Second Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, November 18, 2021

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 132

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Transgender Day of Remembrance

N. Letnick

Transgender Awareness Week

G. Lore

Knud Thomsen

G. Kyllo

Guru Nanak

A. Singh

Robert Hampton Gray

A. Olsen

Cloverdale Christmas hamper program

M. Starchuk

Oral Questions

Government response to severe weather events

S. Bond

Hon. M. Farnworth

T. Stone

Children and Family Development Ministry relationship with Indigenous families

A. Olsen

Hon. M. Dean

Service model change for children with support needs and services for Indigenous children

A. Olsen

Hon. M. Dean

Government response to severe weather and flooding of farmland in Abbotsford area

M. de Jong

Hon. M. Farnworth

Forest policy changes and support for forest workers

J. Rustad

Hon. K. Conroy

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 23 — Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2021 (continued)

J. Rustad

Hon. K. Conroy

L. Doerkson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 22 — Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2021 (continued)

T. Stone

Hon. L. Beare

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2021

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: A. Singh.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Dean: It’s my honour today to welcome to the precinct — although not

everybody has managed to make it just yet — Tana Millner, executive director

of the Child Development Society of Fort St. John; Karen Dickenson Smith,

executive director of Fraser Valley Child Development Centre; Dominic

Rockall, executive director of Nanaimo Child Development Centre; Lynn

Mathiesen, executive director of Quesnel Child Development Centre; Joshua

Myers, executive director of the B.C. Centre for Ability; and Jason Gordon,

provincial advocate from the B.C. Association for Child Development and

Intervention.

They’re all member agencies of the B.C. Association for Child

Development and Intervention. We have a meeting later today, but I’d like to

take this opportunity to thank them all so much for all of the work that

they do for vulnerable children and youth across the whole of the

prov­ince of British Columbia every single day.

Would everybody please make them very welcome.

J. Rustad: It’s a real pleasure today to introduce a few guests in the

Legislature. These are hard-working indivi­duals from our forest

sector. They’re very proud of what they do. They’re very proud of their

forest sector.

I’d like to take this opportunity to introduce Bob Brash, who’s the

executive director of the Truck Loggers Association. The Truck Loggers

Association has been around for 75 years now and represents contractors and

individuals and suppliers right across the province, but especially on the

Island. As well, with Bob is Tim McGonigle, who is a director for the town

of Lake Cowichan. Travelling down from up on the north end of the Island, we

have Tamara Meggitt as well, who is a mum and a wife of a contractor very

involved in the forest sector.

Would the House please make these people welcome.

G. Lore: I am beyond thrilled to make a couple of introductions

today.

First, I see Jade Ashbourne and Britt Flamank, who both support the

gender equity office and the Minister of Finance, and I’m so thrilled

they’re here today.

Also in the gallery are my incredible kids and my amazing in-laws. My

son Asher is resilient and creative and loves learning about animals. I’m

sure he also wants you to know he belongs in Slytherin house. My daughter

Eve is seven, and I am so lucky to be her mom. She is funny and leans into a

dramatic flare for life and is very good at math.

[10:10 a.m.]

My in-laws, Bill and Louise Parker, are here. They are rocks in my

family, and without them, I don’t think that I would be in this job or,

frankly, have survived the last year. Bill also worked in the public service

for decades, serving governments of all colours, including with the Leader

of the Official Opposition and former Minister of Advanced

Education.

I am just so happy to have them here today. Will the House please help

me make them welcome.

S. Bond: How wonderful to have family in the Legislature today. To the member,

we continue to think about you and your family.

I am delighted to join my colleague in introducing several members

from the forest sector who are here today. Obviously, it is critically

important they hear about the work that is going on in the Legislature and

the pending impacts.

I’m delighted to welcome Nancy Ponting — she is with Ponting

Contracting; she is a representative of the B.C. Forestry Alliance — and, of

course, Mark Ponting, who is also with Ponting Contracting. I would ask

members to make them welcome today.

N. Sharma: It’s with great pleasure that I welcome Patricia Mamic, public and

government affairs director for Salvation Army British Columbia, and Maj.

Sheldon Feener, area commander for social mission at the Salvation Army

British Columbia.

They will be launching their annual kettle campaign later today, and

all MLAs are invited, just at the library steps at 12:10 p.m. Please join me

in welcoming them to the House today.

Hon. S. Robinson: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Jade Ashbourne, one of my

senior ministerial advi­sors, who is joining us here in the House

today. Jade joined my team back when I was Minister for Municipal Affairs

and Housing, and she uses she/they pronouns. She has transitioned during her

time working with me.

Jade brings her intelligence, problem-solving skills and incredible

communication skills every day to the team at Finance. She has a talent for

finding just the right word at just the right time. I’m grateful for all of

her contributions.

Over her time working with me, I’ve come to really ap­preciate

and value her integrity, her work ethic, her sense of humour and, I do have

to say, watching her smile grow every single day.

But not only does she bring her talents; she has a son who is almost

five years old, who has been a frequent visitor to my office, and her son

and I have been known to build a fort or two out of the coach

pillows.

Would everyone please welcome Jade Ashbourne to the House.

K. Greene: I rise to wish my constituent Robert Walters, known to most as Bob, a

very happy 100th birthday. He’s watching today with his family at

home.

Bob is a retired French professor, born in Ohio on October 20, 1921.

He pursued an academic career, earning a PhD at Princeton. In 1949, he won a

Fulbright scholarship that led to the first of many long stays in Paris and

a life­long involvement with France and French culture.

He came to Canada in 1951 to teach French literature and was happy to

become a full professor at Western University in 1962, complete with a move

to London, Ontario with his wife and three stepchildren. He became a citizen

in 1985 and is a proud Canadian.

He enjoys travel, especially to Paris, but moved to north Steveston in

2006 to be close to his loving daughter, son-in-law and two grandsons. Bob

takes art classes and walks every day.

He told me he was especially excited to get his vaccine card so he

could get back to going to restaurants and thea­tres with his friends.

He says the key to staying young is having friends much younger than

you.

Will the House please join me in wishing him a very happy 100th

birthday.

Hon. J. Whiteside: We’re going to go right to the other end of the age scale for this

next introduction. I want to say that today is a very special day for our

family. It’s Abigail Margaret Zekosky’s birthday, and she’s watching from

home today with her parents.

Abby is my great-niece and my goddaughter. She came into the world a

year ago today in the midst of so much tumult but pretty much right on time

and, thankfully, oblivious to all of the complications of a global

pandemic.

She brings unbounded joy to her parents, my niece Bran­die and

her husband Dan, and so much light and love to our whole family. Who knows?

She just might find her way to a seat in this House one day.

[10:15 a.m.]

Would the House please join me in wishing our dear Abby a very happy

first birthday.

A. Olsen: Today I want to just pause and acknowledge that it’s our 15th

anniversary. Emily and I were married 15 years ago today for the second

time. That was because in August of the same year, the Leader of the Third

Party’s mother fake-married us for the first time. That was before I had met

the Leader of the Third Party, ironically enough. Nonetheless, we knew her

mother for quite some time before that.

I want to raise my hands in gratitude to my loving partner and wife,

Emily, who does so much in order to allow me to do this work and to take the

time to do this work — hopefully, well. I also acknowledge and raise my

hands in gratitude to the work she’s doing in our community at the

W̱SÁNEĆ Leadership Secondary School

as an EA — as well, as an advocate for mental health and wellness in our

community in an event she hosts annually called the Connection

Project.

I know she’s not watching today, but hopefully, she will watch the

video later when I post it on my YouTube channel. Would the members of this

House please thank Emily, along with me, for spending so many years. To many

years into the future.

T. Shypitka: I’m absolutely honoured today to make two introductions — both from

the forest sector, which is critically important to my riding, as it is to

the rest of the province.

The first is Jeff Bromley, who’s a longtime Cranbrook resi­dent,

a friend of mine, a hockey dad just like myself. I thought we’d lost Jeff to

the Lower Mainland here a couple of years ago, but I’m happy to say he’s

still retained in Kootenay East. He is the Wood Council chair for the United

Steelworkers. He’s in the precinct here somewhere today. And Brian Butler is

the president of the United Steelworkers Local 1-1937.

Would the House please welcome both Jeff and Brian.

