................................................Port Moody–Coquitlam Heyman, Hon. George (NDP) .............................................. Vancouver-Fairview Horgan, Hon. John (NDP) ...............................................

Langford–Juan de Fuca Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) .......................................................Surrey-Cloverdale Isaacs, Joan (BC Liberal) .........................................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain James, Hon. Carole (NDP)...................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Johal, Jas (BC Liberal)...............................................

Richmond-Queensborough Kahlon, Ravi (NDP)..............................................................................Delta North Kang, Anne (NDP)..................................................................Burnaby–Deer Lake Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal)............................................................................ Shuswap Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .............................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Michael (BC Liberal) ......................................................

Vancouver-Langara Leonard, Ronna-Rae (NDP) ....................................................Courtenay-Comox Letnick, Norm (BC Liberal)............................................Kelowna–Lake Country Ma, Bowinn (NDP) ................................................... North Vancouver–Lonsdale Malcolmson, Sheila (NDP) .......................................................................Nanaimo Mark, Hon. Melanie (NDP) ..................................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Martin, John (BC Liberal)......................................................................

Chilliwack Milobar, Peter (BC Liberal).................................... Kamloops–North Thompson Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ..........................................Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Hon. Michelle (NDP).................................................... Nelson-Creston Oakes, Coralee (BC Liberal) ...........................................................Cariboo North Olsen, Adam (BC Green Party)........................... Saanich North and the Islands Paton, Ian (BC Liberal)......................................................................... Delta South Plecas, Hon.

Darryl (Ind.) ..........................................................Abbotsford South Polak, Mary (BC Liberal) ............................................................................ Langley Popham, Hon. Lana (NDP)..............................................................Saanich South Ralston, Hon. Bruce (NDP) .......................................................... Surrey-Whalley Redies, Tracy (BC Liberal) ..................................................... Surrey–White Rock Reid, Linda (BC Liberal) ................................................

Richmond South Centre Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ............................................................................ North Coast Robinson, Hon. Selina (NDP) ....................................... Coquitlam-Maillardville Ross, Ellis (BC Liberal)..................................................................................Skeena Routledge, Janet (NDP) .................................................................. Burnaby North Routley, Doug (NDP) ................................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, John (BC Liberal) ..............................................................

Nechako Lakes Shypitka, Tom (BC Liberal) .............................................................Kootenay East Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ........................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Hon. Shane (NDP)................................................ Vancouver-Hastings Sims, Hon.

Jinny (NDP) .............................................................Surrey-Panorama Singh, Rachna (NDP) ........................................................Surrey–Green Timbers Stewart, Ben (BC Liberal) ................................................................Kelowna West Stilwell, Michelle (BC Liberal)..............................................Parksville-Qualicum Stone, Todd (BC Liberal)........................................

Kamloops–South Thompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal).......................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal)...............................................Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ......................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ................................................................ Fraser-Nicola Thomson, Steve (BC Liberal)..................................................... Kelowna-Mission Thornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) .............................

North Vancouver–Seymour Throness, Laurie (BC Liberal) ..................................................... Chilliwack-Kent Trevena, Hon. Claire (NDP) .............................................................. North Island Wat, Teresa (BC Liberal) ................................................Richmond North Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (BC Green Party) ......................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Andrew, QC (BC Liberal) .............................. Vancouver-Quilchena Y ap, John (BC Liberal)..........................................................

Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ..........................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ..................................................................... Hon. Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West .................................................................... Michael de Jong, QC Boundary-Similkameen.....................................................................

Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ...............................................................................Anne Kang Burnaby-Edmonds ..............................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Burnaby North................................................................................

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..............................................................Jordan Sturdy Party Standings: BC Liberal 42; NDP 41; BC Green Party 3; Independent 1

CONTENTS Thursday, May 16, 2019 Afternoon Sitting Page Orders of the Day Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 9509 Bill 14 — Heritage Conservation Amendment Act, 2019(continued) M. Bernier Hon. D. Donaldson J.

Rustad Report and Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................................................... 9515 Bill 19 — Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2019 Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 9515 Bill 14 — Heritage Conservation Amendment Act, 2019(continued) J. Rustad Hon. D.

Donaldson Reporting of Bills..................................................................................................................................................................... 9517 Bill 14 — Heritage Conservation Amendment Act, 2019 Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 9517 Bill 21 — Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act, 2019 J. Rustad Hon. D.

Donaldson Report and Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................................................... 9521 Bill 21 — Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act, 2019 Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 9521 Estimates: Ministry of Health(continued) Hon. A. Dix N.

Letnick Royal Assent to Bills................................................................................................................................................................ 9529 Bill 4 — Witness Security Act Bill 7 — Business Practices and Consumer Protection Amendment Act, 2019 Bill 11 — Civil Forfeiture Amendment Act, 2019 Bill 16 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act, 2019 Bill 17 — Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2019 Bill 18 — Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2019 Bill 19 — Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2019 Bill 20 — Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2019 Bill 21 — Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act, 2019 Bill 23 — Land Owner Transparency Act Bill 24 — Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2019 Bill 25 — Coastal Ferry Amendment Act, 2019 Bill 26 — Financial Services Authority Act, 2019 Bill 27 — Ticket Sales Act Bill 29 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2019 Bill 31 — Police Amendment Act, 2019 Bill 32 — Protected Areas of British Columbia Amendment Act (No. 2), 2019 Bill M209 — Business Corporations Amendment Act (No. 2), 2019 Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of the Whole House............................................................................................................................................ 9530 Bill 19 — Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2019(continued) G.

Kyllo Hon. M. Mungall

Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 9536 Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General Hon. D. Eby M. Lee J. Y ap Proceedings in the Birch Room Committee of Supply .............................................................................................................................................................. 9548 Estimates: Ministry of Health(continued) Hon. A. Dix S. Sullivan S. Furstenau N. Letnick A. Olsen J. Thornthwaite L. Reid L. Larson

THURSDAY , MAY 16, 2019 The House met at 1:34 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Orders of the Day Hon. M. Farnworth:In this House, I call committee stage on Bill 14, the Heritage Conservation Amendment Act. In the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued committee stage debate on Bill 19, the Energy Statutes Amendment Act. And in Committee C, the Birch Room, I call continued debate on the estimates for the Ministry of Health. If those were to wrap up, then it would be the Ministry of Attorney General estimates. [1:35 p.m.] Committee of the Whole House BILL 14 — HERITAGE CONSERV ATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2019 (continued) The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 14; J. Isaacs in the chair. The committee met at 1:39 p.m. On

section 14(continued). M. Bernier:Thanks to the minister. In section…. Actu- ally, I’m not sure where in this bill, but

section 14 looks like it might be the appropriate place. [1:40 p.m.] It was my understanding, and I’m just trying to find it in here…. When I look through the Peace region, part of the Elk Valley and other areas where we have some of the major- ity of the paleontological finds in the province of British Col- umbia, I’m wondering if the minister can point to in this bill, under the heritage protection, if or where we have protection for those particular finds that we have in British Columbia. Hon. D.

Donaldson:Paleontological finds are not auto- matically protected but can be protected under a formal des- ignation, which is the way they’re protected under the cur- rent act and the way they’ve been protected in the past. So those kinds of formal designations can happen on private land under

section 9 of the act that we covered already and under Crown land under

section 11.1 that we covered already. That’s under the newly formatted sections of the act under these amendments. M. Bernier:Sorry. I know the minister…. If I heard him correctly, it’s not specific. This is one of the, I guess, questions I have. This is something that most of the local governments, communities, regional districts around the province that have these specific, I would say, assets have been asking for. When you look at, right now, I believe, within this minis- ter’s purview and jurisdiction, everything appears to be more of a handshake deal if it’s on Crown land.

I’m curious on what the thought process was when this bill was being draf- ted, why it’s not in here. Or is there something that’s going to be applied maybe later in regulation to actually protect this provincial asset, which is of huge significance. As the minister knows — I believe he knows — in the northeast, for instance, we have a UN designation as a global geopark because of these paleontological finds, some that are very unique and some of the only specific fossil finds that we’ve found anywhere in the world. So we get that designa- tion because of it.

In order to keep that UN designation, which the province has been very proud about, we have to have some form of regulation legislation in order to protect these finds. One of the challenges that we have right now is that there is nothing stopping someone from going into my area, the Elk Valley, and taking an amazing asset, fossil find, and transporting it out of the province, whether it’s for financial gain or even just into a museum to showcase. The thought is — and I hope the minister agrees — that these are B.C. ’s assets and we should be showcasing and touting them.

Back to the point, I assume I heard the minister right when he said there’s nothing specific. Is there a way through regulation, if this bill passes, to put something in to protect these fossils that are mostly in Crown areas around the province? S. Chandra Herbert:If I might make a request for leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. [1:45 p.m.] Introductions by Members S. Chandra Herbert:I want to welcome students, teach- ers, parents from my neighbourhood, from King George.

Of course, they’re represented by myself, but they live in the West End, Coal Harbour, downtown Vancouver and from across Vancouver, coming down to King George. It’s a great pleasure for me to be their representative, to stand on behalf of themselves. They can’t vote yet, but they certainly have opinions. I look forward to meeting with them after they view this proceeding — to hear them so that I can better rep- resent them as their member of this Legislature. Please welcome King George to the House. Debate Continued Hon. D. Donaldson:What is or can be protected under the act is not changing.

