Fifth Session, 41st Parliament

(2020) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, August 11, 2020

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 354

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

Tributes

Robert Savage

I. Paton

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Christopher Seguin and action on opioid crisis and addiction issues

T. Stone

Faith events and community response to COVID-19

R. Singh

Celebration of Eid-ul-Adha

T. Wat

Burnaby Family Life and anti-racism network

J. Routledge

Quilters guilds in Chilliwack

L. Throness

Active transportation and cycling safety

B. D’Eith

Oral Questions

Handling of personal health information

J. Johal

Hon. A. Dix

M. de Jong

Site C power project

A. Olsen

Hon. B. Ralston

Government plan for education system reopening

D. Davies

Hon. R. Fleming

Education system reopening and access to school bus services

M. Stilwell

Hon. R. Fleming

Child care plan

J. Tegart

Hon. K. Chen

Petitions

D. Clovechok

P. Milobar

D. Davies

A. Olsen

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

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

Hon. D. Donaldson

S. Furstenau

A. Olsen

J. Rustad

TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 2020

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: M. Morris.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Horgan: Joining us in the gallery today is the basketball coach at my old alma

mater, Reynolds High School. Go, Roadrunners. Joining us in the gallery is

Jeff Loukes.

Jeff and his siblings were raised here in Victoria. I remember his

older sister. She went to Mount Doug and was pursued by one of my basketball

buddies at that time — to no effect, I would say. I think it was an

inter-city rivalry more than anything else.

I want to say that Jeff’s been at Reynolds for a quarter of a century,

coaching the basketball team for 20 years, taking them to the provincial

championships a couple of times. I want to thank him for his service to the

community, as well as his family, who are well known by many, including

myself, from many, many years ago.

Reynolds is known for its participation in Cops for Cancer — year

after year, the highest fundraiser in the region. The member for Oak

Bay–Gordon Head disputes that, but the facts are undeniable.

Joining Jeff Loukes today is Jason Goertzen. Would the House please

make him very, very welcome.

D. Clovechok: Virtually in the House today are over 1,300 residents from Revelstoke

who are watching live to witness the petition I will be delivering later

this morning. In particular, I want to welcome and recognize six individuals

for pulling this petition together in less than a week. They are Daniel

Doughty, Jane McNab, Tony Jeglum, Ben Wilke, Val Beard and Sarah

Newton.

I also want to recognize Revelstoke city councillor Cody Younker, who

helped quarterback the effort. They not only gathered almost 1,400

signatures but did an amazing job ensuring that people’s COVID-19 safety was

taken care of by following all the protocols, which included even making

sure the pens were constantly sanitized.

Watching the community unite and come together to protect a mountain

that is so incredibly important to the people of Revelstoke, and all during

the pandemic, has been truly been amazing. I am so proud to be working for

and with them and being the voice of the community here at our provincial

Legislature.

I would ask this House to make them feel welcome.

Tributes

ROBERT SAVAGE

I. Paton: This morning, I just want to take a moment to pay tribute to

another iconic Delta farmer who passed away last week, Mr. Robert

Savage. Robert’s brother — a lot of us would know, John Savage, a former

Agriculture Minister here in B.C. — passed away about two years

ago.

Robert Savage and John were a great team farming in Delta. Robert

was an original member of the Delta Farmers Institute, the Delta

Farmland and Wildlife Trust, and he was also a longtime treasurer of the

Delta Agricultural Society.

Robert was a good friend of mine. He was a great farmer and a

great contributor to our community. Whether it was the Delta Hospital

Foundation or REACH or any of the functions, Robert and his wife,

Daphne, were always there to support things that went on in

Delta.

My condolences to his wife, Daphne, and his son, Kevin, and his

daughters, Barb and Catherine.

[10:10 a.m.]

Introductions by Members

A. Weaver: As I wear very proudly, at home here, a scarf, I wish to also

introduce and welcome the members from Reynolds High School.

It is with great sadness that I acknowledge that year after year they

do indeed beat Oak Bay in the Cops for Cancer. It is an annual challenge,

but the word on the street is that they must have some secret donor who is

looking at the amounts that are being raised by Oak Bay and at the last

minute, each and every year, ensures that Reynolds wins.

I do congratulate Reynolds. I welcome them, and this rivalry with the

Premier will continue for many years to come.

Please, again, welcome the Reynolds contingent.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

CHRISTOPHER SEGUIN AND ACTION ON

OPIOID CRISIS AND

ADDICTION ISSUES

T. Stone: One thousand and fifty-four — the number of days ago that Kamloops

lost a community builder and I lost a great friend. One thousand and

fifty-four days ago, on September 22, 2017, Christopher Seguin passed

away due to an accidental overdose. He was a man of compassion, with a

heart full of community spirit and a smile that would light up every

room that he walked into. He was dedicated to giving of himself to make

life better for others.

Now, while we remember Christopher for who he was — a husband, a

father, a brother, a son, a selfless volunteer, and an accomplished

vice-president at Thompson Rivers University — we also said at the time

of his death that we would try to extract from our loss of Christopher

some good that may be of benefit to others, such as shining a light on

the dangers of using alone, such as ensuring 24-7 on-site supports are

there for every vulnerable person to access a path to recovery that is

going to work for them, so that they can actually get better.