Hon. K. Chen: I’m so grateful to have the opportunity to wish happy birthday to my

senior administrative assistant, Cherie Wilson, for her 34th birthday

tomorrow. Cherie has been with our team since day one of the Childcare B.C.

team and our plan. She’s an incredible, courageous young woman with three

kids, who I’ve learned so much from over the years, and she supports the

work I do every single day in this House.

I just want to wish Cherie a happy birthday. Thank you so much for the

opportunity.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

TRANSGENDER DAY OF REMEMBRANCE

N. Letnick: On November 20, 1999, transgender advo­cate Gwendolyn Ann

Smith organized a vigil to honour the memory of Rita Hester, a

transgender woman who was killed in 1998. Since then the annual vigil

has not only honoured Rita’s memory but also commemorated all

transgender people who have lost their lives to violence and began an

important tradition that has become known as the annual Transgender Day

of Remembrance.

November 20 is more than a vigil to honour and commemorate the

lives lost to transphobia and transgender violence. It is a day to

reignite the conversation on transgender health and help grow public

awareness of the in­credible social challenges that transgender

people and members of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community continue to face every

day, both within Canada and around the world.

Transgender people face a disproportionate amount of sexism,

racism, discrimination, physical and sexual vio­lence. Many are

ostracized from workplaces and communities and experience homelessness,

drug addiction and challenges to their mental health. These are the

barriers that incredible organizations like the Canadian Centre for

Gender and Sexual Diversity and countless advocacy groups across B.C.

try to break down every day through education, action and

love.

The Transgender Day of Remembrance is about more than raising

awareness of the challenges that transgender people face. It is a day

for us to empower our gender- and sexually diverse communities through

education, research and advocacy so that we, as British Columbians, can

better ally ourselves with the 2SLGBTQIA+ communities and create a

province free of social barriers and discrimination, where every British

Columbian has the same opportunities, regardless of personal identity or

sexual orientation.

[10:20 a.m.]

Together let’s all take up the message and mission of the

Transgender Day of Remembrance and do our part to forward the mission of

people like Rita and Gwendolyn and build a better B.C., Canada and world

for all.

TRANSGENDER AWARENESS WEEK

G. Lore: Thank you to the member for Kelowna–Lake Country.

I also rise today to recognize Trans Awareness Week, a time to

celebrate and honour two-spirit, trans, non-binary and gender-diverse

people here in our province. I recognize trans friends and neighbours

who serve as community builders, leaders and organizers, academics,

business owners, health care providers and public servants.

I recognize the incredible work of organizations by, for and with

trans folks, including QMUNITY, Rainbow Refugee, Trans Care B.C. and

Pride societies around the province. Under the leadership of Dr. Aaron

Devor, the Transgender Archives at the University of Victoria is

celebrating their ten-year anniversary committed to the preservation of

the history of activists and leaders.

Two-spirit, trans and non-binary people are amazing, and I am

proud to stand in this House as an ally. To the trans kids in our

province: I see you, you matter, and you belong here.

The week ends with Transgender Day of Remembrance. While we take

steps together towards safety and inclusivity, there is still violence

against trans people. There are still barriers and exclusions, and there

is still transphobia. Around the world, including here in Canada, laws

that target trans individuals’ right to life, safety, dignity and

respect continue to be introduced, debated and passed.

Yet in the face of these attacks, we see great resilience in the

2SLGBTQ+ community. While we should all celebrate that resilience, it is

also our responsibility to do the work, to create a province and a world

that is more inclusive of and safer for trans people.

I pause this week to remember the lives lost and to stand vigilant

against the ongoing threat to my trans colleagues, peers, friends and

neighbours and to celebrate the difference they make in every corner of

our province.

KNUD THOMSEN

G. Kyllo: I’m extremely proud to stand in the House today and to recognize a

wonderful man in my riding of Shuswap, Knud Alfred Thomsen, a true

gentleman in every sense of the word: kind, considerate, polite,

generous yet humble, trusting and positive.

Born in Denmark on June 21, 1936, although trained as a

bricklayer, Knud joined the army in the spring of 1955 and was assigned

to the artillery division and later served in Gaza as part of the United

Nations peacekeeping mission in 1958 and ’59. Knud immigrated to Canada

in 1964, took up homesteading in Donald, just outside of Golden,

commencing logging operations and setting up a small sawmill. In 1977,

Knud looked to the marine industry, with the acquisition of a small

marina and houseboat operation in Sicamous, and weathered many economic

storms through the years.

Always a fierce job creator with a huge heart, well

res­pected and admired by many, Knud supported his family,

trusting them to take the reins of the operation in 1987, and supported

their efforts to grow the business, expanding first into manufacturing,

with the development of the cruise craft line of luxury houseboats, and

excelling to become Canada’s largest houseboat company. Further

diversification of manufacturing operations led to the creation of TA

Structures and TA Modular, along with the design and development of the

larger freshwater marina in western Canada.

Two minutes is hardly enough time to comment on the life and

contributions of such an amazing guy, but I wanted to take the

opportunity to acknowledge the enor­mously positive, loving and

motivating impact this man has had on my life and that of my entire

family.

A loyal friend to many, lovingly called bedstefar by his

grandchildren — that’s “grandpa” in Danish — but I know him best,

simply, as my dad.

[10:25 a.m.]

GURU NANAK

A. Singh: I was born in a medieval town called Sultanpur Lodhi. It’s a small

town now, but it has an incredible history.

In the 1400s and 1500s, it was a booming metropolis and an

important trading post in the northern Punjab in northern India. Its

streets and lanes are vibrant with stories of Guru Nanak, the founder of

the Sikh spiritual movement and faith, and the first ten gurus,

teachers. I spent many summers there as a child, and as you traverse the

streets or turn a corner, there are numerable gurdwaras and reminders of

Guru Nanak.

Guru Nanak was blessed with an insight, intellect and depth of

understanding that only a few have. In a time of religious orthodoxy,

caste, class and gender violence and persecution, his ideas represented

a revolutionary antagonism to the cultural norm. He was a fierce

advocate of the ideas of equality and justice, and his poems, teachings

and writings reflect that. You heard some of that this morning. Those

enlightened words speak repeatedly of the universality of humankind, of

human and women’s rights and the tie of love that binds us all

together.

Ėko pavaṇ mātī sabẖ ekā sabẖ ekā joṯ

sabā▫ī▫ā. There is only one breath; all

are made of the same clay; the light within all is the same.

He imbued Sikhi with a strong sense of justice and equality. Its

most potent and visible representation is in the concept of

langar , where all, regardless of their present place in

society, come together to prepare, serve and eat. We saw this spirit

just in the last few days, with gurdwaras and organizations preparing

thousands of meals for those of our British Columbians stranded and left

without homes.

He was a prolific traveller, and between his late 20s and mid-50s,

spent 24 years travelling, learning and spreading his teachings of love

and courage — mostly by foot. He travelled south through most of the

Indian subcontinent, all the way to Sri Lanka and north through Kashmir

and Tibet, then east all the way to the holy Islamic city of

Mecca.

There is a fantastic exhibition curated by the international

organization, United Sikhs, on Guru Nanak’s life be­ing held at

the gurdwara on No. 5 Road in Richmond that runs until this Sunday. I

urge all members of the House, if they are in Richmond by any chance,

please visit that exhibition.

Tomorrow millions of Sikhs and other admirers of Guru Nanak will

celebrate his day of birth. I ask that this House join me commemorating

this important day.

ROBERT HAMPTON GRAY

A. Olsen: This August I had the honour of attending the unveiling and

dedication of a memorial at the British Columbia Aviation Museum at the

Victoria airport.

Last week we paused to remember the courage and sacrifice of

Canadian service people.

I stand today to recognize one of those individuals who displayed

incredible bravery and selflessness. Lieutenant Robert Hampton “Hammy”

Gray is one of only two members of the Royal Navy’s fleet air arm to

receive the Victoria Cross for his valour as a Canadian naval

pilot.

Born in Trail, B.C., in 1917, Hammy grew up in Nelson. After

receiving his bachelor of arts from the University of British Columbia,

he joined the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve. Lieutenant Gray

received his pilot training in England and in Kingston, Ontario. Hammy

flew the Hawker Hurricane in Africa before being stationed on HMS

Formidable, where he flew the Corsair in both Norway and the

Japanese theatre.