There’s no automatic designation or no automatic protection for paleontological discoveries or 9509

finds or artifacts, I guess. However, under

section 11.1, they can be formally protected on Crown land. M. Bernier:I appreciate the minister’s comments, and I read that in here. I guess my question is: is there any inten- tion to…? When the minister is saying it can be…. One of the things that we’ve been trying to get in legisla- tion, or through regulation, even, is the designation for pale- ontological finds to actually be identified as a heritage find in the province. I was always told, and the minister can cor- rect me if I’m wrong, that under this Heritage Conservation Act…. That’s where I was told would be the best place.

Originally, we were trying to see, you know, if there is a better way to do this — through, maybe, a different act, a dif- ferent regulation specific to paleontological finds. But under 12.1, when it talks about heritage protection…. I mean, everything — it’s in 12.1, under

section 14 — talks about how we should be protecting heritage finds. I guess my question is, back again: is there an intent by this government or by this minister, even though it’s not spe- cific in wording, because he said just now that it can be…? Is the intent that it will be, after this act passes, able to bring in designation around paleontological finds as well? [1:50 p.m.] Hon. D. Donaldson:The intention is to protect paleonto- logical resources as it is now, using a formal designation.

So if there’s a fossil discovery, then the ministry is able to go and inspect that discovery and to assess the significance of that discovery. Then depending on that, a temporary protection order under the existing act can be issued until the signific- ance of that discovery is assessed. If it’s decided that it’s a sig- nificant site, then under the existing act as it is now, a formal designation can be created. M. Bernier:I appreciate…. I’m bringing this up, obvi- ously, as the minister is aware. But I guess I should backtrack a little bit and quantify the views that I hope to see as we go forward.

Obviously, the last thing I want to see is back-country areas shut down because of paleontological or heritage sites. What we hope to see, though, is that relationship — created through local government, industry, provincial government, as well, whether it’s regulation or in the act — to make sure that these significant finds are protected. The minister, if he’s ever travelled to places like the Museum of Natural History in New Y ork, if he’s gone to Drumheller in Alberta — places that showcase amazing paleontological resources and finds — what he will notice is a lot of those are from British Columbia.

The reason why I bring this up is I think we’re missing out on a huge oppor- tunity here. This isn’t about necessarily protecting the land base. It’s about making sure that we have opportunities and policies to make sure that when something is found, we can actually benefit from it. The people of B.C., the local governments, can benefit. If the minister hasn’t been there, I encourage him to stop by Tumbler Ridge specifically. This all started as volunteer- based. We have an old school that was closed down that is now turned into a museum.

Volunteers working with part- nership and sponsorship from industry — in the coal-min- ing industry specifically — have worked really closely with the communities and the volunteers to set up an amazing resource that they have there, as well as not only the discov- ery centre. They’re doing all of the paleontological research. We have some of the only paleontologists in British Columbia based in that region because of the immense finds. I guess it’s that tricky area.

We’ve been very lucky — and I’ll use the word “lucky” in a sense of good stewards — in the fact that the industrial partners we have up in the area…. If they found a find or something that they think might be of historical value of any sort — whether it’s under the herit- age act, as it is right now, or their due diligence as good part- ners in the area working with the volunteers — they’ve done the right thing and stopped whatever activity they’re doing, called in the experts that we’ve been able to get.

Because of that, again, these finds that we have, have now been recognized globally, without regulation or policy. But what has happened, as I said at the onset of this time, was that there’s nothing guaranteeing that those stay in B.C. Again, I just want to…. I guess, if the minister has given some answers that it’s not in the act, it’s not something, obvi- ously, I’m wanting to put an amendment on or anything. It’s more of a comment, then, to the minister that as this goes forward, I invite him, again, up to the region for him to see firsthand, and also through the Elk Valley and other areas.

The minister would obviously note that where most of these finds are, are in areas where we have active mining operations. Specifically, because you’ve got historical coal beds, which typically, also because of the geology, bring out a lot of the time — through about 100 million years ago, where these species were on earth. [1:55 p.m.] I’m hoping that the minister will take note of the fact that we want these assets to stay in B.C. We want support for our local governments who are doing the best they can to pro- mote these assets with no help or support from government.

Actually, I will quantify that again by saying that’s not spe- cific to this minister or this government. It’s something I’ve been working on for a while, and I think it’s time that we get those supports in place. Does the minister look at anything, then, after this bill to try to work with local governments around these finds to actually identify them more specifically? And can he, maybe, tell this House what his plans are going forward on that? Hon. D.

Donaldson:The member covered a lot of ground there, but I think the essence of the comments was the importance of these finds in B.C., not just for the natural his- 9510 British Columbia Debates Thursday, May 16, 2019

tory that they represent but the opportunities for local com- munities. I take those comments to heart. The bill that we’re considering here does not contemplate that blanket designa- tion through regulation or otherwise. I think the member, in the beginning of his comments, pointed out what could be some unintended consequences of that, as far as access to the back country and other factors. There’s still, as I said, the ability to create a formal designa- tion. If a site has been formally designated — and the act has permitted this since 1994 — then if artifacts are removed, people can be charged.

If they’re taking them out of the province from a formally designated site and transporting them out of the province, then that’s an offence. As far as the member’s comments about how to work through some of the concerns that he has voiced on the future, I’ d be more than happy to meet with him and talk about some of the possibilities that he has in mind. As well, I’m always happy to meet with local governments who have those concerns, to see if there are solutions in the future that go beyond what we’re contemplating today. J.

Rustad:When last we were speaking about this, on sec- tion 14, we were talking about the requirement to pay for an order that is being done. I’m just curious. Under

section 14, 12.3(3), the comments at the bottom there: “ …the min- ister may require the person purchasing, subdividing, devel- oping or using the property to undertake or pay for the her- itage inspection or heritage investigation. ” But under 12.3(5), if there is damage done, it’s the government that would be required to pay or compensate for any damage that might have been done to the property. I’m just curious as to why the difference there between government asking a proponent to pay on one hand, but if something is done, then government is offering to pay for any particular liability or damages that are created. [2:00 p.m.] Hon. D. Donaldson:Just to clarify, under

section 12.3(3), the minister may order a person to pay for a heritage inspec- tion. And then under 12.3(5), if the person has been ordered to undertake the inspection and that person has contracted somebody, or during the course of the inspection that has been ordered, damage occurs, then the government is responsible for that damage, liable for that damage, because that order was issued by the government in the first place. J. Rustad:So the order was issued by the government. The individual or group has to pay for that order, but if there are damages done, then the government is liable for the damage that has been done. The reason why I’m asking, as well, and we’ll get to this under

section 24, where it says that to preserve…. This is the issue of if the minister considers the property protected. The minister “may order the owner, subject to requirements, spe- cifications and conditions that the minister considers appro- priate, to preserve the property” at the expense of the gov- ernment. I know that we’re not at that

section yet, so I’m not asking a question specifically about that. But we’ve got a case here, where, if something is found and protection is put in place, government is ordering that to be preserved. Government will pay for that. We’ve got a case where if there are damages done, the government will pay for that. But the individual is still required to pay, if the ministry asks that individual to, for the actual inspection process. I’m just wondering why it’s not consistent all along.

Why wouldn’t we have the situation where, if an order is put in place to do an inspection, there’ d be an expectation that gov- ernment would pay for that order? Hon. D. Donaldson:I would suggest to the Chair that we’re on

section 14, and there is no inconsistency in

section 14 between 12.3(3) and 12.3(5). If the member wants to bring up inconsistencies that he feels exist around

section 24, we can deal with that when we get to

section 24. J. Rustad:It wasn’t a matter of inconsistency. The question directed to the minister is: why is the minister asking indi- viduals to be burdened with that cost — or potentially, they may be burdened with that cost — when in other circum- stances, the Crown accepts its responsibility? Hon. D. Donaldson:This section, 12.3(3), is if…. The minister may — it’s discretionary — require a person pur- chasing, subdividing or developing the property to under- take or pay for a heritage inspection.

If a proponent is developing the property, the minister may require a her- itage inspection and may require the developer to pay for that. If damage occurs during that undertaking, the gov- ernment is liable for that damage because the government ordered the developer to undertake that heritage inspec- tion in the first place. J. Rustad: I guess I’m not stating the question clearly enough. Perhaps I’ll try it a different way. Does the minister feel it’s appropriate that, from an order from the Crown to undertake work, the individual or party responsible should be required to pay for that order? [2:05 p.m.] Hon.

D. Donaldson:As we’ve stated before around this section, this is no change from the existing act. It’s a discre- tion for the minister, who “may require the person purchas- ing, subdividing, developing or using the property to under- take or pay for the heritage inspection…. ” This is consistent with the proponent-pay policy that we see in other legisla- tion, such as in the Environmental Assessment Act. J. Rustad:I’ d love to get into the Environmental Assess- ment Act, but that isn’t what we’re here to debate.

Maybe I should ask this question first before we go any Thursday, May 16, 2019 British Columbia Debates 9511

further. Have there been any orders under this

section of the act since its introduction in the Legislature in 1994? How much was the cost to the individual or group that that order was given to, in terms of carrying out the inspections? Hon. D. Donaldson:There have been orders since 1994 of the type that is referenced in this section. As far as what have been the costs of those orders to those developers or individuals — the persons purchasing, subdividing, devel- oping or using the property — they’re not required to reveal those costs to the ministry, so we don’t have an accurate figure on how much that has resulted in costs to developers.

But as I already answered in a previous question, costs for these kinds of inspections can vary from hundreds of dollars to tens of thousands of dollars, depending on the scope and scale and the geographic loc- ation where the inspections take place. J. Rustad:As I mentioned last time, when we were dis- cussing this the other day, the cattlemen have come and expressed concern with regards to having to pay. They had a recommendation that the province establish a process to fund these sorts of inspections and assessments that are required to be done. I have heard from developers.