That’s ending the stigma associated with drug use and doing this

by not using words or labels that are stigmatizing but, rather, by using

language that is compassionate and respectful and by thinking of the

person as a person, not defining them by their illness — all of this

focused on hopefully reducing overdoses and deaths.

Sadly, however, we find ourselves in a situation that is getting

worse, not better. One hundred and seventy-five overdose deaths were

registered in June, the highest monthly tally ever in British Columbia,

bringing the yearly total of illicit drug deaths to 728. Through the

first six months of 2020, the city that I represent in this Legislature,

Kamloops, has recorded 25 such deaths, just one fewer than all of 2019.

Paramedics responded to more than 2,700 overdoses in July

alone.

We are failing many vulnerable people in our province. We are

failing many sons and daughters, moms and dads, just like we failed my

friend Christopher Seguin three years ago. We can do better. We must do

better, and we must do it together.

I will say, once again, what I said 1,054 days ago. In

Christopher’s death, let’s save lives.

FAITH EVENTS AND COMMUNITY

RESPONSE TO

COVID-19

R. Singh: The past few months have transformed a lot around us. We’ve had to

change our way of living to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 to try and

contain the pandemic here in B.C. We’ve had to change the way we work,

the way we interact with our family and friends and our surroundings,

the way we engage with the economy and the way that we have to change to

come together for prayers and for our communal holidays. Many of us have

given up a lot for the good of all.

Today I speak in front of you of all of my appreciation for people

who have had to withdraw from important celebrations or commemorations

of their faiths. Where normally these often-public celebrations are the

hallmark of our province’s multiculturalism, this year families have had

to celebrate auspicious faith events like Passover, Easter, Vaisakhi,

Budh Purnima, Eid-ul-Adha and Krishna Janmashtami, among others, without

participating in congregations.

[10:15 a.m.]

For many, these celebrations mean deeply significant ceremonies of

their faiths and a life’s worth of family traditions. Most families look

forward to sharing these holidays with communities, which they have not

been able to do this year, for the greater good, and that is a sacrifice

worth noting.

I hope everyone will join me in appreciation of all who have

understood that urgency and have withheld celebrating occasions of faith

that they hold dear and who will have to give up these community events

till we return to the way of life we knew before March.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Maple Ridge–Mission, on a point of

order.

B. D’Eith: I withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member.

CELEBRATION OF EID-UL-ADHA

T. Wat: On July 31, I had the incredible honour of celebrating one of the

holiest days in the Islamic calendar, Eid-ul-Adha, by giving love and

donations to children and youth in my beautiful riding of Richmond North

Centre, alongside the amazing staff and volunteers at the MTO

Shahmaghsoudi School of Islamic Sufism. Last Wednesday we delivered

these donated care packages to the pediatric unit of Richmond Hospital,

a project that was started in 2015, allowing children to receive care in

our community.

Eid-ul-Adha is celebrated by carrying forward the spirit of

community, charity and support that is so prominent in our Muslim

communities. I would like to personally thank everyone at MTO

Shahmaghsoudi for going above and beyond to ensure that we could

continue this tradition despite the challenges this year has presented

to them.

It is even more admirable that in a time when we need a sense of

community more than ever, MTO Shahmaghsoudi has brought positivity and

support to communities across the world throughout the year. The

incredible work they have done to support our communities in our

pandemic recovery cannot go without recognition.

The greatest takeaway from my experience is that these amazing

actions show that we should pursue the spirit of Eid-ul-Adha. We must

all do our part to continue the spirit of community, charity and support

through the challenges we face, and beyond.

Thank you again, and a blessed Eid to you and your

families.

Eid Mubarak lakum wa-li-’a’ilatakum.

BURNABY FAMILY LIFE

AND ANTI-RACISM

NETWORK

J. Routledge: I’d like to congratulate Burnaby Family Life for being selected as

the Burnaby spoke in the wheel of Resilience B.C.’s Anti-Racism

Network.

Burnaby Family Life has been working to make Burnaby more

inclusive, welcoming and safe since 1971. In keeping with its values,

Burnaby Family Life wants you to know that they work with community

partners. While Burnaby Family Life may be coordinating the work of

Resilience B.C. in Burnaby, they want the community at large to get the

credit and the accolades.

Burnaby Family Life is part of Burnaby Together, a coalition

against racism and hate that was formed in 2016 by 24 organizations.

Since its inception, Burnaby Together has been raising awareness within

the community, looking for community solutions, supporting those facing

discrimination, and providing tools to respond to incidents. For

example, they’ve held forums on Islamophobia and forums on overcoming

the stigma of addiction. They’ve offered workshops about how to prevent

violent radicalization among Muslim youth.

Following the deaths of George Floyd, Regis Korchinski-Paquet and

Chantel Moore, Burnaby Together issued a powerful statement linking

those deaths to the systemic racism that permeates our society,

challenging us all to question our own assumptions and biases; talk to

our children about race, racism and privilege; consider donating to or

volunteering with organizations that combat racism and discrimination;

have conversations with our family and friends about how to be

anti-racist; learn about the true and full history of Canada; and

exercise our civic rights and responsibilities through peaceful

assembly, voting and pushing all levels of government for progressive

change.

I, for one, welcome being pushed to make progressive

change.

[10:20 a.m.]