Lieutenant Gray’s Victoria Cross was awarded for great valour in

leading an attack on a Japanese destroyer in Ona­gawa, Japan on

the 9th of August, 1945: “In the face of fire from shore batteries and a

heavy concentration of fire from five warships, Lieutenant Gray pressed

home his attack, flying very low in order to ensure success. Although he

was hit and his aircraft was in flames, he obtained at least one direct

hit, sinking the destroyer. Lieutenant Gray has consistently shown a

brilliant fighting spirit and most inspiring leadership.”

Lieutenant Gray was a remarkable young man who did not return from

war. He was one of the last Canadians to perish in World War II and the

second-last Canadian to be awarded the Victoria Cross.

I encourage all British Columbians to visit the beautiful memorial

at the British Columbia Aviation Museum.

I raise my hands to Terry Milne, Stan Brygadyr, Gerry Pash, Joe

Buczkowski, museum president Dave Jackson, their volunteers, board of

directors and donors for bringing this important project to

fruition.

CLOVERDALE CHRISTMAS HAMPER PROGRAM

M. Starchuk: There is an awesome organization whose various services touch many

people in my riding. The Cloverdale Christmas hamper program is

celebrating their 30th year, and the Cloverdale Community Kitchen has

been managing the program for the last eight years. This year they

expect to deliver 650 hampers to those in need in Cloverdale, White Rock

and Langley, with a focus on seniors and families, but also individual

adults.

[10:30 a.m.]

To do this, you need a small army of volunteers. That they do.

Upwards of 500 people in total over the course of a week will be

stocking shelves and then packing them into the hampers. Last year and

again this year, the volunteers will be delivering the hampers directly

to the homes rather than hosting a day for pickup, as has been done in

the previous years. These homes range from seniors to families of four

to eight people in those households.

Before you can even imagine putting a program like this together,

you need to have items to fill those hampers to make the Christmas

season a happy time for those who might otherwise be unable to enjoy

this time of year. Food, toys and gift cards are donated by individuals

and groups in the community. As well, there are businesses that hold

hamper drives for the program.

They also have some individuals and businesses that donate money,

which is used to purchase items that the hamper program didn’t get

donated. With regard to seniors, they will ask individual seniors for a

gift idea, and then they will purchase it from the hamper program if

they don’t have it in stock. Often, they need to purchase items for

teens, because they don’t fit into a category that receive enough gifts

for them.

The hamper program’s needs this year, specifically, is for new,

unused toys and gift cards that can be used in the hampers. For more

information go to mycck.ca.

The generous donations made from businesses and individuals in the

Cloverdale area help make Christmas a little brighter for many families,

individuals and seniors in our community.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO

SEVERE WEATHER

EVENTS

S. Bond: The NDP continually display a cavalier attitude when it comes to

extreme events in our province and the challenges British Columbians

might face. During the heat dome alone, almost 600 frail, elderly

British Columbians died. What did the Premier say? “Fatalities

happen.”

When British Columbians were getting swamped over the weekend, the

government didn’t do anything again. The Premier’s response was

disappointing. “It gets wet in November,” he said, as if his government

had absolutely no clue what was happening in our province.

Well, Washington state certainly did, and in fact, Alberta did.

Guess what they did as a result of that. They told their residents. They

actually warned them. But not in British Columbia.

Can the minister stand up today and explain exactly why this

government continually fails to warn British Columbians when they are

potentially in imminent danger?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I can tell the member that

there was significant work on the weekend of the storm that came

through. An un­precedented storm, the likes of which we have never

seen in this province, dropping more than a month’s worth of rain in a

space of 24 to 48 hours. I can tell you that DriveBC, for example, was

updated on a regular basis — notifications about stream flow advisories

provided to local communities, flood warnings issued, the highway signs

about weather conditions.

At the same time, crews were out dealing with the po­tential

trouble areas, in terms of local communities but also on our provincial

highways. We were in contact — I was in contact — with Bill Blair when

the scope of the challenges that we were seeing, in terms of the slides

that occurred — in many cases, in areas that had never experienced them

before…. The Joint Rescue Co-Ordination Centre came into action to get

the Cormorant helicopters. Search and rescue crews were motivated. There

was a lot of work done.

Obviously, an event after this, there will be lessons learned. As

I told the House on a number of occasions, there is work in terms of

legislation to ensure that as we experience more of these climate

change–related events, we have an even better ability to deal with

them.

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

[10:35 a.m.]

S. Bond: Let’s be perfectly clear. This isn’t about the men and women who

are working tirelessly, hour after hour, day after day, out on our roads

across British Columbia, trying to keep people, property and communities

safe. It is not about them, and the minister knows it. This is about

leadership. This is about the need for British Columbians to have

information. The minister knows where that’s supposed to start. It’s

supposed to start at the top.

At the end of June, almost 600 frail, elderly British Columbians

lost their lives in a heatwave while the government was, to use the

Premier’s words again, “a bit giddy, a bit jolly.” The minister can

shake her head all she wants. That is what the Premier of British

Columbia said to British Columbians. Those families are still grieving

their loss and waiting for answers from this government.

Then, as wildfires ravaged our province, the government was

nowhere to be found. They had to be shamed into calling a state of

emergency in British Columbia. Now, as storms lashed our province,

despite what the minister outlined the NDP were nowhere to be seen for

days. People didn’t know the risk. The minister can tout the use of

DriveBC. There were thousands of British Columbians who needed

information from this minister and this government, and they got

nothing.

Can the minister stand up and tell us specifically why he and his

government failed to give British Columbians adequate notice about the

risk they were facing?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for her question. I want to address a number of

points that she raised in her question because, as I’ve said, there is

significant work underway that was undertaken during an unprecedented

storm that was far more severe than even the experts

expected.

I can tell you that, as I’ve outlined already, whether it is

search and rescue, whether it is EMBC kicking into action, all those

levels of government were, in fact, on the job, doing what they were

supposed to do.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Let’s listen to the answer, please.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Whether it is EMBC, whether it was crews on transportation and

highways…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: …whether it is ensuring that local governments are supplied with

the information that they need, that was taking place.

The member also mentions issues around states of emergency. She

will also know that states of emergency are put in place. I take the

advice….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Please continue.

Hon. M. Farnworth: They’re put in place on advice of the experts who are dealing with

the situation.

The member stands up and asks, in all seriousness, a question, and

I am trying to give her a serious answer. She may want to heckle. She

may not want to hear that. But I know that many British Columbians

do.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. We heard the question. Now it’s time for the

answer.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Please stay quiet while the answer is given.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: And a state of emergency, as I said, based on advice that I

receive from my ministry and other ministries on what is required to

deal with the situation. I know that that member knows and I know that

other members on that side of House know that a state of emergency does

not prevent or give you any additional resources at that

time.

The key element it does is it allows you to deal with situations

going forward, such as what we are facing with the rebuilding of a lot

of the infrastructure. As we announced yesterday, there will be orders

coming from that and flowing from that decision to put in place that

state of emergency.

T. Stone: The members of the official opposition are not questioning the

incredible work of first responders, local government officials, EMBC,

the Ministry of Transportation and others. We’re not questioning their

leadership. With all due respect to this minister, we’re questioning the

leadership — the lack of leadership — on the part of this minister and

the part of this government in keeping British Columbians safe in the

face of a disaster.

[10:40 a.m.]

Now, whether we’re talking about hospitalizations or talking about

road hazards, this government is failing when it comes to sharing

critical information with British Columbians during an impending

emergency. Yesterday we saw the Premier shrug and say that it gets wet

in November, as if no one could see this disaster coming. Except they

did see it, with all due respect to the minister. They did see it in

Alberta, and they saw it in Washington state.

Washington state declared a severe weather state of emergency on

Monday. British Columbia took an additional two days to declare a state

of emergency in our province. This meant that folks only a couple of

kilometres south of the U.S. border, south of Abbotsford, had 48 hours

more warning than the people of British Columbia did.

That’s unacceptable. That’s why shelves are empty in stores across

this province. This is why there are long line­ups at gas

stations.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Order, please.

T. Stone: British Columbians are scared, they’re worried, they’re nervous,

and it all dovetails back to this government’s failure to provide

adequate advance notice.