I’ve heard from individuals that have expressed concern. For example, there is an area where I live, at Cluculz Lake, that has a designation as a potential heritage site. People have said: “I want to build. I want to put in a driveway” or “I need to build a shed on my property” or “I want to do some modi- fications to the home. ” The cost they had estimated ranged anywhere from $30,000 to $80,000 for an individual, for a house on a lake, to do something simple in terms of a modi- fication to a property. And because these areas are not identi- fied — they’re not necessarily out there on a map — it’s buyer beware.

This is a real challenge for individuals as they buy a piece of property, and they want to do something. Or maybe they had this property for years or in the family, and they wanted to do something on the property. [2:10 p.m.] I know we all have the desire or interest in terms of want- ing to protect the values that are of an archaeological nature. Y ou may think of $30,000 or $50,000 on the Lower Main- land, where housing prices are $1 million, as not being a lot.

But in a place like Cluculz Lake, where I live, where housing prices might be $250,000, you’re talking about potentially up to a third of the value of the home and property having to be spent on an archaeological assessment to maybe find some- thing or maybe not find something in terms of this. Now, that isn’t necessarily an order as per this section, but it speaks to the issue that I’m trying to get at, which is: this act creates a burden, whether it’s on property owners or people that want to do things, whether it’s on private land or otherwise, that is, of no fault of theirs, an interest to the province.

The province has said it wants to protect its heritage, and I don’t disagree with that. I think we need to protect the heritage. But there needs to be a mechanism, because these kinds of costs could lead to a situation where people don’t want to report because they don’t want to have to go through this stuff.

I mean, that would be breaking the law, and I’m not suggesting anybody should do anything like that, but I’m concerned that you may end up in a situation where you’re missing valuable archaeological information or arti- facts simply because the cost becomes too prohibitive for an individual to be able to proceed. So it’s a real concern. For that purpose and for that reason, I’m suggesting an amendment. I’ d like to move the following amendment to this section. There’s only small change, but I’ll read through the whole

section which starts off with 12.3(3): [SECTION 14, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown: 12.3

(3) If an order for a heritage inspection or heritage investiga- tion made under subsection (1) relates to (

a) alienation of government-owned property, (

b) a public work authorized to be undertaken under

an Act, (

c) the extraction or harvesting of resources from land, (

d) the subdivision of land, or (

e) changes in use or development of land, the minister may require the person purchasing, subdividing, devel- oping or using the property to undertake or pay for the heritage in- spection or heritage investigation and have all related costs reim- bursed by the government.] On the amendment. J. Rustad:The piece that is changed is taking out the “or pay for” and adding in at the end “and have all related costs reimbursed by the government. ” The intent, once again, with moving this motion forward is that it is a government responsibility for heritage in the province of British Columbia. We recognize that. We have

an act that is in place to protect the heritage values. It shouldn’t be a burden upon individuals who, by no fault of their own, may find themselves in a situation where there’s an order in place to investigate the potential heritage value. By putting this in, it creates ability for people to be able to come forward with information willingly because they know it’s not going to be a significant financial burden. Quite frankly, it is the responsibility of the Crown, so that’s hence- forth why I’m moving this amendment. The Chair:Could I suggest a two-minute recess until we get a copy to the minister?

The committee recessed from 2:13 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. [J. Isaacs in the chair.] The Chair:The question is the amendment to

section 14 proposed by…. Member for Nechako Lakes. J. Rustad:Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the minister was going to be responding. Y ou sounded like you were 9512 British Columbia Debates Thursday, May 16, 2019

about to call the question. I just wanted to be careful, because there may be some discussion about this before we get to the question. The Chair:Fair enough. Hon. D. Donaldson:Before we call the question, I would just say that the consequences that are outlined by the mem- ber in this proposed amendment could have significant fin- ancial costs to the government, so we’re not going to be able to contemplate this amendment at the time.

For instance, on looking at it, it would require the govern- ment to undertake all costs related to a developer propos- ing a major development if the minister has ordered that a heritage inspection has to occur as part of that development. We can’t support this amendment because of the significant potential cost to government. J. Rustad: I find that somewhat interesting from the perspective of the minister talking about the potential of a significant financial burden upon government.

What do you think that would be to an individual, in terms of this going forward — as individuals that are out trying to do something? I get that there may be a situation where there may be some talk with regards to a developer and a large product and that side of things. But if somebody is just trying to put in a shed, and they have to incur a significant financial bur- den, that is not fair. It’s not right. It’s the province that values the heritage components that are out on the land base. It’s the province that has asked for this. It’s the province that should have that responsibility to pay.

If the minister is worried about a significant contractor, a large developer doing a project, perhaps there’s a way to modify this. But we need to find a way so that we aren’t overburdening individuals in particular, whether it’s ranch- ers or others, with the costs associated with doing this type of project, and create a potential fund or some other mech- anism where government can help or cover the costs associ- ated with this.

I’ d ask if the minister is interested in potentially even standing down this section, assuming the amendment does not fail, to give an opportunity to be able to work collabor- atively to come up with a process that could see individuals not having to cover these sorts of significant costs. Hon. D. Donaldson:We’re not considering this amend- ment in its current form because of the potential implica- tions, which are unaddressed, to significant financial costs to the government. The member talks about some other examples beyond major development.

We’ve already covered the ground around fence posts and ranchers, where, if there is low impact to potential sites, they might not even be required to get a permit. There could be blanket exemptions, depending on specific circumstances. [2:20 p.m.] The member brings up an example of a shed. If it’s not a ground-altering project, then a shed could be permitted or not even require a permit, depending on where and the cir- cumstances. If there were potential impacts, then the min- istry can work with the proponent to create mitigative meas- ures, so we’re not going to be entertaining this amendment at this time. J.

Rustad:It’s a shame. The minister knows that if you’re putting in any structure, whether it be a septic tank or a shed or something else, you pretty much have to lay some foundations of some kind or put a hole in the ground to be able to do these things. If that is within an area that has potential archaeological values, there’s a potential issue with doing that. It’s unfortunate the minister won’t consider the amend- ment. We’ll let the amendment go forward for a vote, and then I’ll ask the minister about potentially other options that we could consider. Amendment negatived on division. J.

Rustad:Well, like I say, it is disappointing. Would the minister consider, like I mentioned earlier, potentially stand- ing down this

section to find a way to create a bipartisan approach, a mechanism by which individuals — small pro- jects — would not have to burden the cost of such inspec- tions or orders? Hon. D. Donaldson:This

section is a discretionary sec- tion. It says that the minister may order a proponent, a per- son “purchasing, subdividing, developing or using the prop- erty to undertake or pay for a heritage inspection. ” It doesn’t say it has to happen. It’s discretionary. I’ve already discussed some of the measures that can be taken into consideration, site-specific, and how those can be applied in cases where individuals are bringing either the construction of a shed or fencing. So I’m not willing to stand down on this section. J. Rustad:Moving past

section 14 on 12.3(3), looking in particular at 12.5(3): “ A permit does not authorize the per- mit holder to enter property, or to make any alteration to property, without the permission of the…occupier. ” [2:25 p.m.] Later in the act, when it talks about entry and inspection, it talks about being able to go onto property. I’m just won- dering why, under the permit requirements and conditions, it does not allow the authorization to enter onto the prop- erty, in particular, without permission of the owner. Hon. D. Donaldson:This

section 12.5(3) refers to a per- mit holder — a site alteration permit, for instance. It just Thursday, May 16, 2019 British Columbia Debates 9513

gives the permit holder the ability to do the site alterations, not to enter property. We’ll get what the next

section that the member refer- enced…. When we get to that, that’s regarding not permit holders but natural resource officers. J. Rustad:I’m just curious. How does one go about getting a permit to undertake work on a piece of property that isn’t their own? Hon. D. Donaldson:An example of that would be Crown land. J. Rustad: Okay. That’s an interesting example. So the Crown has issued a permit to go onto property, and they have to get permission from the Crown to go onto the prop- erty? Is that what the minister has just said? Hon. D.

Donaldson:The permit authorizes the permit holder to conduct an activity, and that’s what the permit is strictly referencing. To access the property in order to do that activity requires permission of the property owner. That’s what this

section is about — that the permit issuance for the activity doesn’t automatically grant the permit holder access to the property or permission to enter the property. J. Rustad:I’m just curious about this again. I need some further clarification from the minister, if I could. How does an individual or a group organization receive a permit for an activity on somebody’s property, without their permission to do that? I’m not quite sure. I’m not sure exactly what this is trying to get to.

Assuming you’ve got somebody who is going to do some construction or some work or a road or whatever it may be, there would have been some sort of agreement in place to get on the property. Otherwise, they would never have been able to get access to a permit. So I’m just curious. I’m con- fused with the minister’s answer, so perhaps the minister can provide some more details. Hon. D. Donaldson:Again I want to emphasize this is the current wording from the act. It’s not changed under the amended act that we’re considering today.

This is simply to provide legislative clarity that because you hold a permit doesn’t mean you necessarily can enter the property. An example might be that a property owner might not hold the permit because the permit might require some specific recognized skills that are required under archae- ological training. So an owner would not be able to access that permit. [2:30 p.m.] The heritage branch, under this act, or the government, the ministry, would issue the permit to a qualified individu- al. That’s legislative clarity.