QUILTERS GUILDS IN CHILLIWACK

L. Throness: Today I want to pay tribute to some really outstanding artists in

Chilliwack: our quilters. We have two non-profit quilting guilds in our

city that meet every month. The PieceMakers Guild meets in Cooke’s

Presbyterian Church, and Chilliwack Quilters Guild gathers in the Mount

Cheam Lions Hall.

Together, over 160 active members have been creating masterpieces

for as long as 35 years. At their meetings, quilters have a lot of fun

sharing ideas, learning new skills and showing off their handiwork.

Every year they host a big art show that fills an entire gymnasium with

200 beautiful quilts.

Now, the purpose of the show is not just to showcase talent but to

raise money for a charity they call We Care Quilts. Members make nearly

300 colourful quilts every year to give away. Their quilts comfort and

encourage people in hospice and palliative care, children who come into

contact with community police, women in Ann Davis Transition House and

several Indigenous centres.

They also make placemats for Meals on Wheels, heart pillows for

breast cancer survivors and cloth bags filled with toiletries, gloves,

socks and hats for disadvantaged youth. And they have been active during

COVID. Agnes Loewen, a member of the PieceMakers Guild, told me that

over the past few months, she alone has made six We Care quilts and over

100 masks.

I was amazed at the sheer size of their organizations. Their large

boards manage everything from the We Care effort to their newsletter,

website, library, workshops, bus trips, quilt show and more. It would be

hard to find a more active and involved group of volunteers, passionate

about their work.

I want to thank the PieceMakers president, Beatrice Rieske, and

the Chilliwack president, Lynn Gobi, and all of their board members and

members-at-large, of both quilters guilds, for using their time and

skills to give beauty, charity and comfort to the people of

Chilliwack.

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

AND CYCLING

SAFETY

B. D’Eith: For individuals, active transportation like cycling can really

improve physical and mental health and cut down on transportation costs.

Of course, for society, active transportation can reduce congestion and

be a key tool in our fight against climate change.

I’m very proud that in British Columbia we have the highest

percentage of active transportation trips for commuting to and from work

out of all the provinces. We’ve done some great work to make sure that

discussions about transportation infrastructure include cycling.

However, we can only enjoy active transportation as long as it’s safe,

and that’s what I wanted to address today.

This month in my community, there were two tragic reminders of the

vital need for improved cycling safety and active transportation

infrastructure. Last week, sadly, Gareth Reardon was struck by a truck

on a popular bike trail in Pitt Meadows. Gareth is survived by his wife,

Natalia, and their three children. A GoFundMe fund has been set up in

their support, and $40,000 of the $75,000 goal has already been

reached.

In early July, Daphné Toumbanakis was struck by a vehicle on

Lougheed Highway. Daphné was beginning a cross-country cycling tour of

Canada. She had been spending some time in Colombia and really wanted to

work with immigrants and refugees.

I wish to express my heartfelt condolences to both Daphné’s and

Gareth’s families, friends and communities. I know these losses are

devastating.

That’s why we must redouble our efforts to make roads safer for

cyclists and other participants in active transportation. We must build

on the work that has already been done to achieve the goals set out in

the “Move. Commute. Connect.” strategy. We must continue to make changes

like the recent quadrupling of fines for dooring and the introduction of

more education and awareness for drivers.

We owe it to the memories of Daphné and Gareth and all the other

B.C.’ers who have lost their lives or been injured to not only embrace

active transportation but to make it safe for everyone.

Oral Questions

HANDLING OF

PERSONAL HEALTH

INFORMATION

J. Johal: Yesterday we asked the Minister of Citizens’ Services about a

serious breach of security involving the private medical records of

British Columbians. Even though it’s her file, she clearly did not have

the answers. The Minister of Health then joined his colleague with even

more spin.

Documents provided to the opposition now show that a minimum of

5,000 files were accessible to individuals located outside of Canada,

including contractors in India.

To the Minister of Citizens’ Services, when did she become aware

that files were being transferred to overseas contractors, and has she

notified British Columbians whose personal health records have been

breached?

[10:25 a.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: It’s very unfortunate that the member pursues this today.

Yesterday he asserted that people had engaged in illegal activities.

This is false. Yesterday he said that they engaged in unethical

activity. This is false. Yesterday he claimed that the personal health

records of British Columbians had been shared outside of British

Columbia. This is false. Yesterday he asserted he had documents to

support this. When he produced those documents, they showed no such

thing.

Now, I know that many people would say that the statements of the

hon. member were so wildly inaccurate that no one would take them

seriously and that one shouldn’t pursue these matters. But really, when

you make these statements when you don’t understand the issues, when you

make very serious allegations based on those misunderstandings, really,

all that’s owed here is an apology from the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a

supplemental.

J. Johal: The Minister of Citizens’ Services had 24 hours to educate herself

on this file, and still to this day, she has not gotten up to answer.

There will be no apologies.

We have copies of emails that prove NTT workers operating out of

New Delhi have had direct access to private medical information of

British Columbians. This breach could have serious implications for

British Columbians, and it needs to be investigated.

Once again, question to the Minister of Citizens’ Services, will

she commence investigation into this serious data breach?

Hon. A. Dix: What the member is saying is simply untrue. He has no

understanding of the contract. I offered yesterday a briefing, which, of

course, he didn’t take me up on.

These statements are false, and they’re serious allegations. He’s

accused the Provincial Health Services Authority, NTT Canada, the

Ministry of Health and presumably myself and others of illegal and

unethical activity. That’s what he did on the record. If he was asking

questions about the contract, which is a completely legitimate thing to

do, that would be another thing. But that’s what he did, and he has no

evidence.