The question to the minister is this. Can the minister explain why

he refuses to use all of the tools that he has in his toolbox, like the

Alert Ready warning system, so that British Columbians are given the

advanced warning that they need, that they deserve, to best prepare

themselves and their families and their livelihoods from pending

disaster?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I’ll tell that member

this. Every tool in the toolbox is being used to deal with this

situation. We are working closely with the Retail Council, the trucking

sector, transportation, in order to ensure that the goods and services

that people require are there for them.

The situation around food, for example. The suppliers tell us

there is lots of supply. They are rejigging their transportation routes

to ensure those areas that are impacted are able to get the supplies

they need.

As the member well knows, in many parts of this prov­ince,

the transportation routes are not affected. From Kamloops, for example,

where that member represents, the rail line operates all the way to the

east. In the city of Prince George, where the Leader of the Opposition

represents, the transportation corridors are open all the way to points

east, and trucking and transportation are doing everything they can to

get the goods there.

The most important thing that all of us can do, including the

opposition, is to let their constituents know that hoarding is not

helpful; that the best thing to do is to be patient and to recognize, as

the private sector is making clear, those supply chains and those

supplies are there. That’s what’s taking place. This government is doing

everything it can and will continue to do everything we can

to….

Interjections.

Hon. M. Farnworth: And your response just demonstrates why you guys are still sitting

over there.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Kamloops–South Thompson, supplemental.

T. Stone: Well, if this minister actually left this building and actually

went up to the Interior, if he actually did an aerial tour, if the

Minister of Transportation wasn’t sitting and doing House duty through

this week here and in the little House, maybe he would see exactly

what’s happening out there. They would see the long lines at gas

stations. They would see the fact that grocery store shelves are empty

all over British Columbia.

For this minister to sit here and say that it has anything to do

other than his lack of leadership and his government’s failure is…. I

say shame on all of them. Shame on all of them.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[10:45 a.m.]

T. Stone: B.C.’s emergency warning systems are not meeting the challenges of

today’s natural disasters. That’s on this government. All other

provinces are using the Alert Ready system. They’re using it for

tornadoes. They’re using it for wildfires. They’re using it for a range

of other natural disasters. We’re not using it here.

Did the government use the alert system for the 2008 devastating

wildfires? No, they didn’t. Did they use the alert system for the heat

dome this summer that killed nearly 600 British Columbians? No, they

didn’t. Did they use the alert system for the wildfires this summer? No,

they didn’t. Did they use the alert system for these floods? No, they

didn’t — the only province in the country not to use this advance

warning system.

Let’s talk about the Coquihalla Highway for a moment. This past

Sunday the member for Kamloops–North Thompson and I, as we often do,

were heading to Victoria. We drove down the Coquihalla. We missed the

slides on the Coquihalla by just a couple hours.

I can tell you that the variable speed signs hadn’t been changed.

The speed was still 120 kilometres per hour. All that was on the

overhead message boards was a notice to watch for pooling water on the

road, which is a very common message that we see on those signs very

often. There were no crews that we drove past, contrary to what the

minister just said in a previous answer.

Surely the minister doesn’t expect British Columbians to rely on

DriveBC’s Twitter page. Surely he doesn’t expect them to rely on

Facebook posts while they’re at the wheel, while they’re

driving.

Here’s the thing. The province is the only jurisdiction that can

send a mandatory warning via tailored text messages to everyone that

overrides their cell phones. Not local governments. Only the provincial

government can do this.

My question to the minister again is this. When will the

government actually use the warning systems that it has at its disposal

that other jurisdictions are using to better prevent extreme weather

disasters from putting the safety of British Columbians at grave

risk?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The province is going to be using and does use all of the tools at

its disposal. But the member…. He raises the Alert Ready system, and

that is an important potential tool. It is one that we have the ability

to use in certain circumstances right now, just as in 2016, when they

had an opportunity. And did you? No, you did not.

Mr. Speaker: Through the Chair.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Farnworth: And what I’ve also said in this House is that we will have in

place the Alert Ready system, and we’ve committed to doing that for next

spring. We also have the ability, and as we worked with local

communities to ensure that…. If it’s needed in a particular area, as in

Abbotsford the other night, we worked with them and had a text ready to

hit send and to send it out.

But what that member consistently, consistently forgets in his

question…. The impression he wants to give is that somehow this is a

magic solution. It’s not. It requires cell phone towers, which in many

cases, as he knows….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, order. Order.

Minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: And working with local communities who also have their alert

systems that they use to make sure, one, that there’s no duplication and

second, that they’re used in a way that also doesn’t cause panic by

working with first responders and the emergency coordination on the

ground on the appropriate time to do it.

Hon. Member, we will be using next spring, next summer, the Alert

Ready system, starting in the central Interior. But we’re going to make

sure that it’s done right.

CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

MINISTRY RELATIONSHIP

WITH

INDIGENOUS FAMILIES

A. Olsen: My question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development.

Does the minister recognize that the ugly history between MCFD and

Indigenous children and families is rooted in harm and mistrust and that

this scarred relationship remains to this day?

[10:50 a.m.]

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member for the question. We do recognize that for

many, many decades, there has been an overintrusion of government into

Indigenous families and Indigenous communities. Our government is taking

steps to address that.

We’ve changed the provincial law that enables MCFD staff to be

able to work closely with Indigenous communities. When there’s a concern

about an Indigenous child, social workers are able to actually approach

Indigenous communities, ask if there’s somebody there — an auntie or a

relative — who is able to offer a safe home for that child so that

children and youth can stay connected to their family, to their

community and to their culture.

We’ve also increased the rate for out-of-care carers so they

receive the same financial support as foster carers. We’ve seen a

significant increase in the number of Indigenous children that are in

out-of-care placements rather than being brought into the government

child welfare system. But there is a lot more to do. Even with the

federal act coming into power, we know that there is a lot more to do.

We are absolutely committed to doing that work with Indigenous

communities.

Mr. Speaker: Member, supplemental.

SERVICE MODEL CHANGE

FOR CHILDREN WITH SUPPORT NEEDS

AND SERVICES FOR INDIGENOUS CHILDREN

A. Olsen: I appreciate the response. I think the minister needs to check in

within the ministry to see if the changes that have been put in place

are actually being implemented on the ground. But I am challenged with

the minister’s res­ponse and how it can be squared with subjecting

neurodiverse Indigenous children to her proposed MCFD-run

hubs.

The proposal will, arguably, deepen access barriers for Indigenous

and racialized people, who are disproportionately targeted by MCFD.

Their families are frequently ripped apart by the consequences of

systemic racism within that ministry. This system will further

disadvantage Indigenous and racialized children. It creates new and

deeper barriers within a system that is, by its very nature, focused on

individualized and diverse community service opportunities and

possibilities.

Further, by moving to an MCFD-controlled and centralized hub

model, the opportunities for culturally appropriate services are further

reduced.

Through you to the Minister of Children and Family Development,

does she expect neurodiverse Indigenous children and families to feel

safe accessing an MCFD-run hub?

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member for the op­portunity of explaining

to members here that services for children and youth with support needs

will be delivered by community, in community and in response to the

needs of the community.

We actually have an advisory circle, an Indigenous circle,

advising us on how we move forward to ensure that not only are we able

to create Indigenous-led services but that all services are culturally

safe and properly informed and that all staff have the appropriate

training, knowledge, experience and expertise to make sure that all

services delivered in community are culturally safe and

accessible.

I would like to take this opportunity to inform the member that

these services will be delivered by community agencies and by Indigenous

agencies. They will have multidisciplinary teams and have multiple

points of access. Our expectation as the ministry will be that community

agencies will step up in collaboration and partnership with local

communities, local Nations and local agencies.

The work the ministry has done over the last four years has been

significant. There has been a significant change in our approach to

working with Indigenous communities. We have changed provincial

legislation. We have changed policy and practice. Currently we have the

lowest number of Indigenous children and youth in care in 20

years.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO SEVERE

WEATHER AND FLOODING OF

FARMLAND

IN ABBOTSFORD AREA

M. de Jong: We have all seen the devastation that has wrought Sumas Prairie,

in Abbotsford. I want to remind the government and the Minister of

Agriculture that in the 48 hours — the crucial 48 hours — leading up to

the tragic events that befell that area Tuesday and Wednesday, here is

what was happening two kilometres away, across the border in Washington

state.