In no way does that allow the pro- fessional entry to the property, unless it’s under the author- ization of the property owner. J. Rustad:To the minister, thank you for that explanation. [R. Chouhan in the chair.] I want to continue moving on through

section 14, in particular, looking at No. 12.7 under

section 14: “ Amend- ing, suspending or cancelling permits…. ” Under (2), it says, “The minister may take any action under subsection (1) if the minister has reasonable and probable grounds to believe any of the following, ” and it goes through a list of a number of things. Where would the minister receive information that would lead the minister to have probable grounds to believe that any of those followings may have occurred? Hon. D. Donaldson:The probable grounds. The member was asking how the minister would get information around probable grounds. Well, that would come from expert wit- ness testimony.

For instance, an archaeologist could be on site monitoring the work and inform the ministry that there has been a contravention. That would be probable grounds. J. Rustad:I would recognize that — if there was such oversight that was happening in an activity and it was repor- ted. What I’m concerned about in this particular

section is if a member of the public at large, of no particular skill set, were to report something to the minister, whether that would be giving the minister probable grounds to believe that any of the following had occurred. Hon. D. Donaldson: Obviously, part of the act is to ensure the protection and conservation of heritage values. If a person reports concerns to the ministry and, therefore, to the minister, it would depend on the circumstances — whether they had, for instance, photographic evidence or otherwise. Those are just examples.

If it’s deemed that there’s a possibility, then the minister could ask the ministry to send a qualified individual out to inspect the site to determine if probable grounds are there. J. Rustad:Is there any penalty or other consequence for somebody making a false claim with regard to potential activity that may be happening or potential archaeological value that may be there? [2:35 p.m.] Hon. D. Donaldson:There’s no penalty in this act. There are other forms in other acts that would qualify for Criminal Code mischief. Staff are well versed in working with indi- vidual members of the public.

I’m sure that the member’s constituency assistants know about what can sometimes become people who are continually registering false asser- tions. The staff is well able to understand legitimate, serious concerns from those that aren’t as valid. J. Rustad: The situation, in particular, I was thinking 9514 British Columbia Debates Thursday, May 16, 2019

about was a situation where there were some artifacts that were found on the Coastal GasLink project which were likely had been placed there after the fact and then, of course, reported through to the ministry, looking for a way to be able to stop a project. The concern, of course, is that that obviously could potentially have financial consequences or other consequences to a project that might be moving for- ward. I just use that as one example. In cases like that, obviously, there’s a requirement — or the minister may, at his discretion, decide — to do a follow-up and look at it.

That’s a situation that could be quite serious, particularly for a small developer or for other types of pro- jects where there may be some contentious issues that are going on. That’s just why I was considering that. If the minister thinks that it’s covered off under Criminal Code activity, then perhaps that’s good enough. But I want to just ask the minister for some clarity around that so that if one of those circumstances does happen, there’s some clarity in terms of how this act would be applied. Hon. D. Donaldson:The member brings up and makes some statements about a specific situation.

I’m not going to address those specifics because there have not been the determinations that he has outlined. However, I am willing to discuss the broader question that he addresses of how the act deals with considering probable grounds when it comes to information reported by members of the general public. Again, I’ll say that once those concerns are registered with our ministry, staff assesses those concerns and any evidence presented and then can send a qualified staff member from the ministry to the site to investigate the report. There are opportunities to address the concern if it is found to be valid.

In the

section we’re discussing, 12.7(2), it outlines what actions can be taken if it’s deemed by the minister as prob- able grounds. If there are cases where the situation warrants it, then investigations can lead to violations under the Crim- inal Code. That’s often up to law enforcement or even the proponent. Sections 14 to 17 inclusive approved. On

section 18. Hon. D. Donaldson:Before we get to the member’s ques- tion, I move the amendment to

section 18 standing in my name in the orders of the day. [SECTION 18, in the proposed

section 15.1 (3) (d) (ii) and (iii), by deleting “or control of” and substituting “or control, of”.] On the amendment. The Chair:The member on the proposed amendment. J. Rustad:If we could take a two-minute recess, I just want to read the amendment that the minister is putting forward. I haven’t seen it yet. So five minutes here. The Chair:The House will be in recess for ten minutes. The committee recessed from 2:40 p.m. to 2:48 p.m. [R. Chouhan in the chair.] Hon. D. Donaldson:I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. Motion approved. The committee rose at 2:49 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again. [2:50 p.m.] Report and Third Reading of Bills BILL 19 — ENERGY STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2019 Bill 19, Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2019, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. Hon. D. Donaldson:I call estimates for the Ministry of Attorney General in the Douglas Fir Room and continued committee stage of Bill 14 in this chamber.

Committee of the Whole House BILL 14 — HERITAGE CONSERV ATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2019 (continued) The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 14; R. Chouhan in the chair. The committee met at 2:51 p.m. On

section 18(continued). Amendment approved. On

section 18 as amended. J. Rustad:I’m curious. Through this section, there are fairly sweeping powers that are in here in terms of entry and inspection where an order’s been put in place. I’m just wondering if this lines up with the Criminal Code and the authorities that have been enacted for RCMPs for peace officers. Thursday, May 16, 2019 British Columbia Debates 9515

Hon. D. Donaldson:I’ll actually read to the member the intent of the change in this section, provision. I believe that will help to answer his questions. This new provision brings the Heritage Conservation Act into alignment with enforce- ment provisions in other natural resource legislation such as the Forest and Range Practices Act, which provides these powers for the Forest Act and Range Act, the Environmental Management Act, the Wildfire Act and the Water Sustainab- ility Act. Those are just a few examples of natural resource officers having the provisions that are being outlined in this amend- ment.

Of course, these were drafted by legislative counsel to ensure that they adhere to constitutional law.

Section 18 as amended approved.

Section 19 approved. On

section 20. J. Rustad:Just a quick question on

section 20. [2:55 p.m.] In 16.1(1), it talks about a “stop work order that prohibits any alteration of the property for a period of up to 120 days. ” Is that standard with other acts that may see similar types of orders being put in place? Hon. D. Donaldson:The 120 days that’s referenced in this

section 16.1(1), under stop-work orders, is consistent with the current act. There’s other natural resource legislation that has stop-work order provisions as well. A couple of examples are the Wildfire Act and the Forest and Range Practices Act. Those periods of time vary. That isn’t necessarily the same as the 120 days, but there are stop-work order provisions in other acts as well. Sections 20 to 23 inclusive approved. On

section 24. J. Rustad:I referenced this earlier with regards to 21(1), which talks about the expense of the government with regards to preservation intervention. Perhaps I can give an opportunity for the minister to explain why, and with this particular section, it’s appropriate that government would pay for this action. [3:00 p.m.] Hon. D. Donaldson:This is in reference to damage or deterioration that may be happening to a designated site or a site that’s outside of the proponent proposing something under site alteration or outside of an archaeological invest- igation.

If there’s some kind of natural erosion that could be damaging or deteriorating a designated site on a property, then in order to preserve the property, it can be done at the expense of government. J. Rustad:Not to belabour the point, but in the discussion we had under

section 14, under 12.3 was an order by gov- ernment to do an inspection in case there was an issue, and here we’ve got an order for a further action should there be potential for damage and deterioration. Once again I’m asking: what is the difference? Why is gov- ernment paying in this case, where in that case the govern- ment was not paying? Sorry. To be clear, government may not pay, of course, because it is at the discretion of the min- ister — back in the previous section. Hon. D. Donaldson:This

section — I believe it’s

section 24 that we’re on — is in reference to immediate temporary protection for the site or the objects on the site. It’s not in ref- erence to archaeological impact assessments, which the pre- vious

section was. In the previous sections, we talked about a minister being able to order an archaeological impact assessment. If, during the activities of that assessment, it’s deemed that further damage or deterioration may be occurring, then the minister may require the property owner to take meas- ures around preservation. The example we had with that in previous discussions in this committee stage was a tarp being put in place. This

section that we’re referencing right now,

section 24, is about being able to take actions to prevent further damage or deterioration. An example is if natural erosion is occur- ring and it’s impacting a designated site on private property. Then it’s at the expense of government to undertake that. J. Rustad:I do understand that side. But just once again, not to belabour it, you know, there is that fairness factor. In some cases, that fairness seems to be in place, and in some cases, it doesn’t. With that, that concludes all the questions I have on Bill 14. Sections 24 to 40 inclusive approved. Title approved. [3:05 p.m.] Hon. D.

Donaldson:I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment. Motion approved. The committee rose at 3:06 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. [3:10 p.m.] 9516 British Columbia Debates Thursday, May 16, 2019

Reporting of Bills BILL 14 — HERITAGE CONSERV ATION AMENDMENT ACT, 2019 Bill 14, Heritage Conservation Amendment Act, 2019, reported complete with amendment, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today. Hon. D. Donaldson:I call the committee on Bill 21, intit- uled Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act, 2019. Committee of the Whole House BILL 21 — FOREST AND RANGE PRACTICES AMENDMENT ACT, 2019 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 21; R. Chouhan in the chair. The committee met at 3:12 p.m. On

section 1. J. Rustad:Before we start on this, I forgot to say this on the previous bill: just a thank-you. I appreciate the staff and the work that they’ve done on this and on the previous bills. There may be some difference of opinion, but I always appre- ciate the work that staff do. On

section 1,

definitions. I’m actually kind of curious about “ecological community” and “a group of different spe- cies occupying a particular area. ” I’m just curious as to that particular definition and what the minister anticipates. Why is that a significant component that needs to be in these

definitions? Hon. D. Donaldson:The new definition for the term “ecological community” is added, as the member has poin- ted out. An ecological community is a group of organisms occurring together in a particular environmental setting. Examples include some of the most imperiled ecosystems in the province, such as antelope-brush and needle-and- thread grasses. [3:15 p.m.] The definition added by this amendment allows the pro- tection tools in the act, the general measure tools, to be extended to ecological communities.