That he persists in this is a demonstration, I think, and an

embarrassment that every member on the opposition side…. We are dealing

with serious matters in this prov­ince right now. There is no

evidence here, and he knows it. The evidence he produced yesterday

showed the opposite of what he suggested.

It is false what he’s saying with respect to illegal activity. It

is false what he’s saying about the personal health information of

people. If he doesn’t have or the Leader of the Opposition doesn’t have

the responsibility to call this behaviour into line, then it’s a serious

moment for this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Richmond-Queensborough on a second

supplemental.

J. Johal: Here is the quote from Rahul from India: “My shift time is over

here in India. Could you please reassign this to some resource in a

Canadian time zone to take care of this?” Now, when you look at

LinkedIn, there is a Rahul Arora, whose title is ServiceNow Architect

for NTT Data India Enterprises in New Delhi, India.

Now, yesterday the minister continued to maintain that foreign

workers were used for technical issues, not clinical work. What he

doesn’t mention is that once a technical service desk takes control of a

health care worker’s computer, they can see all the

information.

The system is called active directory access. Active directory

access helps organize a company’s users and computers. IT admin uses

active directory access to organize a company’s complete hierarchy from

which computers belong on which network. In layman’s terms, it’s a

system where all the health authorities share their data and

applications, meaning Mr. Arora from NTT India and other workers at NTT

U.S.A. now have access into our health information system.

Question to the Minister of Citizens’ Services once again: what

immediate actions will she be taking to stop foreign workers from

accessing B.C. health records?

Hon. A. Dix: Naturally, when a question such as this is asked in the

Legislature, we ask detailed information to people at PHSA and people at

NTT Canada. And they state categorically and without equivocation that

the private health information of British Columbians has not been

shared. They actually have specific procedures to ensure that that does

not happen.

Yesterday I offered to the member a briefing on said matters so

that he could inform himself — a briefing, of course, which he is not

interested in. He’s not interested in that. These allegations without

substantiation are really shameful. I think they’re shameful.

[10:30 a.m.]

I take these issues very seriously. I think most members of the

House do. The suggestion that the personal health information of British

Columbians would be left exposed in this way is a serious allegation to

make, but it is not a true allegation. All of the people involved, PHSA

and NTT Canada and the Ministry of Health, have given specific and

comprehensive assurances of this.

Now, if the member is interested in the contract, in spite of his,

frankly, irresponsible behaviour here…. He speaks of ineptitude. I mean,

this is a very low standard, indeed, that’s being set here in this House

at a very serious moment for British Columbians.

We’ll continue to offer such a briefing, but I think what’s owed

to the people involved, who take these issues very seriously, is an

apology from the hon. member. He didn’t have the goods yesterday, and he

doesn’t have the goods today.

M. de Jong: That the Minister of Health, on whose watch this breach occurred,

would try to minimize or dismiss the issue is not particularly

surprising to me or members of the opposition. What is surprising,

though, is that the minister, whose statutory responsibility is for

attending to protecting privacy and investigating allegations of

breaches of privacy, would be sidelined and precluded from addressing

the issue — profoundly disappointing and surprising.

A few months ago the Premier sent a letter to the then member for

Burnaby–Deer Lake, appointing her to the cabinet. He said, amongst other

things, that her job was to ensure that British Columbians’ personal

information be safeguarded. That was the mandate in the letter. It’s

also a statutory responsibility of the Minister of Citizens’ Services.

Now, the previous Minister of Citizens’ Services had difficulty living

by the rules she was charged with enforcing, but we have a new Minister

of Citizens’ Services.

I guess my question is to the Premier. Why is it, when the

opposition brings a serious allegation — and it is a serious allegation

— of a breach of privacy, a fundamental breach of privacy protection

laws, that the Premier is sidelining the very minister he appointed, who

is statutorily charged with protecting privacy rights, and instead

hiding behind the excuses of the minister on whose watch the breach

occurred in the first place?

Hon. A. Dix: I guess the opposition wants to double down on personal attacks.

They made a specific allegation yesterday about illegal activity. They

made a specific allegation about unethical activity. That allegation is

false.

Yes, I’m the minister responsible. The people who they are

accusing — the people of the Provincial Health Services Authority, the

people in the Ministry of Health, the people at NTT Canada — take this

seriously, and I take it seriously.

Now we have this game about who answers what in question period.

That’s all they have, as they continue to engage in these practices, and

it’s profoundly disappointing.

I offered them a briefing yesterday so that they could learn the

facts, and they weren’t interested in that. They’re not interested in

the facts. They’re doubling down on this sort of terrible personal

attack, which seems to be the stock-in-trade these days in politics. I

find it very, very disappointing and not acceptable conduct on the part

of any member of this Legislature.

They’ve made these allegations. I’ve noted that they’re false. Now

their only concern appears to be who answers what question in question

period.

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

M. de Jong: What is profoundly disappointing is the lack of regard this

minister and, apparently, this Premier have for the legal requirements

that exist around privacy protection in the province of British

Columbia.

Forgive me and forgive us if we don’t accept at face value the

assurance of the minister who lies at the centre of the alleged breach.

It happened on his watch. That’s why we have a separate minister who has

responsibilities, a specific statutory responsibility, for privacy

protection.