[10:55 a.m.]

On the Sunday morning, American officials issued an emergency

proclamation for flood risks, based on the weather projections that they

had at the time. On Sunday afternoon, at 3:40, American officials issued

a flood warning specifically for the Nooksack River. By Monday morning,

the Americans were broadcasting record levels on the Nooksack, and

shortly thereafter, the flood alert sirens in Sumas were

sounding.

On Monday afternoon, at 3:30, the Americans confirmed the Nooksack

was at flood stage, and the Washington state governor issued a severe

weather emergency proclamation directing implementation of the state’s

comprehensive emergency management plan.

Today and tomorrow the farmers on Sumas Prairie are returning to

clean up the carcasses of thousands upon thou­sands upon thousands

of dead animals. I hope everyone understands what they’re saying. As

they do that work, because they’re resilient, they’re saying to

themselves: “If I had had a little more time. That 48 hours would have

been crucial in allowing me to save some of these animals.” They didn’t

get that warning.

The minister posted about a fundraiser and a kale recipe but

nothing of a warning. Why didn’t the minister perform what is her

statutory duty and provide the same warning, the same notice to the

farmers on Sumas Prairie that farmers two kilometres away got in

Washington state?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I fully appreciate the question from the member opposite. As he

knows, I contacted him about the situation that was unfolding in

Abbotsford.

What I can also tell him is that on that weekend, on that Sunday,

not only were flood warnings — the flood situations and the stream flow

advisories — going out to local communities…. The local communities were

monitoring the situation that was developing, but as he knows, that rain

that came down so torrentially, in a way that we have never seen before,

was such a dramatic event. The rivers rose incredibly quickly, and

floodwaters rose incredibly quickly.

When he talks about Sumas, for example, just across the line…. The

city hall of Sumas, Washington, was engulfed by five feet of water

during that very same period.

The reality is this. The event that happened was of an

unprecedented nature. Flood warnings and stream flow advisories did go

out.

Obviously, from this disaster, lessons will be learned. It’s one

of the reasons why we’re doing the complete overhaul of the Emergency

Program Act — to recognize events like this so that we are better

prepared in the future to deal with these situations.

FOREST POLICY CHANGES

AND SUPPORT FOR FOREST

WORKERS

J. Rustad: Today we’ve been talking about natural disasters and the effects

of that. But there’s another disaster that’s unfolding, and

unfortunately, this is a planned disaster that is happening by this NDP

government.

In the gallery today, we’ve got hard-working members of our forest

sector, including people like Brian Butler, the president of the United

Steelworkers Local 1-1937. People like Brian are sitting. They’re

waiting, amid confusion and uncertainty from this minister, to find out

if they’ll have jobs this Christmas. The minister has admitted that

thousands of jobs will be lost.

[11:00 a.m.]

People like Mark and Nancy Ponting of Ponting Contracting have

poured their lives, have poured their hearts and souls into their

business and supporting their employees. They and all the guests in the

gallery have survived the softwood lumber battles that this government

has ignored. They have survived the great recession. They have survived

COVID.

These good folks are fighters. They’re proud of the forest sector.

They’re proud of what they do for a profession in this province. They

have provided jobs and revenue to this province for decades. They have

survived so much, and now they’re receiving a gut punch from this

government.

Will this minister please stand up and explain why the minister

and her government are hell bent on attacking these hard-working

families across this province?

Hon. K. Conroy: I want to thank the member for the question, but I, too, want to

welcome Bob, Jeff, Brian and all the members who are here in the gallery

watching this discussion today. I’m really glad you’re here so that I

can clarify the misinformation that you’re hearing.

I understand your concerns. I lived through the downturn in the

forest industry, when 30,000 people lost their jobs in the forest

industry. I understand, because there was no support for workers, there

were no supports for our families, and there were no supports for

communities.

I’m happy to say that even though our analysis shows there is a

potential — a potential — of 4,500 people potentially losing their jobs

when we implement the deferrals for the old-growth strategy, this is a

preliminary estimate.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue.

Hon. K. Conroy: Unlike what happened when 30,000 people lost their jobs, we will

have supports in place. We will work with communities, we will work with

unions, and we will work with industry to ensure there are supports in

place.

Again, the 4,500 jobs that we have estimated are only if there are

deferrals made in January. That is not going to happen. We will have

time to work together. I am saying today that I want to reach out to

you. I want to work with you. We have said that before, and I will say

it again. We want to work with you to ensure that we will have a

sustainable, resilient forest industry for generations to

come.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call committee stage, Bill 23, Forests Statutes

Amendment Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room,

Section A, I call continued committee on Bill 22,

the FOIPPA amendment act.

[11:05 a.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 23 — FORESTS STATUTES

AMENDMENT

ACT, 2021

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 23;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 11:07 a.m.

On clause 33 (continued) .

J. Rustad: I’m taking it that the minister, when she gets a chance, will want

to introduce the staff again.

When we last left off on this story, which was a couple of days

ago, we were talking about

section 33, and we were talking about the

costs associated with implementation of this act and, in particular, the

costs associated with implementing the forest landscape plans. See, I’m

getting much better at using that language now.

I’m just curious if the minister could provide this House an

estimate of what she thinks the cost will be, both internally through

the chief forester’s office but also in terms of the support that will

be required for First Nations to be able to fully engage in this process

and any other expenses associated with it.

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Before we start, I wanted to introduce the staff that are here

with me today. Ariel Taylor is the manager of Indigenous consultation

and negotiation. Tony Cheong is our senior legislative analyst. Doug

Kelly is the director of the forest tenures branch, and Diane Nicholls

is our assistant deputy minister and chief forester.

Thank you for the question. As we have said initially and

throughout this process, we have the staffing in place, through our

existing budget, to cover all the costs for our existing pilots that we

have, and also if there are a few more that are initiated before fiscal

year-end. Then once these regulations are accepted, we’ll enter into the

new budgetary process for additional needs.

With the First Nations capacity, we have existing

government-to-government agreements in place, with a supplemental

budgetary process, if required. Again, once regulations are in, if there

is any additional funding that’s required, we will enter into the new

budgetary process.

J. Rustad: To the minister: thank you for that information. I was hoping I

might hear a number associated with it.

Obviously, I’m a little surprised to hear pilots are underway

before the legislation is in place. I guess that’s interesting. There’ll

be more pilots, apparently, that’ll be started before the year-end,

before regulations come in place. I believe the minister talked about it

taking, potentially, up to a year to bring the regulations into place

for this, when I first asked about budgetary concerns. Perhaps the

minister could clarify that as well.

I’m hoping the minister will be able to provide some estimate in

terms of a number. The reason for that is, obviously, having engaged

with so many First Nations over the years, in terms of the work that is

being done…. The capacity for First Nations is always stretched. There

are so many priorities. There are so many things they’re working on, and

they will need additional support to be able to fully engage in this

process in a meaningful way. With 204 nations around the province — with

two-thirds of those, roughly, engaged in forestry — that’s a pretty big

price tag over a period of time.

I’m just wondering if you have an estimate of that. Obviously,

there’s going to be an ask that’ll come out of the budgetary process

going into the next year. I’m curious, if the ministry has done that

work, in terms of that budgetary estimate, what the implementation of a

bill like this would be.

Hon. K. Conroy: No, we don’t have an exact number. Numbers change based on the

First Nations we are working with. Some Indigenous nations have more

capacity than others. We fully recognize supports are needed, and those

supports will be in place using the budgetary processes that are

used.

[11:15 a.m.]

L. Doerkson: I can appreciate that you might not have it right down to the last

dime. How will budgeting go forward if there hasn’t been some sort of a

number assigned to it? I just wonder, maybe one last time, if we could

ask if there is a number that you’ll be using for budgets.

Hon. K. Conroy: Costs will be covered.

L. Doerkson: My first question today is with respect to 2.21(1)(b). It refers

to…. The chief forester may be able to order established forest

landscape plans on private land. I just wanted to get a bit of

expansion, I guess, on that statement. What private lands might be

considered under this, and will the owner of those private lands have

the opportunity to consult in the early part of that plan?