Similarly, what exists already in the act is equivalent to the wildlife measures already in the act, as far as extending those protection tools. This definition just provides more clarity around those potentially imperiled ecosystems. J. Rustad:Under (b), I recognize, from second reading, the desire to take out the range stewardship plans. There are other sections in the act where we could speak about this, but I thought I would give the minister an opportunity right now to provide a rationale for the removal of “or a range stewardship plan. ” Hon. D.

Donaldson:Certainly, I would like to address the reasons for striking out range stewardship plans under the

definitions section, under 1.1(c), as referenced by the member. He’s right; we can also get into that later, but I will give him the rationale at this point, since we’re in the

definitions section. The rationale is that of the approximately 1,570 range agreements, no range agreement holders currently use a range stewardship plan, given their complexity and addi- tional costs, without significant improvement to the qual- ity of range management. We’re repealing the authority of the minister to authorize a range stewardship plan, which comes later, but it’s consequential to have this repealed in the definition. It will provide for a single range plan, an example being a range use plan when grazing or cutting hay.

So this will simplify regulatory requirements and provide administrative efficiency not only for government but for range agreement holders, which I know was much appreciated by the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association when we met this week. J. Rustad:I appreciate the minister’s willingness to pro- vide a bit of an explanation under

definitions. It wouldn’t be in the normal place where you’ d raise this sort of a question, but I thought it might be simpler than many other places in the act where there are changes associated with it. Just along those lines, I had heard from some ranchers that range stewardship plans were often considered or even developed, in part or in whole, by some ministry staff. Now, I don’t know…. I wasn’t given any examples of that, but per- haps I could ask the minister if he knows of any examples where a range stewardship plan was enacted or worked on within a ministry for a particular client. [3:20 p.m.] Hon. D.

Donaldson:There have been range stewardship plans presented in the past to the ministry. An example would be that Judith Guichon had to have submitted a range stewardship plan over tenure that she was using for range. Similar to the forest stewardship plan, a range stewardship plan was required to be submitted by the proponent or the tenure holder. Oftentimes they had to hire a professional agrologist to create one and to submit it to government. It’s not the work of government to undertake these plans. As noted, there is no longer a requirement if and when this bill receives royal assent.

The direction this bill takes in eliminating the requirement for range stewardship plans was supported by the B.C. Cattlemen’s Association and the Guide Outfitters Association of B.C. J. Rustad: Back to ecological community just for a moment. Something just popped up that I was thinking about. There’s a group of different species occupying a par- Thursday, May 16, 2019 British Columbia Debates 9517

ticular area. As the minister knows, there could be, obvi- ously, invasive species that are not native or not normal within an area. Does this definition or that component con- sider whether or not that ecological community would be required to be native to the area or whether it could be a combination? Hon. D. Donaldson:Ecological community is an estab- lished term in biology. It does not include invasive plants, as the member was asking. These are about imperiled eco- systems in the province. As I said, the examples I gave were antelope, brush and the needle-and-thread grass ecosystems.

So it’s about an established biological term. It’s not about invasives. Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved. On

section 4. J. Rustad:I think the minister provided some explana- tions during second reading. The gist of what this bill was about was to restrict the ability to be able to extend the stew- ardship plans beyond five years and require them to be done and posted. I’m just wondering if the minister can provide some rationale for the intent — to expand, if he could, on his comments from second reading — of limiting these plans to the five years for a forest stewardship plan with only the option for the small number of either months or a couple years of potential extensions. [3:25 p.m.] Hon. D.

Donaldson:I believe the member was asking for the rationale behind this section. There are a couple of reas- ons for the changes that are reflected in this section. They have to do with, first off, the fact that there’ve been, of late, many changes on the landscape, whether it’s from pests like the mountain pine beetle or larger fires. After these changes on the landscape through, oftentimes, natural disturbances but to such a large degree, having the forest stewardship plans renewed every five years and resub- mitted every five years….

First of all, it allows the public to be better informed about how forest companies are address- ing the changes on the landscape that have happened. It allows First Nations and the public to be better informed. So there’s a transparency aspect there. Also, it allows more frequent review to ensure that the best forest management practices are being applied on the landscape, due to these large-scale disturbances, under forest stewardship plans. The way the act is now, some of the forest stewardship plans have been continually exten- ded. Some of them are ten years old, and some of them are even 15 years old. J.

Rustad:I thank the minister for that. Has the ministry done a cost analysis in terms of what additional costs this may bring to forest companies? [3:30 p.m.] [J. Isaacs in the chair.] Hon. D. Donaldson:There will be some additional costs associated with now having to submit forest stewardship plans every five years, but we anticipate there is going to be a trade-off there in that there is going to be greater security for tenure holders, knowing that their forest stewardship plans are going to be looked at every five years.

With that increased transparency, there is less likely to be opposition from public or FSPs being held up by public concerns when the public is concerned about forest stewardship plans being so long overdue that they haven’t addressed some of the events that have been occurring over the five-year, sometimes even ten- year, period. So a balance between additional costs.

There’s also greater security for those submitting the forest stewardship plans — because less likely for holdups in implementing those plans and less likely because of the transparency factor in oppos- ition from the public, who don’t have the ability to under- stand what’s going on, on the land base, by a tenure holder. J. Rustad:We’ll get to

section 6, which has the discussion around damages and what have you that may trigger it. I’m curious, though. If there were changes to the landscape because of natural disasters, fires, pests, other types of activ- ities that may happen, it makes sense that there would need to be an updated plan, and I think that’s probably reflected here. But where there are no changes, why would there be a requirement to update the plan when a plan lays out harvest- ing activities for a longer period of time? Hon. D.

Donaldson:It’s because requiring every five years for the plans to be submitted triggers public review and com- ment, and it’s part of government’s role to provide oppor- tunities for that public review of forest stewardship plans on Crown land. J. Rustad:I’m curious. Forestry is a long-term activity. We’re talking about harvesting within an area, through a rotation — 80 to 100 years, maybe 120 years. A shorter rota- tion sometimes on the coast, in those areas. The activity, of course, is carrying on. It’s not like they’re not going to be logging or they’re going to be increasing logging.

It’s logging based on the cut controls. Without there being significant changes to the area of operations, without there being significant changes to the landscape that’s going on, the public is aware of and obvi- ously engaged with the forest activities, whether it is guide- outfitters or range or mining activities or recreation or other activities within a particular area. All of these things are known in advance. They’re all contacted. They’re all engaged in terms of when a plan comes forward.

Why would there be a need to force everybody to have to go through looking at this every five years if there are no 9518 British Columbia Debates Thursday, May 16, 2019

substantive changes to the activity or to the approach that a company is taking within an area? In a way, it would actu- ally, potentially, raise concerns, because people are wonder- ing: “Why am I getting these questions again when I thought I’ d just looked at it five years earlier, and there was no sub- stantive change?” [3:35 p.m.] Hon. D. Donaldson:First of all, just in a general sense, certainly more opportunities to avail people of participating in oversight of the forests in their communities is something that I think is good and this government thinks is good.

We’ d rather err on the side of caution when it comes to the ability of the public to have a look at forest stewardship plans. That’s why this transparency factor and requiring them to be sub- mitted every five years is part of the amendments that we’re introducing in the Legislature. The member does bring up a good point about: well, what if not a lot has changed in the area covered by the forest stewardship plan? I think he was referring to a natural dis- turbance. If that’s the case, then the job of redoing and then resubmitting the forest stewardship plan wouldn’t be very onerous.

However, there are other changes that could occur over the five-year period that aren’t related specifically to a natur- al disturbance. There could be new rulings from the courts around Aboriginal rights and title that become an overarch- ing direction that has to be considered in a forest steward- ship plan. There might be impacts from climate change over a five-year period that have to be addressed. There might be ungulate winter range changes over five years that need to be addressed.

This requirement to have a plan every five years, resubmit a plan, is able to cover all those and address transparency so that the public is more aware of what’s going on in the forests that surround their communities. J. Rustad:Forestry activity requires a significant amount of capital, whether you’re investing in a sawmill or some sort of processing facility.

Boards or owners of these compan- ies have to make these decisions based on the reasonable expectation for return; the reasonable expectation of being able to have certainty, particularly in fibre; the reasonable expectation to be able to operate on a land base. Now, there are, obviously, factors — whether it be govern- ment changing the land base because of an agreement with a First Nation, a natural disaster or these types of things — and those need to be factored in. But for a company that wants to invest significant dollars for operating, they’re looking for some security.

They’re looking for some certainty, or at least predictability, in terms of the fibre supply, in terms of what they can think going out. They know the risks, and they have the understanding of issues such as forest health or other types of things. They also know about the uncertainty on the land base because the land question has not been addressed or settled with First Nations. [3:40 p.m.] Adding this layer in of additional reporting, without being able to extend where there are no other changes, adds a layer of complexity.

It may create additional uncer- tainty for companies that are trying to operate on land- scape as to whether or not they should make a decision to invest in the landscape. As the minister well knows, we’re in a very challenging time in British Columbia at the moment for a variety of reas- ons. The uncertainty that is being created on the landscape, as well as in the markets, has led to many companies holding back on investments. There’s a concern, of course, that this is just yet another piece of uncertainty. I guess the question to the minister…. The minister said, I believe….

I’m trying not to put words in the minister’s mouth. From what he said a couple of answers ago, he believes that going back and having to redo plans every five years, going back and engaging the public, going back and engaging various stakeholders and stuff on the landscape will add certainty. The argument, I would suggest, is that it will do the opposite.