[10:35 a.m.]

The questions remain the same. Confronted by the evidence that has

been presented, the statements and emails from foreign jurisdictions

like India, the confirmation of 5,000 files, that access to personal

health files was provided outside of Canada….

There are laws in British Columbia that preclude that and that

forbid that from happening. There are also requirements that the

minister responsible for those laws, the Minister of Citizens’ Services,

take specific action, like notifying the privacy commission and

notifying British Columbians whose information might have been

accessible.

Has any of that occurred; if it hasn’t occurred, why not; and when

will it occur?

Hon. A. Dix: Again, they have no evidence, because there is no

evidence.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Dix: The people of the PHSA operated normally and honourably in this

instance. The evidence they claim to have doesn’t show what they say it

is. Yet they continue to smear people for no good reason.

I suppose that’s an approach to being in opposition. You keep

repeating it in the hopes that somebody will pick it up and give it some

legs or something like this. This is the state of things in this day and

age, but I don’t think that’s true. I think that people have shown that

that’s not the state of things and that we have to do better than that.

We have to follow the facts and the evidence. That’s what we try and

do.

It is extremely disappointing that instead of an apology today,

the member for Abbotsford West and the member for Richmond-Queensborough

continue to attack public servants in this way with charges for which

they have no evidence and which aren’t true. All I can say is that

that’s disappointing. Really, this display, which is unfortunate, says

more about the people making the allegations than anything

else.

SITE C POWER PROJECT

A. Olsen: To nobody’s surprise, we’ve recently found out that the Site C dam

is in serious trouble. The overall health of the project has been

classified as “red,” meaning it is facing serious cost overruns and

schedule delays.

Site C is proving to be an endless money pit, and British

Columbians are footing the bill. It started with a $6 billion price tag,

rising to $8.8 billion in 2014. When this government forged ahead in

2017, it was at $10.7 billion. Now the price tag is unknown, but we know

it’s going to be much higher than $10 billion. Site C is proving to be a

colossal waste of money, and we can’t afford to just keep digging when

we don’t know how deep the hole will go.

My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources. How much is too much? Where is the government going to draw

the line on the cost overruns at Site C and reconsider the cost burden

they’re asking British Columbians to shoulder?

Hon. B. Ralston: I thank the interim Leader of the Third Party for the

question.

In considering an answer to the question that has been posed, I

think it’s important to recall that the previous government, the old

government, recklessly pushed the Site C project past the point of no

return. Then-Premier Christy Clark said: “I will get it past the point

of no return.”

The government refused to let our independent energy

watchdog…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. B. Ralston: …the B.C. Utilities Commission, review the project.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the minister has the floor. Thank you.

Hon. B. Ralston: They signed off on a design that included geological risks, and

they spent billions of dollars without proper oversight in their efforts

to push this project past the point of no return.

In the summer of 2017, we inherited a project facing significant

cost pressures, but we were managing them. We are now facing geological

risks in the design that the old government approved. In addition, the

global COVID-19 pandemic has created unforeseen challenges to the Site C

project.

In March, B.C. Hydro significantly scaled down the project and

focused only on essential work and meeting critical milestones. This was

done in line with advice from the provincial health officer to ensure

the safety of workers and communities. B.C. Hydro is now in the process

of safely scaling up construction activities in line with, again, the

advice from public health officials.

[10:40 a.m.]

As detailed in the quarterly progress reports and the annual

progress reports, there have been additional financial impacts on the

project, such as an amendment to the main civil works contract. The

COVID-19 pandemic continues to cause the most uncertainty when it comes

to this project.

I’ll end there. I’m sure that the member will have a

supplemental.

Mr. Speaker: Leader, Third Party, on a supplemental.

A. Olsen: The BCUC disagreed with the assertion that the minister just made

— that this project was past the point of no return. There was a

commitment to send this to the BCUC to review the project, which

suggested that it was not past the point of no return — or else, why

would we send it to the BCUC to review the project? To now state that it

was past the point of no return and to put this burden on the shoulders

of the previous government to try to absolve the responsibility of this

House that currently exists in this place is not acceptable. This

project was not past the point of no return, because it continues to

this day.

We have to recognize the fact that we are just throwing good money

after bad on this project. In December 2019, the overall health of the

Site C project was red. That was due to the serious geotechnical

instability concerns and contract disputes. However, when releasing the

overdue progress reports on the dam, the minister did then what he did

today, which was lean in on COVID-19 to explain the cost overruns and

the delays — further unacceptable.

Experts have been raising the alarm about the geotechnical

instability on this dam for years. According to B.C. Hydro, the cost of

fixing these problems has now become “much higher than initially

expected.” So the massive cost escalations cannot be blamed on COVID-19

— at least, not honestly. The geotechnical issues are still not

resolved, and it’s possible that the site may never be stable enough to

support a dam of this size.

My question is, again, to the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources. Can he clarify on the record that the cost

uncertainties of Site C do not come down to COVID-19 and that the

geotechnical instability is a significant factor in cost overruns and

project delays that have yet to be resolved?

Hon. B. Ralston: The member raises legitimate questions about the cost and

schedule

of the Site C project. Obviously, as the minister responsible, this is a

topic I am deeply concerned about. That’s why I asked Peter Milburn, in

his role as a special adviser, to work with B.C. Hydro to help provide

fresh eyes and answers to the challenges faced by the Site C

project.