Hon. K. Conroy: As it says in the bill, “private land that is subject to an

agreement under the Forest Act.” That is where the “chief forester may,

by order, establish a forest land­scape plan for the following

land.” So it’s private land that is subject to an agreement under the

Forest Act.

L. Doerkson: Thank you very much, Minister.

Okay. Fair enough. I guess the second part of my question was:

will they be part of the consultation process?

Hon. K. Conroy: Any forest landscape plan has to be fully consulted. So if the

private land is subject to an agreement under the Forest Act, as it

states in the act, they will be part of the process of the forest

landscape plan.

L. Doerkson: Maybe I’ll try to be a little bit more specific. I think the First

Nations will be involved in the early part of the process. That is my

understanding. Then after that consultation, forest service plans will

be able for the public to comment, etc.

What I’m wondering, specifically in the case of private land:

where will the owner of the land be in that consultation process? Will

it be at the beginning with First Nations communities, or will it be

after that consultation has taken place?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: As we have been saying, if the private land is subject to an

agreement under the Forest Act, and it is part of a forest landscape

plan, they will be involved from start to finish with First Nations, to

the end of the establishment of the forest landscape plan, as part of

the whole process.

L. Doerkson: I appreciate that the private landowner, then, will be involved

from the very start of the process, not after the 60-day consultation

period. So that’s fine.

My next question. In the development of the forest service plan,

there may be things mandated against a private landowner. In other

words, things they may have to do on their own lands. Will that be

mandated for the private landowner to do at their cost? Will there be

penalties for not complying? Can you speak to that a little

bit?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: To clarify for the member, less than 1 percent of the area that

we’re talking about is actually private land, so less than 1 percent

across the province. The private landowner, if that area is part of the

forest landscape plan, will, of course, be included on it.

Just so the member knows, this is actually in the existing

legislation under FRPA. So this is not a change. The private landowner

is subject to obligations under FRPA as it exists.

L. Doerkson: I’m aware that this is existing legislation, but this bill

introduces new forest landscape plans. That is the way I understand it,

and those plans will be part of a consultation process. Your ministry

has introduced new

definitions under this plan with respect to

catastrophic damage and all of those types of things. I can appreciate

that it is only 1 percent of the land mass of British Columbia, which is

a pretty big land mass. I think we would all agree on that.

So I’m very concerned that under the new bill, there might be

other impacts to private landowners. If there are not, then I can

certainly move on to the next question. But I would like to know that

there will be no other impacts under this new legislation that will be

different from the old one.

Hon. K. Conroy: Again, the private lands that are subject to an agreement under

the Forest Act already have undertaken stewardship planning — anything

that is under the FRPA that they have already done. If there are any

changes, it would be under….

If there are values within the forest landscape plan that are

established, for instance, there’s opportunity for more consultation

with people. But it’s about the values of the forest landscape plan and

how that is undertaken.

[11:30 a.m.]

L. Doerkson: I appreciate what the minister is trying to say. Perhaps I’m not

being clear. The new act has new

definitions, new things that may be

done on the landscape. In fact, under 2.22, it talks about “preventing,

mitigating and adapting to impacts caused by significant disturbances.”

So there are new items under this act.

Again, like I said in the last question, if there’s no change to

what might affect a private land owner as far as cost or rules or things

that they may be mandated to do under 2.21…. As I said before, “the

chief forester may, by order, establish a forest landscape

plan.”

I understand that we have a framework in place now. I’m just

trying to confirm that nothing will change under the new

framework.

Hon. K. Conroy: Well, it’s impossible to confirm what the member is trying to get

out of me. It will be determined by the values of the forest landscape

plan. That’s what my answer will keep being. That’s what will determine

— I’m not quite finished, sorry — what the changes will be.

L. Doerkson: I’ll ask maybe in a different way. There’s a consultation process

for a new forest landscape plan. We already agreed that the First

Nations would be a part of it right at the beginning and that the

private land owner will be a part of that consultation. There may be

decisions made to go forward in that plan.

If a private land owner does not agree, can you mandate things

that might be mandatory for that private land owner to comply

with?

The Chair: Through the Chair, of course.

Hon. K. Conroy: Again, the private lands that are subject to the agreement under

the Forest Act currently need to abide by all the regulations in the

FRPA. What will happen, though, is the private land owner will be part

of the discussions as the forest landscape planning is undertaken. So

they’ll be part of the process.

L. Doerkson: Is there an avenue for the private land owner to disagree? Can

he…? Again, can things be mandated against…? I shouldn’t say “he,” I

suppose. Can things be mandated against a private land owner’s wish if

he doesn’t agree with the consultation that’s happened with the parties

that are involved in the consultation?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: As with the existing FRPA legislation, private land owners, he or

she, can request to have their private land withdrawn from the

agreement.

L. Doerkson: Thank you for that.

I don’t know why I rose. I heard…. My colleague said that he had a

question as well.

The Chair: Thank you for that.

Member for Nechako Lakes.

J. Rustad: Sorry about taking some time away from here. I’m happy my

colleague was able to get a chance to ask some questions. I just had to

meet, obviously, with the folks that were here that are concerned about

their future in the forest sector. I needed to have a little bit of time

to do that. Unfortunately, we were stuck here with this bill at that

time, but that’s okay.

I also wanted to ask about the private managed forest land. Maybe

I’ll start with this question as well. I hope it hasn’t already been

asked. I tried to get a brief Coles Notes in terms of what my colleague

has asked about it.

Is the plan to have a forest landscape plan over top of the

private managed forest lands? Is it planned to be put over top of each

of these individually? Is it to be part of it as a group? Or is there a

consideration for inclusion? I’m just kind of wondering how they will be

drawn out as you develop a forest landscape plan.

Hon. K. Conroy: Private managed forest land is voluntary. It does not apply to the

forest landscape planning or FRPA. It’s only if a portion of a private

land is within an area. Then, as I said…. The member may have missed

this. We’re saying less than 1 percent of the land that would be covered

by the forest landscape plan is actually private, less than 1 percent in

the province.

As we’ve said, this is no different from the existing legislation.

Private land owners who are part of the existing system and who would be

covered under this forest landscape plan would be part of the

consultation process, would have input. One difference is…. Under

stewardship, there was no consultation. Under landscape planning, there

will be consultation.

As I did say, private land owners — he or she — could apply for an

exemption to have their private land exempted from the forest landscape

planned area. We are talking about less than 1 percent of the private

land in the pro­vince that would be included.

J. Rustad: I appreciate that the minister may have gone over some additional

material a couple of times on that.

The reason I’m asking these questions…. As the minister knows,

there’s a significant amount of private managed forest lands in her area

and down in the Kootenays. There is a very large portion on Vancouver

Island, with the E and N grant, going up the heart of the Island.

Obviously, Mosaic is a large operator in those areas.

Just for some clarity, if the minister can confirm that those

types of lands will not be included in a forest landscape

plan.

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: There’s no change. Private managed land is governed by the Private

Managed Forest Land Act, and the FLP won’t apply.

J. Rustad: That’s interesting. Okay. Obviously, there are these significant

tracts of private managed lands. They’re big issues, particularly on

Vancouver Island, but I know down in the Kootenays as well. The big

issue is in terms of access. There is land that might be beyond the

private managed land that may end up having a landscape management plan

on and access in terms of roads and road deactivation.

I’m just wondering: how will that work, technically, in terms of

landscape planning when you’ve got a large chunk that may be taken out

of the middle of the landscape plan, potentially, or that isolate on a

landscape plan?

Hon. K. Conroy: Private land that is subject to an agreement under the Forest Act

is the only land that we are talking about in this bill.

J. Rustad: Okay. That didn’t really answer the question. I’m wondering if I

should ask the question again. Just in terms of what that interaction is

between private managed forest lands such as the E and N grant and how

landscape planning will work, whether that’s landscape that may go

across both sides or on either side…. I’m just wondering how technically

that works?

Hon. K. Conroy: Again, private land outside of the For­est Act will not be

covered by an FLP.

J. Rustad: The question I’m asking…. The reason for asking this question,

obviously…. I’m trying to understand how these plans will be implemented

and how they’ll be undertaken on the landscape where we’ve seen cases of

access issues, whether it be through deferrals or other types of

agreements with First Nations or others. So if there is a landscape plan

that is beyond private land that is not part of the landscape plan, and

that’s contingent upon road access or contingent upon other types of

issues…. I’m trying to understand how those two pieces work

together.