Does the minister have any performance measures or any other types of way to measure whether or not this type of policy approach of not being able to extend these beyond five years will create a disincentive or uncertainty for companies, at least over the short term, while there’s an adjustment, or potentially even over the long term? Hon. D. Donaldson: I know that we covered these kinds of discussions at second reading debate. This is com- mittee stage, so if the member wants to address the ques- tion in the context of

section 4, or address changes that are contemplated in

section 4, then I’ d be happy to consider the question. J. Rustad:Well, it was actually in the context of

Section 4 is what drops the forest stewardship plans to five years without the possible extension for another five or ten years, which is what, potentially, is creating uncertainty. This is why I’ve asked the question, so I hope the minister would con- sider the question relevant, associated with

section 4. Hon. D. Donaldson:In reference to

section 4, which requires the forest stewardship plans to be submitted every five years, the reason that this increases certainty for those who are providing the FSPs and are required to provide the forest stewardship plans is that it would be in the realm of the public. There would be less opposition to a plan that is reviewed every five years. The corollary of that is there could be public opposition to a plan that has not been updated publicly or publicly viewed for over five years. [3:45 p.m.] This is an ability for the tenure holders to make their harvesting plans explicit on the land base. It helps them in Thursday, May 16, 2019 British Columbia Debates 9519

their relationships with the public and First Nations. This act, this new provision, does not speak to tenure. Tenure is for a set period. Simply put, what’s being addressed in

section 4 is how the company will operate on that tenure, and that is through a forest stewardship plan, and a forest stewardship plan is required in order for the company to harvest. By requiring it every five years, it heads off a lot of potential concern from the public if it goes beyond five years and people aren’t aware of what’s planned for the harvesting close to their communities. It does not, in this section, prohibit an extension. For instance, that five-year plan, under certain circumstances, can be extended.

We can give the extension for up to six months if there’s something that is beyond the tenure holder’s control regarding why they weren’t able to resub- mit their plan. Sections 4 and 5 approved. On

section 6. J. Rustad:This is the

section we were talking about, made reference to earlier, with regard to catastrophic damage changes on the landscape. And I’m just curious with regard to this particular section…. As we know, the landscape is dynamic. There are always changes on the landscape. Some of it could be significant, in terms of a large fire; some of it could be relatively minor. What does the minister consider to be catastrophic damage? Hon. D.

Donaldson:Before I begin the part of the answer that relates more directly to the question, I just want to make sure you note in 8(2) that “The minister may order the hold- er of a forest stewardship plan…. ” So under this, it’s not a giv- en, but it’s discretionary. Of course, this is the

section related to catastrophic dam- age. That is left to be decided under the discretion depending on…. It can depend on climate change. It can depend on insect attack. It can depend on fire.

But really, the Forest and Range Practices Act was created in order to empower statutory decision–makers at that statutory decision–making level to have the ability to make discretionary decisions about what could be, in this case, catastrophic, because they’re the ones who are in the best position, knowing the local and regional conditions and local and regional con- cerns of industry and the public and First Nations. [3:50 p.m.] J. Rustad:I’m just curious. What is considered to be with- in the vicinity of a forest development plan?

I understand there may be impacts within a plan, but I’m just curious as to what the minister is considering with that. N. Simons:I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members N. Simons: I just want to introduce a class from Presidio Middle School, I believe, from Richmond, California — grade 7s, 25 of them. They’re here visiting with another group that’s coming in later. I just wanted to say welcome to British Columbia, wel- come to Victoria, and it’s nice to have you here. Debate Continued Hon. D. Donaldson:This is about managing ecological risk.

There could be a number of forest development units within a forest stewardship plan, so what might have an impact on one forest development unit might impact anoth- er part. Therefore, that’s the reason for the language around “within the vicinity of a forest development unit. ” An example of this could be fires that run across forest development unit boundaries or nearby, as it says in the plan, the vicinity of the forest development unit — if there are eco- logical disturbances nearby that are impacting water flow, for instance.

These are all what are captured by the language “or within the vicinity of a forest development unit. ” Sections 6 and 7 approved. On

section 8. J. Rustad:Just for purposes of this discussion, I’m curious: what is the time frame of a woodlot licence plan? Hon. D. Donaldson: The woodlot licence plan term remains the same as it is in the legislation right now, and that’s a ten-year plan. J. Rustad:Given the small size and the nature of woodlots in a very specific area base, does the minister consider ten years appropriate? I’m just curious whether the minister considered any change to that — potentially extending it. [3:55 p.m.] Hon. D. Donaldson:I understand that the member typ- ifies woodlots as small.

Whether I thought the requirement for a plan every ten years is appropriate…. I know woodlot owners. I know there can be up to 1,200 hectares. However, there are 855 woodlots across B.C., so from that point of view, they’re not necessarily small, and the stewardship role that they play is significant. So we do feel it’s appropriate for a plan to be required to be submitted every ten years, as it is laid out in the act currently. Sections 8 and 9 approved. On

section 10. 9520 British Columbia Debates Thursday, May 16, 2019

Interjection. J. Rustad:The member from the Sunshine Coast thinks it’s too late. Maybe it is too late on a Thursday afternoon. Under

section 10, flipping over to 15.3, “Exemption from requirement to publish a forest operations map. ” I’m won- dering if the minister can explain the rationale for that exemption. Hon. D. Donaldson:Just to clarify, was the member talk- ing about

section 15.1(3) or 15.3? J. Rustad:What I was looking at was just where it says: “The minister, in writing, may exempt a person from

section 15.1 or 15.2 if the minister considers that timber should be harvested without delay because the timber is in danger of being (

a) damaged, (

b) significantly reduced in value, or (

c) lost or destroyed. ” The reason why I ask that question is that earlier there was the need and the potential desire to update plans if there was a catastrophe or if there was damage being done. And here, it’s saying the minister, in writing, may exempt the person if it’s damaged and to carry on. So I’m just wondering about the rationale for the difference between the two, where one is saying that you may need to update a plan and the second is saying to hurry up and go harvest. [4:00 p.m.] Hon. D.

Donaldson:Just to give the context under the proposed amendments to this legislation, a forest operations map has to be published by the tenure holder two years before applying for a cutting permit, with approximate loca- tions of the cutblocks and the roads. If something happens in that two-year period that could result in losing the shelf life of the timber for its merchant- ability to be used after being harvested, then this exemption gives the minister the flexibility to allow for that harvesting to occur, even if it wasn’t in the forest operations map that was submitted two years earlier.

Sections 10 to 12 inclusive approved. On

section 13. J. Rustad:Not that I have a question specifically on 13, but just to let you know that I have no other further questions to this bill. Sections 13 to 62 inclusive approved. Title approved. Hon. D. Donaldson:I move that the committee rise, report the bill complete without amendment. Motion approved. The committee rose at 4:02 p.m. The House resumed; R. Chouhan in the chair. Report and Third Reading of Bills BILL 21 — FOREST AND RANGE PRACTICES AMENDMENT ACT, 2019 Bill 21, Forest and Range Practices Amendment Act, 2019, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed. Hon. D.

Donaldson:Could I request a five-minute recess while we get the House Leader and call the next item of busi- ness for this chamber? Deputy Speaker:This House will be in recess for ten minutes. The House recessed from 4:05 p.m. to 4:20 p.m. [R. Chouhan in the chair.] Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again. Hon. M. Farnworth:In this chamber, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Health. Committee of Supply ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH (continued) The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); J. Isaacs in the chair.

The committee met at 4:21 p.m. On Vote 31: ministry operations, $20,698,339,000 (continued). Hon. A. Dix:For people keeping an eye on the debates at home, my many colleagues in the House — I think about 27 MLAs so far — have participated in the debate with respect to the Ministry of Health — in particular, my colleague crit- ics, the member for Kelowna–Lake Country, who’s the oppo- sition critic for Health, and the member for Richmond South Centre, who’s the opposition critic for seniors. We’ve done about 14 or 15 hours of debate.

We don’t want anyone to think we’re just starting here now and will end an hour from now. We’ve had a substantial debate on lots of issues. These are the estimates debates, and I’ll leave the floor to my colleague and friend from Kelowna–Lake Country. Thursday, May 16, 2019 British Columbia Debates 9521

N. Letnick:Thank you to the minister for the 15 hours of debate. We were actually in another room where we were just a few feet from each other. Now we’re at least six sword- lengths from each other, so it’s a different dynamic. I feel like I skipped a couple of grades in school, right? We’ve gone from this little room, skipped the Douglas Fir Room and come to the big House. This is the only big house I ever want to see, by the way. I don’t want to ever see that other kind of big house. We were actually getting along really well in the other room.

Now that we have to scream and yell and shout so we can hear each other, I’m not too sure if the dynamics will be the same, but let’s give it a try. Since we had a break over the last 3.6 minutes, I thought what I would do is finish off binder No. 1 and come back to drugs in just a sec. The town of Sidney has problems with physicians. They have five doctors but are told no nurses, so they cannot deliv- er babies in the area. The medical transportation is an issue. They have no ultrasound, it’s hard to get X-rays and, as I said, no maternity. No flights for Fort St. John.

They need to go to Prince George, and most people need to transport themselves and wait two to three days for emergency evacuation. Obviously, that’s a challenge as well. Northern Health bus is available, but they cannot afford, in some cases, the hotels required. Their idea is to have a weekly charter to Fort St. John and wanted to know if the minister would be interested in looking into such a solution. [4:25 p.m.] Hon. A. Dix:I think the issues raised by the hon. member, issues especially of transportation between rural and remote communities and major centres….