I think it’s important to remember, though, that the Site C

project was facing significant cost pressures and risks when we first

formed government in 2017. These have worsened, in large part due to the

global COVID-19 pandemic. As a result of the pandemic, the scaling down

of the work on the project and the scaling back up, B.C. Hydro is

undertaking a rebaselining analysis of the project. This involves

reviewing the cost and the time required to complete the remaining work

for the project. This will help our government understand the true

impact COVID has had on the budget. I anticipate being able to provide

an update on cost projections later this fall.

GOVERNMENT PLAN FOR

EDUCATION SYSTEM

REOPENING

D. Davies: When we first asked the Minister of Education if parents could

expect clarity on his government’s back-to-school plan before August 20,

he said yes. Since then, he’s broken that promise to parents, students

and teachers. There are now more questions and concerns than ever

before. The Premier has added to this confusion now by saying he’s not

sure when classes will start.

The minister said August 26 is when parents can expect

confirmation if students will return to class the following week.

Anxiety levels are sky-high for families. Will the minister stop the

doubletalk and feeding the confusion fire for families? Will students be

back in class, yes or no, on September 8?

[10:45 a.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. What we’ve outlined —

and this is in working with the entire school system and working with

the provincial health office — is a way to restart schools safely on

September 8 in the province of British Columbia. We’ve been working on

this since March, and our June restart committee has been working for

weeks on this. You saw an announcement done by myself and Dr. Bonnie

Henry on July 29, giving a comprehensive set of health and safety

guidelines from the B.C. Centre for Disease Control about how to do just

that.

I have to say I am so pleased and proud to see school

administrators, learning teams, sacrificing their summer back on the job

to use those guidelines to develop local plans on how to restart school

safely. They deserve our thanks, not only for the hard work that they’re

doing but for the communications and the information that is coming to

parents about what things will look like specifically.

That’s what parents want. They want local, specific information,

and I understand that. They should rest assured that we have the

innovative minds of school leadership in every part of the province

working on just that now.

The member’s question, I think, is specifically around what day

students will actually return to class. I have to say that we’re looking

at a very different September than in previous years. Previously,

students would come back into class, usually with their previous year’s

teachers, and wait a few days for school to be organized for the coming

school year. We can’t do that in a pandemic. That would not be in

compliance with the BCCDC guidelines.

So what we’re doing is working on exactly that issue with the

steering committee that we have that is representative of every

important partner in the K-to-12 sector. You will hear an announcement

in the coming days clearly about what September 8 will look like for

staff teams, including support staff, principals and vice-principals and

the teaching staff coming back into the school and making sure that kids

are organized into the classes where they will be with their peers in a

unit that is designed to limit student interactions.

If that takes some extra time and builds additional confidence and

fulfils the guidelines that have been developed by Dr. Bonnie Henry and

her team, that’s what we’re going to do in the province of British

Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Peace River North on a supplemental.

D. Davies: Unfortunately, the only thing that we did see on July 29 was the

minister kicking the can down the road and laying all of the

responsibility onto school districts. There was no plan given on July

29, and that is part of the problem. The minister is not accepting any

responsibility for this. It’s always that the committee has to do

something to sort it out, it’s up to school districts, or it’s up to

parents to make a plan.

Parents are under a tremendous amount of anxiety. This morning,

just now, the minister said maybe only teachers will be back in the

class on September 8. Again, parents have enough stress, a tremendous

amount, that they’re dealing with. They are looking for leadership from

this minister. They’re looking for leadership from this government on

what September 8 looks like. Plans have to be made by parents, by

families.

Would the minister give a clear answer on what schools will look

like on September 8? If they’re not going to be open, say so. We need

that clarity.

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question. What we have provided at

the highest level in this province is strong, effective, science-based

leadership every step of the way for every sector of B.C. society,

including schools. The way we’ve done it has been a collaborative

approach, working with every professional and parent organization and

stakeholder in the K-to-12 education system to do this

safely.

We’re doing it in a very similar manner to what you’re seeing in

other jurisdictions, including other Canadian provinces and European

jurisdictions that the ministry is in close coordination with, and we’re

doing it safely. We’re doing it in a way that will allow a phased

re-entry of students into school. If we have to use that first week of

school to get it right and districts are saying, “Look, we need some

time with our local administrative teams on the ground,” that’s a

conversation that’s happening at the steering committee.

I think that’s a far more productive forum, quite frankly — and I

say this respectfully — than in the Legislature during question period.

Those meetings are happening on an almost daily basis. That’s an active

area under discussion. We will communicate what that looks like, because

we do want to have consistency across the 60 school districts in our

province.

[10:50 a.m.]

Look, we’ve got a lot of experts looking at how we can do this

best. We’re hearing and respecting from the teaching profession, from

support staff, that they want the schools to be organized and done in a

way that is in full compliance with the new BCCDC guidelines. That’s the

safe and responsible way to do things. If we’re taking the time to

listen to our partners and making adjustments as we go and showing some

flexibility, I think that’s the responsible way to proceed.

EDUCATION SYSTEM REOPENING

AND ACCESS TO SCHOOL BUS

SERVICES

M. Stilwell: The Minister of Education promised clarity to parents by the end

of July, and so far all he has delivered, in August, is chaos. To add to

that chaos, I have a constituent whose child has always been able to

ride the bus to school and to before- and after-school care.