[11:45 a.m.]

I understand the private managed forest land is separate and is

not included as part of this, but I’m just wondering. Obviously, it’s a

big landscape, and there are lots of issues that interact. I’m wondering

if, maybe, when you’re developing these plans, you don’t have an answer

to that because you don’t know how these plans will actually interact at

this point. I’m wondering if that’s been thought about and what the

considerations are.

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes, we have thought of this. We don’t foresee the need for any

changes from the current practices that are in place.

J. Rustad: Okay. Well, that’s good to know.

I seem to be a little confused about this 1 percent of the land

that may be…. Can the minister give examples — or an example or multiple

examples — of private land that is subject to the agreement under the

Forest Act that might be included in forest landscape

planning?

Hon. K. Conroy: The private land we’re talking about within tree farm licences —

there are 19,704 hectares of 5,132,290 hectares. Community forest

agreements — there are 4,152 hectares of 1,882,790 hectares.

J. Rustad: I’m very pleased the minister has some very exact numbers on that

but couldn’t put a number towards the budget, of course, in terms of

what the cost of all this will be. But that’s okay. That’s a subject not

necessarily for more further debate in this committee stage.

Community forests and any private land associated with community

forests, tree farm licences and any private land associated with tree

farm licence are potential to be subject to a forest landscape plan. I

think that’s what I just heard the minister say, if she could just

confirm that.

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes.

J. Rustad: I love one-word answers. Sorry, I don’t have any one-word

questions.

[11:50 a.m.]

As we’re looking at developing these forest landscape plans, is

there a requirement for them to be contiguous? Could they be split up?

Could they be covering multiple areas or different areas without having

adjoining boundaries, or are they required to be one contiguous unit of

land?

Hon. K. Conroy: Our intention is to keep this consistent with timber supply areas

and tree farm licence areas.

J. Rustad: I’m taking it from that answer that it is possible that they could

be non-contiguous. In all efforts, I suspect, it will be contiguous

because of the suppliers.

I have a reason for asking that. Sometimes you’ve got…. I can’t

remember on the Island if this exists or not, but you obviously could

have a watershed on a supply area that has a chunk of private land that

goes through it that would be excluded. That’s why I’m wondering. You

might end up with a forest landscape plan on a very small portion and a

forest landscape plan on a larger portion, as opposed to being grouped

together.

I’m just wondering. That’s why I was thinking whether that

scenario was possible and the reason for asking that

question.

Hon. Chair, there is an awful lot to go into, I think, in this

section. This might be a good time to rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to

sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:52 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. K. Conroy moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 11:53 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 22 — FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 22;

R. Leonard in the chair.

The committee met at 11:11 a.m.

On clause 17.

T. Stone: I’m pleased to be here with my colleague from Abbotsford to

continue committee stage on Bill 22.

We ended — I can’t remember; a few weeks ago, I think it was — on

section 17, so that’s where we are at this point. I wanted to ask a few

questions relating to the engagement that the minister has spoken to,

both in her second reading comments, I think, in some of the earlier

committee stage — a discussion that we’ve had — but also in some media

reports as well.

The minister has talked about the public survey that was done, and

during Bill 22 debate on Thursday, October 28, the minister said: “On

June 15, we launched our public survey on information access and

privacy. That’s to the general public. The engagement occurred from June

15 to July 15, 2021.”

My first question in relation to this public survey would be this.

If, as the minister says, a decision was made to end data residency

because the act was failing British Columbians, why was this question of

data residency not included as part of the public survey?

Hon. L. Beare: Data residency was canvassed in the survey. There was a question

put about…. I’ll read the question, then, into the record for the

member. It is available publicly, and I know the member is referencing

it when he’s asking these questions.

[11:15 a.m.]

“When thinking about accessing government services and

information, what is most important to you?” The options listed were

that government services for the public are available online; government

can use and build on the latest technology from around the world;

government data is hosted/stored in Canada; government services and

priorities are delivered quickly; government data has the most

up-to-date security protocols; and government spends less to provide

services.

T. Stone: I think in the high-level survey results that have been made

available or that have been pushed out there, there was a strong

indication that British Columbians certainly view data residency as a

very important consideration. Certainly, the view keeping this

information safe and secure and in British Columbia is part of that,

from a data-residency perspective, as an important

consideration.

My question to the minister would be: recognizing the strong

public support that there is in this survey and, just more broadly, for

maintaining data residency here in British Columbia, why, in the face of

that public opinion, that public support for maintaining the status quo

— and, if anything, building upon, enhancing, strengthening data

residency here in British Columbia — is the minister and the government

going in the opposite direction to what the public would clearly like to

see happen on this?

Hon. L. Beare: I think I’m going to just back up, because it has been a little

bit of time. We were on a break week here in the Legislature. I’ll just

remind everyone of what the full engagement was that we did on this

bill.

We built on the engagement that had been previously started in

2018 and ’19. That was, at that time, to identify stakeholder concerns

and priority issues. A number of engagement pieces happened through

that, which are well outlined already, canvassed in this

House.

Now, building on these consultations, between April and August

2021, we re-engaged with many of the same groups, including government

ministries, the broader public sector, public bodies, municipalities,

Indigenous leaders, communities, the tech sector, the Privacy

Commissioner and the general public.

[11:20 a.m.]

That was everything from ADM and DM committees, round tables that

I hosted with education, tech, health, communities. It’s the feedback we

received through two surveys online. The member is referring to one

survey. There was a second survey that showed different results as

well.

So two surveys received online, as well as questionnaires that

were put out. In it, absolutely, there’s an overwhelming desire to see

that privacy and personal security throughout all our conversations

remain a top priority, and our government is committed to that. We are

committed to ensuring that people’s personal information is protected.

We’re committed to ensuring that government information is protected and

that we’re maintaining privacy.

What we have before us is a culmination, in this bill, of that

engagement. It’s something that our public bodies have been asking for.

This is going to be a very important change. I have a quote here from

the University of British Columbia: “UBC welcomes these proposed

amendments. They will substantially increase the privacy and security of

personal data with more robust and resilient services by allowing us to

select the most secure and effective solutions.”

T. Stone: So I really want to focus in on this survey that the minister has

talked about. Again, as I said in a previous question, this public

engagement occurred from June 15 to July 15, 2021. That’s what the

minister said. If those dates are not correct or if I’m not getting that

quite right, I obviously would appreciate being clarified on that or

having that clarified for me.

But again, I come back to the high-level survey results that

indicate concern on the part of British Columbians and ending the data

residency. So I really want to ask the minister again, why, in the face

of the public expressing pretty strongly in this survey, this 2021

survey, concerns with data residency ending, that clearly wasn’t taken

into account or certainly didn’t influence the end result, insofar as

the government making the decision to move forward in ending data

residency in British Columbia.

Hon. L. Beare: For the member, yes, the dates are correct. We’re all in alignment

here. We have two polls, as well, as part of our consultation, which

have different results in them. The member is referencing one. There’s a

sec­ond poll that has different results.

[11:25 a.m.]

There is the feedback we received through our consultation and

through our round tables, and it’s our job to balance all of that

information together. That’s reflected in the bill we have before us

today.

We heard loudly and clearly from our public bodies, from our tech

sector, from our businesses that the current data residency restrictions

were out of date and were pre­venting our businesses and our

public bodies from accessing more secure tools, from being competitive

and from providing British Columbians the services that they’ve come to

count on during COVID-19.

We talk about being able to access your doctor on FaceTime or, for

your classroom, to be able to use Google Classroom. These are services

that are currently only pro­vided through a ministerial order

which allows the exemption for data to travel across the borders. These

are important services that people need. We know that from the pandemic.

We’ve learned that, and we want to make sure that we’re providing and

continue to provide services that people count on.

We continue to hear from our public bodies, from our communities

and from our businesses how important this truly is. I want to read out

a quote from Jill Tipping, who’s the president and CEO of the B.C. Tech

Association. “This is a positive development from government that B.C.’s

tech industry welcomes. Changes to B.C.’s data residency requirements

will allow local companies to leverage cutting-edge technology and help

B.C.’s public sector deliver the modern tools that citizens expect, with

the privacy protections they need.”