Sometimes we imagine those centres to be Vancouver, but sometimes, of course, people in the north view communities such as Fort St. John or Prince George as the centre that they sometimes have to go to and sometimes have concerns about in getting access to all the resources. I appreciate the member raising issues around the com- munity of Sidney, around the concerns around doctors. What I’ll undertake to do is undertake to have a discussion with the president of the Northern Health Authority, Cathy Ulrich, who is an outstanding leader there, to talk in partic- ular about transportation issues.

I think one of the positive initiatives, an initiative that we’ve improved since we’ve become government but was an initiative undertaken under the previous government, was the Northern Health bus that’s helped many communities. But it doesn’t help all of them, and it doesn’t help people in every circumstance. The member makes a suggestion there. I don’t reject it in principle. I just would want to learn more about it. Now that he’s put it on the agenda, I’ll certainly be asking Ms. Ulrich and also officials of Northern Health to respond with ideas.

I think that in general — and the member will know this because we’ve had this discussion on previous days in estim- ates — issues around travel assistance and travel are some of the most challenging issues in rural health. Over a period of decades, we’ve centralized care in big cities, partly because we’ve improved care, improved the level of care. The result of that has been…. For communities up here in Logan Lake, it means cent- ralizing care in one place. If you’re in Sidney, it means cent- ralizing care in another place.

Generally, health systems have responded to the concerns of rural communities by saying that the issue of transportation is a matter of personal cost, not a health system cost, which has actually improved the case for centralization in many cases. I’m interested in what the member is suggesting. I would guess it comes from the community. And I would be inter- ested in any material that he has. We’ll be in touch.

I know they’re watching on TV now in Northern Health, so I’ll be in touch with them to talk about issues around that com- munity, and I look forward to meeting with people in that community at some point in the future. N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for his positive response. Just for the record, it might help to say who was leading in this particular initiative. Mervyn Lougher-Goodey is a coun- cillor with the town of Sidney, and also Bill Streeper, mayor for the Northern Rockies regional municipality. That might help in the communication.

Feel free to tell them I sent you, and feel free to do so prior to UBCM in September, because if he doesn’t, they’ll probably want to make one of those many appointments with the Minister of Health. I think the Minister of Health gets as many appointments as the Minis- ter of Transportation. I’m not too sure who wins that pool, but quite close.

I look at all the things that we’ve covered over the last three days: the health budget, the regional health budget, MSP beneficiaries, people moving in from other provinces, the estimated federal health transfer analysis and GAAP , the office expenses of the minister, the status of Mills Memorial Hospital, medical school spaces, resident spaces, doctor res- ident remuneration, physician supply, interprovincial mobil- ity and foreign immigrants, violence against nurses, LPNs, chiropractors’ scope of practice, urgent care centres, primary care networks, medical homes.

We talked about concerns from family doctors, what defines an attached patient, a non- attached patient. [4:30 p.m.] We looked at non-surgical wait-lists for northern com- munities, particularly in long-term care, surgical wait times — maybe that’s, probably, the only time we saw a little fric- tion in the room, if I might say that; we’ll see — DBS surgery, bariatric surgery, organ donation, MRI strategy and results, pain management. And that was just the first binder. It’s just amazing how much we’ve covered over the last three days. We’re coming down to the last 50 minutes.

With that, I’ d like to ask, on behalf of seniors — the Cana- 9522 British Columbia Debates Thursday, May 16, 2019

dian Association for Retired People, or CARP , and in this case, CARP British Columbia…. Jeff Cowan and Beverly Baxter had a request for the government to look at funding some important drugs. They represent 74,000 members in the province, approx- imately, and, of course, there are way more than 74,000 seni- ors in this province who would benefit from this.

Currently MSP pays for the standard dose of influenza protection, but the high dose of influenza vaccine is four times more power- ful and, in fact, has been recommended as the vaccine seni- ors should have by the National Advisory Committee on Immunization in 2019. The challenge, of course, is that seni- ors have to pay for it. The average retail price is $90. [R. Chouhan in the chair.] Prevnar 13 is the best vaccine for pneumonia, but seniors also have to pay for that, and the average price, I believe, is $120. I say I believe, because I did my three-hole punch, and it went right through the number.

So maybe his staff can confirm if it’s $120. The Shingrix vaccine is the best possible vaccine for shingles, and of course, seniors have to pay for that. The average price is approximately $330. Given that the average cost for a three-day stay in a hospit- al in B.C. to treat lab-confirmed influenza was about $15,000 in 2017, the investment in all vaccines would be offset by keeping just 5,800 patients from getting influenza in the first place. Their research from the UBC college of pharmacy says that some 16,000 folks required treatment last year alone.

The ask is simple: could all three be made available to seni- ors at no charge to them, just like it is in Ontario and several other jurisdictions? Hon. A. Dix: There is a process, both nationally and in B.C., to assess the value of vaccines — to assess them and their efficacy compared to one another. I think it’s fair to say in the case…. The member said that in some jurisdictions, some of these drugs are covered. In the case of shingles, for example, it’s not Shingrix. I do not believe it’s covered any- where in Canada. The one province that has coverage, in terms of vaccine coverage, is Ontario.

It’s for a drug called Zostavax. They estimate, in Ontario, that that drug…. I think Zostavax has a 50 to 55 percent efficacy rate, if I recall. The cost in Ontario of that program is $68 million. What we’ve done and what we continue to do is to assess the value of vaccines every year, including flu vaccines, including high-dose vaccines, including shingles vaccines and others. We review those issues of cost every year, and we base that in the same way that we review the prescription drugs and other medications.

We get recommendations nationally and then here in British Columbia, and we make decisions accordingly. I know that there is a lot of interest, amongst senior organ- izations in particular, in expanding coverage for a variety of vaccines. I would say not just in seniors’ populations but in other populations as well. There are also, as the member will know, in some cases, with some of the vaccines, very extens- ive advertising campaigns that you can see in areas, essen- tially to promote the direct sale of vaccines, which happens.

I have one of the ad campaigns in my head now, but I won’t share that with the member. [4:35 p.m.] These are challenging questions. We base our responses on the evidence. The B.C. Communicable Disease Policy Advisory Committee reviews the provincial immunization

schedule annually. It assesses and monitors the evidence and efficacy of all high-dose vaccines for potential inclusion in the immunization process. My job as minister, then, is to respond to those recommendations. N. Letnick:Thank you to the minister for that answer. The minister did say that the government does review these requests annually. Could the minister please tell us if that means that on a specific day, the decisions come out, or is this an ongoing thing throughout the year?

In other words, does annually mean that at the end of the fiscal year a decision is made, or are they made on a case-by-case basis all the time? The Chair:Minister of Health. Hon. A. Dix: Thank you very much, hon. Chair. It’s so delightful to see you in the chair this afternoon too. It raises all of our spirits, I think. As I noted, the B.C. Communicable Disease Policy Advisory Committee reviews. It sometimes reviews more frequently than annually, because there may be new infor- mation about particular vaccines.

I’m told that routinely, though, that review happens around June and then is for- warded to the ministry to assess the conclusions of the reviews. N. Letnick: Thank you for that answer. That’s a good answer. This way, all of the interested parties will know at some point — whether June or July, whatever the particular date is — whether they’re getting the funding or not. Is there a publicly accessible list of what’s being asked for by the ministry, and then the decision whether or not they have been approved when they do that annual review? Interjection. N. Letnick:Let me try it a different way.

After three days with the minister, we kind of know each other’s tells. If we review the requests annually, let’s say in the case of Orkambi, and the decision is made in June or July, will some- thing be posted on line that shows Orkambi approved, a tick, or Orkambi not approved, an x, and perhaps the reasons why, along with all of the other drug requests that have come into the ministry over the last year that are also approved annually in the June time frame? Thursday, May 16, 2019 British Columbia Debates 9523

Hon. A. Dix: We were talking about immunizations. There’s a review process for immunizations, vaccines. With respect to Orkambi, it’s obviously a different process. It’s not an annual process — or drugs such as Orkambi. The member may be asking about Orkambi, and therefore, I can give him an answer on that now, should that meet his needs. In this case of Orkambi, the process is first guided by the manufacturer, of course. They submit in the CADTH pro- cess, the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health process. In the case of Orkambi, that occurred in June of 2016.

The original decision was made in June-July 2016. There was an appeal by Vertex, which is the manufacturer. That appeal was essentially…. [4:40 p.m.] The do-not-list recommendation from CADTH came for- ward in November 2016. It was then reviewed by the Drug Benefit Council in February of 2017, roughly, and the decision was made by the Ministry of Health, in March of 2017, not to list Orkambi. In the summer of 2017 — I’m just trying to make sure I have the chronology right — the issue of Orkambi became a more significant public issue.

There were a number of patients that had expressed con- cern, obviously — and people were concerned throughout the summer — particularly a number of patients who had received private coverage for Orkambi and then were seeing that private coverage withdrawn. They had started on the drug, and then they had seen coverage withdrawn. We made a number of changes. One of the concerns that Vertex, the manufacturer, and others had had was some information they’ d felt they could bring to the table in the assessments of the common drug review of CADTH. They hadn’t been able to do so.

Working with other jurisdictions, British Columbia led this process. We expanded the types of evidence that they could submit in that process. It’s sometimes difficult to do the kind of reviews when you have a rare-disease drug, because the number of people that can be part of the clinical trial is, by definition, small. We made those changes. There was a resubmission by Vertex and, subsequently, a new decision by CADTH, the common drug review, to not list, again, in this year. That’s where we are now. In that case, decisions weren’t made at a particular time of year.