This year the school district has informed her that it won’t

happen, as they try to adapt to the guidance from the Ministry of

Education in terms of capacity for buses. She relies on this service so

that she can go to work while her child gets to school.

To the Minister of Education, her child used to be able to access

the bus, but now he can’t. Where is the plan for busing? What are

parents supposed to do?

Hon. R. Fleming: Well, I’ll have to take part of that question on notice, because I

don’t have the specific details that the member raises. But let me be

clear. Transportation is fully funded, as it is in any year, for school.

Buses will look different under a pandemic. School will look different

under a pandemic. We have very clear guidelines and changes, physically,

that will happen in buildings. We have health and safety measures that

have to be adhered to — that students have to learn, not just

professional staff and those who work in our school system — to keep

schools as controlled sites in our community.

These are valuable institutions for everyone in British Columbia.

We want to restore in-class instruction after an almost-six-month

absence for most families and students in British Columbia. That’s why

we flattened the curve in British Columbia. That’s why we’re doing

everything we’re doing in terms of our robust public health response

across this province.

I will await some more details from the member about specifically

what the communication has been from her district to this family. But it

is certainly the case that school districts are working with the B.C.

Centre for Disease Control guidelines on how to adjust school

transportation systems to and from schools to get kids to school

safely.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Parksville-Qualicum on a supplemental.

M. Stilwell: Parents are already struggling around the challenges around the

pandemic, and this minister continues to make the situation worse for

parents and families around this province. The school district is simply

following the guidelines that were laid out by this ministry. Now he’s

throwing the school district under the bus, but it falls squarely on his

lap. “The district adapted the bus capacity to meet the restrictions

that were put in place.”

A simple question to the minister. He knows that there needs to be

a plan. Parents are waiting for a plan. We’re at the middle of August

almost. We’re weeks away from the restart. There were expectations from

parents that children would be going back to school.

Did he not have a thought or a plan in place for busing and how

those children would get to school? When is he going to fix the problem

so parents don’t have to worry about how the children are going to get

to school?

Hon. R. Fleming: Well, as I said in my earlier answer to this member, if she

provides some details about the communication between the school

district and this family, I’m happy to look into it. But having been in

touch with superintendents and those working in the administrative teams

around the province, if this is the case, it’s an anomaly.

Districts are preparing and have already prepared, back in June,

retrofits to their school buses, adding barriers. We announced, in the

additional funding that we’re providing to the school system this year,

more money to hire additional custodians, deep-cleaning procedures,

personal protective equipment for students and staff — for every student

and staff member in the province — additional handwashing stations where

required in schools. There are supplies that are being funded directly

by the Ministry of Education in acknowledgment that there are some

additional cost pressures related to the safe reopening of schools

during this pandemic.

[10:55 a.m.]

The funding for transportation in British Columbia has gone up

steadily since we formed government. Districts are planning, for the

most part — again, I’m happy to look into this particular question — a

resumption of safe transportation practices when we get back to school

in September. That is what we’re hearing in terms of reports from around

the province.

Transportation obviously is critical for many families and

students. It’s going to be done differently. That is correct. It’s going

to be done according to the new health and safety protocols that we’ve

developed, and that’s essential to maintain that service to get students

to and from school.

Mr. Speaker: Members, I’m going to allow one more question — Fraser-Nicola. We

are so lopsided here on the questions and answers. It’s nobody’s fault.

It’s just a function, as we all know, of our new COVID situation and

participating virtually. I will allow one question, no

supplemental.

CHILD CARE PLAN

J. Tegart: More questions than answers. No certainty for families to plan.

You’ve made it worse, not better. For parents who are trying to plan

child care, who are looking for daycare and after-school care, the

Minister for Child Care has no plan. She’s studying it.

To the Minister for Child Care, why is there no plan to help

parents?

Hon. K. Chen: Thank you to the member for the question. We have been providing

actions, responding to this crisis during this pandemic since day one.

We have provided temporary emergency funding, and we have already

invested over $250 million to make sure providers can continue to

operate and providers who are closed can continue to come back with

services.

We’ve seen that happening during the past few months and

especially the past few weeks. We are seeing more child care providers

coming back to open up their spaces, and more parents are also returning

to work because they are able to get the child care services they

need.

As we’re looking towards September, we’ll continue to work with

public health to make sure there are health and safety standards to

ensure that child care can continue to operate, at the same time working

with the sector, working with providers and working with early childhood

educators and also our local child care resource referral centres, who

have been providing matching services for parents to be able to get the

child care services they need.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

Mr. Speaker: Columbia River–Revelstoke.

D. Clovechok: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity.

I am pleased to rise virtually in this House today to present a

petition to the Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and

Rural Development on behalf of my constituents in Revelstoke, regarding

their objection to the potential development of the iconic Mount Begbie, a

petition, I might add, I fully support. I’m proud to stand shoulder to

shoulder in agreement with the community of Revelstoke.

I’ll be forwarding an electronic copy of the petition to the Clerk’s

office once I’m done. There were 1,342 signatures collected in just one

week, representing 20 percent of the census population of Revelstoke. The

community is requesting a moratorium…

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member.

D. Clovechok: …on any future recreational development.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

D. Clovechok: I’ll read into the record, Mr. Speaker, the actual petition. They

request that the government of British Columbia…

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member.