T. Stone: Again, this survey, which was from June of 2021 — the minister and

I have confirmed the dates: June 15 to July 15, 2021 — had, amongst a

whole series of other questions, a question on data residency. It asked

a series of questions about what’s important to you in considering

changes to how data is managed in British Columbia.

The specific question that I’m referring to was this. “When

thinking about accessing government services and information, what is

most important to you?” Pretty clear question. The public responded with

a 58.8 percent affirmation of the following statement: “Government data

is hosted or stored in Canada.” So 58.8 percent of the respondents to

the survey clearly feel, or felt at the time, that storing this data in

Canada is very important.

We will get to the other round tables and other discussions,

engagements and consultations that the minister has referred to in a few

moments. But with respect to the public in this survey, ultimately,

these are the people that we represent. It’s the public’s data, a lot of

personal information. I would suggest that their perspective on this,

their view on this, is equal to if not greater than the view of anyone

at the University of British Columbia or many of the other quotes that

the minister has thrown out there.

Again to the minister, what does she have to say to the 58.8

percent of public respondents to this survey who made it very, very

clear that they value, as a very important principle moving forward,

that government data be hosted and stored in Canada?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: Public policy development does need a broad and inclusive balance

of needs. We considered many voices, as we’ve talked about in this room

and before, not just one survey. We can pull up the other survey as

well, the Ipsos survey, which the member will well know and has in front

of him as part of that same report, where 17 percent of British

Columbians answered that government data is hosted or stored in Canada

as their top priority.

The top priority in that survey listed was that government

services be available for the public online. Another set of respondents

— the second choice being that government has the most up-to-date

security protocols.

What I’m hearing from British Columbians is the desire and the

need to make sure their information is safe, and I want to assure all

British Columbians — and we’ve canvassed this a number of times in the

House — that the legislation before us and these changes to data

residency are going to help us. We’re going to ensure that people’s

information is safe. It’s going to provide access to security tools that

weren’t available before. We’re amending and strengthening our privacy

impact assessment to ensure that data, no matter where it’s stored, is

kept safe.

We are listening to British Columbians, and we’re going to make

sure that we’re providing the best services that they’ve come to count

on during COVID-19, and we’re going to do everything through this

legislation to keep their information safe.

[11:35 a.m.]

T. Stone: Considering that the government has a 2-to-1 vote margin on the

opposition, I think there’s a certain degree of reality here that these

changes are likely to make their way through this committee and become

the law in British Columbia, which is why, when the minister makes

statements around protecting people’s privacy and security and stuff, I

mean, there’s no quibble with the importance of that from our side, at

all. I completely agree that central to this entire discussion around

data residency is the protection of data, the protection of personal

information.

The 2021 consultation, the information access and privacy survey

that the Ministry of Citizens’ Services, for which the minister is

responsible, did, again, provide some pretty clear insights into the

respondents, the many people that took the time to actually participate

in this survey.

In my previous question, I mentioned how, in answer to the

question, “When thinking about accessing government services and

information, what is most important to you,” 58.8 percent responded that

it’s important to them that government data be hosted and stored in

Canada.

Interestingly, in that same question, the other answers were as

follows: 9.96 percent said government services for the public are

available online, that that was the most important thing. I find that

interesting. I find it equally interesting that only 1.3 percent of

respondents responded to this question of what is most important to you

is that government can use and build on the latest technology from

around the world. So 4.53 percent responded that government services and

priorities are delivered quickly, and 1.7 percent responded that

government spends less to provide services.

The overwhelming choice of the respondents was that government

data be hosted and stored in Canada. Again, 58.8 percent. The

second-largest response was 23.49 percent of respondents, who said that

it’s important to them that government data has the most up-to-date

security protocols. I think there’s a direct linkage between the two

there.

Again, in light of the significant emphasis that

res­pondents to the minister’s own survey — the survey from June

and July of this previous summer, so only a matter of months ago — why

did the minister, in the face of this significant concern, make the

decision to press forward with the changes to data residency that are

contained within Bill 22 and provided, in part, through this clause 17

that we’re discussing, when clearly, the overwhelming view of the

public, as reflected in this survey, was to have this data continue to

be stored and accessed here in British Columbia?

Hon. L. Beare: I’ve answered that question three times now for the member, and

I’m happily going to answer again, because public policy development

does need that broad and inclusive set of voices and consultation. We

considered many aspects and many voices when we were considering the

proposed changes we have before us today.

The member and I have talked about, over the hours that him and I

have been discussing that bill, how we’ve been operating safely this way

for the past 20 months here in British Columbia through the ministerial

order and how other jurisdictions across Canada have been operating

safely this way for years.

[11:40 a.m.]

The member read out the one survey. I’ll read out the second

survey so it’s in the record.

“When thinking about accessing government services and

information, what’s most important to you; please rank”: 33 percent,

“Government services for the public are available online”; 25 percent,

“Government data has the most up-to-date security protocols”; 17

percent, “Government data is hosted, stored in Canada”; 16 percent,

“Government services and priorities are delivered quickly”; 4 percent,

“Government can use and build on the latest technology from around the

world”; and 5 percent, “Government spends less to provide

services.”

Through our consultations and through our round tables, I’ve been

hearing a number of voices. What I’m hearing loudly and clearly is that

our current data restrictions are out of date, and they’re not allowing

our public bodies to be competitive or to provide the services that they

want to be able to provide to British Columbians.

I’m going to read a quote from the city of Kelowna for the

members. “Local governments are being asked to deliver services

effectively and efficiently with the best citizen experience possible.

With changes to the data residency policy, this will allow organizations

to meet the needs of our customers while still protecting our digital

assets.”

I think that’s very important. In all of my answers that I’ve

given, I’ve said it, and I will say it again. Protecting people’s

information, protecting privacy and protecting our data is a priority

for us, and it’s reflected here in this legislation.

T. Stone: A couple other results from this survey, and then we’ll move on.

In question 7, in

section 2 of the survey, it says: “When it comes to

security, the more sensitive a piece of information or data is, the more

strongly we should protect it. Reflecting on what is most important to

you, how would you rank the sensitivity of the following personal

information or data types?”

So 34.79 percent said their health information — for example, lab

results, immunization history, prescriptions and the like. And 46.9

percent indicated financial information — for example, student loan

balances, social insurance numbers, personal tax history and the like.

The next-largest response was way down at 6.54 percent. It was for the

social services–type information — child protection records, income

assistance, child support information, and so forth.

The point I’m trying to make here…. There is a height­ened

degree of concern. When you ask British Columbians, in the context of

the security and the confidentiality of their personal information —

whether it relates to financial information, health information or other

— and you indicate that that information is currently stored here in

Canada but that the government is making changes to potentially store it

outside of Canada…. There is obvious concern that British Columbians

have with that, as I think has been very well reflected, very strongly

reflected in the minister’s own survey.

I would add that this government doesn’t have a terrific track

record when it comes to PIAs, when you take, as one example, the

speculation tax and the collection of information on the speculation tax

before a PIA was completed.

I guess the question to the minister would be this. In the context

of, or in light of, the fact that the record is a bit shaky when it

comes to these privacy assessments when the data is stored here in

Canada, how can the minister look British Columbians in the eyes and say

to British Columbians: “Don’t worry. We’re going to have a better track

record with our privacy information assessments. We’re going to do a

better job of that when your data is hosted in foreign

jurisdictions”?

[11:45 a.m.]

How will the minister, frankly, be able to look British Columbians

in the eyes and pass along that message to them if their information is

taken out of British Columbia and stored in foreign

jurisdictions?

Hon. L. Beare: I just want to let the member know that our government has an

excellent track report on PIAs. In fact, we process over 1,000 PIAs

every year.

The member and I canvassed very thoroughly in our last session

together that we are not removing any of the protections that are in

legislation. In fact, we’re strengthening them. We’re strengthening our

PIAs and increasing those privacy impact assessments. I think it’s very

important for British Columbians to know that through this legislation,

we are increasing protections to make sure that their information and

that data is safe.

Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress

and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:49 a.m.

Copyright © 2021 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

chamber proceedings are available at www.leg.bc.ca .

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.