Obviously, decisions in British Columbia are made based on evidence-based information. The CADTH pro- cess is a clinical process and also assesses the value of the drug, the value for money — value of the drug as well. That’s the process they’re in. In British Columbia, since we had the CADTH process, I think only one drug that hadn’t received CADTH approval — a drug called Duodopa, which the member might be familiar with. That was approved by the previous government, but that drug had simply not been resubmitted for ten years in the CADTH process and had been approved in many other provinces.

That was the one exception in the last 14 or 15 years, a really significant exception. I say all this, and the member will know that we’re obvi- ously very concerned. There is a full

schedule for patients suffering from cystic fibrosis. We know what a debilitating disease it can be for people. I’ve certainly spoken to many people, in the discussion and debate about Orkambi, about those very questions. The member will also know, of course — I’ve tried to be as open as possible in this forum, and I continue to be — that at least one patient, I think patient group, is currently suing me, suing Mr. Brown and suing the government around the coverage decisions here, which is their right. That’s a process that they’re going through right now.

The information that I’ve just laid out is our public out- look on what happened. It’s an exploration, a little bit, of what the process is. The process is something that will be approved. It comes forward, and then we have to assess — through the Drug Benefit Council first and then through the ministry — when coverage is provided. It’s not a particu- lar time of year that that would happen. The immunization schedule, which is a different thing, is assessed in a more reg- ular way, because immunization programs run that way. In general, we’re working all year round.

The assessments can come when they’re ready and when CADTH does the assess- ment. It’s not a particular time of year. That is a very long answer to that question. N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister for his compre- hensive answer to the question. On the Orkambi, I think it’s important to provide some context for the listeners who aren’t familiar with the issue of cystic fibrosis. I have many, many letters describing individual cases. I’ll just pick one — a Ms. Lilia Zaharieva. This is from theGlobe and Mail. I don’t have the date.

I’ll find it later. [4:45 p.m.] “The 31-year-old said her health has improved dramatically since she started Orkambi two years ago, initially paid for by private insur- ance, now” — as the minister has said — “under Vertex’s compassion- ate use program. In the year before she started the twice-daily pill, she spent 45 days on intravenous antibiotics fighting infections. She was weak, struggled for breath and had coughing fits that sometimes led to vomiting. ’Before Orkambi, ’ she said, ’I felt like I was starved for air all the time.

It was a terrifying way to exist. ’ “Her lung specialist gave her two to five years to live. She says: ’I was ready to transition out of this world, thinking about how to wrap up loose ends in my life at 30 years of age. ’ But her grim prognosis changed in September 2016. ” Because she was a UVic student, she had Orkambi through a health plan, but it did cost $250,000 a year. It treats the underlying cause of cystic fibrosis, rather than suppress- ing its symptoms. It changed her life. Obviously, it was a miracle to her.

She said: “I took a deep breath in, and it was nearly effort- less. ” However, in September 2017, she learned that the drug would no longer be covered under her student plan. She was, of course, asking for the government to look at funding it. The company that manufactures the drug gave her a 90-day free supply on compassionate grounds. 9524 British Columbia Debates Thursday, May 16, 2019

Dr. Elizabeth Dunn, PhD, biochemistry and molecular biology, would like to add to the discussion. She says 40 per- cent of CF patients in Canada are children. CF patients with genetic type 4, for which Orkambi is effective, spend 30 to 90 days in hospital every year without the drug. The cost to occupy a bed at B.C. Children’s, on a daily ward, is $3,300 per day, and the ICU is $4,300 per day. This means taxpay- ers spend between $99,000 and $300,000 every year just to hospitalize a single patient at B.C.

Children’s Hospital before even considering the costs associated with doctors’ fees, ser- vices, diagnostic testing, imaging, pharmaceuticals, etc., to name a few. Orkambi has been shown to substantially decrease hospit- alization. It does not take long for savings like this to nullify the cost of the drug. Orkambi is scheduled to undergo fur- ther consideration at the national level, as the minister has said, by the common drug review, in the spring and summer. My question. The government has, in other cases — the minister has pointed to one — not followed the recommend- ation of CADTH.

The government does use the therapeutics initiative to review drugs. Did the therapeutics initiative give any indication, through the process, as to whether Orkambi should or should not be covered? I already hear…. But I’ll ask it anyway. Is the government currently reviewing wheth- er Orkambi should or should not be covered in light of the court challenge that’s now in front of the minister? Hon. A.

Dix:As the member knows — I think I went over this, but I may not have made this point — on February 15, 2019, the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance advised Vertex that it would not be entering into negotiations for Orkambi. The member talked…. I put the issue of the case of Duodopa because we want to have all the information out there. We’re talking about hundreds of decisions and thou- sands of compounds. The governments consistently, over time, have followed an evidence-based approach to making these decisions, and the evidence-based approach that we use, collectively, is the CADTH process.

They decided in July 2016, again in November 2016 and again, more recently, to recommend not to list Orkambi on formularies — not to recommend its listing on formularies. That decision was also made by the Drug Benefit Council and, of course, the Min- istry of Health in March 2017 as well. [4:50 p.m.] I think the member will know that one of the things that concerned me was to ensure that Vertex, on this drug, would have the opportunity to include non-randomized controls trial data as part of its resubmissions. We advocated for that. We helped make it happen.

They did allow all of that infor- mation to come in, and they had the same recommendation: not to list. I think we’re talking about a drug that would cost B.C. tax- payers, should we support it, in the neighbourhood of $90 million over three years, and those estimates may be low. To recommend a drug under those conditions, which doesn’t meet the evidence-based thing, would obviously require a political intervention, I would say, over the evidence. That has not been the approach of Ministers of Health for decades in B.C., and it’s not my approach. However, I’ d say one other thing.

The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board has begun investigating the current price of Orkambi in Canada for being excessive. It’s unknown when that investigation will be completed, but I think it’s appropriate. There have been years when senior executives at Vertex made tens of millions of dollars. Their list price for this drug is $250,000 per patient per year. This is an important question as well. So we have to also be voices, I think, to companies such as Vertex for fairer prices. The issue that faces Canadian jurisdictions is also facing oth- er jurisdictions.

The member will know that there’s a signi- ficant debate in the United Kingdom going on right now, and some very novel suggestions are being suggested by mem- bers of the United Kingdom government with respect to how to deal with Vertex in that discussion. I encourage him to review those. This is a part of the challenge. We work hard to negotiate when drugs meet a clinical value. In this case, unfortunately for Orkambi, the common drug review has now consistently — on the original decision, on the appeal and now again — decided to recommend not to list the drug. That’s very diffi- cult, I think.

Obviously, this makes for challenging decisions for people. I know that many people who support and have friends and who are living with cystic fibrosis do not like that decision. I appreciate that and respect that. We’re continuing to work together with them to improve other supports for people with cystic fibrosis all the time. I think the results….

The life expectancy of people with cyst- ic fibrosis has been increasing dramatically in recent years, and that’s a tribute, to the whole community who are sup- portive around the disease and the individuals involved and the many doctors who provide enormous service. I’m very respectful of all that, and it’s our challenge to continue to do that. It’s also our challenge, I think, on these difficult decisions around prescription drugs, to follow the evidence, to respect the processes that we’ve set up and to ensure that we’re making evidence-based decisions. N. Letnick:Thank you to the minister for that.

The Pacific Hepatitis C Network sent me a letter. I can’t remember specifically if I had a delegation or not. Daryl Luster, the president, talks about hepatitis C as a blood- borne virus that causes liver disease over time, but symp- toms can be present and debilitating long before. Approxim- ately 73,000 people live with chronic hepatitis C in British Columbia, a disproportionately large portion of the estim- ated 240,000 Canadians living with hep C.

Their recommendation to the government is that the gov- ernment commit to the development and implementation of a hep C–specific plan to eliminate the virus in B.C. by 2030 and that the plan to eliminate hep C in B.C. include mean- ingful and robust community roles both in the development Thursday, May 16, 2019 British Columbia Debates 9525

of it and the implementation. Will the government commit to such a plan? [4:55 p.m.] The Chair:Minister. Hon. A. Dix: Thank you, hon. Chair. I’m encouraged by your rapt attention here, hon. Chair, to all that I’m saying. The answer to the question… Community-based organ- izations, particularly the Pacific Hepatitis C Network, for which the member is bringing forward their question, play a very important role — the member will understand this — in B.C. ’s viral hepatitis response. They make connections between individuals, communities and health services. They provide education and public awareness.

They provide sup- port services of many kinds, including harm reduction and testing, and they bring the voice of lived experience, which is always important to policy-making. The member will know, perhaps, that there was a hepatitis strategy in 2007. It’s that hepatitis strategy that we are in the process of updating. Happily, we’re close to that updating of that process. I was handed a draft strategic integrated approach, so we’ll hopefully have that released soon.

I should say that there’s very significant work being done in this area, especially building on the lessons learned from our response to HIV and the approaches aligned with World Health Organization guidance and global approaches, to eliminating hep C in B.C. It should be said, also, that we’ve seen increasing coverage over the last number of years in very effective hep C drugs. That’s why we can say with some confidence that we’re able to eliminate hepatitis C. We currently cover seven different direct-acting antiviral drugs for hepatitis C. Those drugs will go a long way in helping us to do what we hope w

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20190516pm-Hansard-n260
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20190516pm Hansard n260
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	4ee4777e58340a79f660b040f66da5704f89f96a

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