D. Clovechok: …place an interim moratorium on all commercial recreational

development within a 20-kilometre radius from the centre of the Revelstoke

boundary until a back-country recreation access management plan of the area

within the Revelstoke timber supply area and the Columbia block of the

Cascadia timber supply area is completed.

P. Milobar: I, too, rise with a petition, but not for Mount Begbie. This is on

behalf of the citizens of Riverdale mobile home park in my riding. It is in

regards to danger trees along the riverbank on provincial Crown land. They

need them topped or removed. They are a danger to their homes.

Unfortunately, no arm of government wants to take responsibility for

the Crown land that they sit upon to remove these trees. They lie awake at

night, worried that in a wind storm, trees will come into their mobile

homes. It is signed by the 66 homes — and 86 signatures in total.

D. Davies: I present a petition here signed by over 15,000 concerned parents and

folks around restoring the independent distributed learning funds that were

recently cut by the Ministry of Education back in May. I’d like to present

this petition on behalf Daleen Bybee, who organized this

petition.

[11:00 a.m.]

A. Olsen: I don’t have a petition with 15,000 signatures, but I’ve got one with

115 signatures from Saltspring, so that might add some emphasis to it —

concerned citizens requesting that the speed limit through Ganges be lowered

to 30 kilometres an hour for pedestrian and cycling safety.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call continued debate for the estimates of the Ministry of Forests,

Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

[11:05 a.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS,

LANDS,

NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS

AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Gibson in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:06 a.m.

On Vote 29: ministry operations, $489,126,000

(continued) .

Hon. D. Donaldson: I have a couple of pieces of information to read into the record

in response to questions that arose yesterday, as well as from previous

days’ estimates debate. The House Leader of the Green Party asked a

question around how much of the budget in our ministry is given to

conducting surface and groundwater studies yesterday. We endeavoured to

get that information for her, and I said that I’d have it this morning.

Staff has been collating that.

I think the question is more accurately typified as, “How much of

the budget?” because the majority of the funding for the groundwater and

surface water studies monitoring budget is managed by the Ministry of

Environment. But I can give some numbers to the member.

The three areas, and it’s very integrated, around water and water

inventory are the snow survey programs, the federal-provincial

hydrometric network and the provincial groundwater observation

network.

The snow survey program — Environment has a budget of $168,000 for

its operations. It’s essential to understanding the groundwater recharge

and the surface water discharge.

The federal-provincial hydrometric network — the Ministry of

Environment contributes $2.592 million to that. The remainder is

contributed by the federal government partners to $6.9 million per year.

Our ministry contributes a portion from the projects we operate to

that.

The provincial groundwater observation network has 217 sites. It’s

funded through environment and supported by our technicians for

operations. Under the Water Sustainability Act, there were $335,000 in

groundwater science projects last fiscal year; $79,000 of that was an

app for mapping projects.

In 2021, the surface and groundwater studies budget associated

with WSA is $260,000, much of that focused on specific projects like the

Koksilah and Chemainus rivers.

I think that’s…. I don’t want to spend too much more time, but

there are more details, and we’ll get them to the member.

[11:10 a.m.]

S. Furstenau: Thank you to the minister for the response to yesterday’s

question. I just have one question I’m going to ask this morning and

then hand things off to my colleague for Saanich North and the

Islands.

The B.C. government still has a fact sheet on old growth, posted

on their website, published in 2013 under the previous Liberal

government. This fact sheet opens with: “Old-growth forests are not

disappearing. There are more than 25 million hectares of old-growth

forests in B.C.” On another website, government states that old-growth

forests comprise about 23 percent of forested lands and about 13.2

million hectares.

I’m concerned about the discrepancy between these two numbers and

that the government continues to post misleading statistics on the state

of old growth. Independent scientists, using government’s own data,

found that 80 percent of the 13 million hectares is small

trees.

Given this, my question to the minister is: will government change

their communication around old growth to accurately represent what type

of old forest actually remains and to show the difference between

productive old forests that support large trees and the small trees that

represent the vast majority of the total?

Hon. D. Donaldson: It’s important to note — and I believe the member had it in

preamble to her question — that we do use the definition of old growth

stated in the 1995 Biodiversity Guidebook . In general, that

definition is for trees 250 years or older on the coast, and 140 years

and older in the Interior. Of course, there are some further factors

that refine the definition, based on the frequency of natural

disturbances and ecological units, but that’s generally what we

use.

[11:15 a.m.]

As far as the findings of the independent science report and the

numbers they use, the amount of hectares of old-growth forest, reported

provincially to be at 13.2 million hectares, corresponds reasonably well

with that generated by the forest analysis and inventory branch, at 13.7

million hectares.

We’ve committed to engagement on the independent panel report. I

know that they were in receipt of the independent investigator

scientists report. We are committed to taking action on updating the

government’s old-growth strategy. We do recognize that better access to

government data and information on old growth is needed. That’s been

something that’s been repeated by users of the database and by those who

have an interest in old-growth forest management in B.C.

So we’re going to have more to say as we do the analysis on the

panel report. It’s all about building trust with the public, ensuring

that we have biodiversity and ecosystems that reflect the diversity in

B.C. and that are sustainable, as well as protecting forest economies in

rural communities for workers and jobs.

The Chair: Does the House Leader of the Third Party have any further

queries of the minister?

S. Furstenau: I will hand it over to my colleague. He will follow up with a

question.

A. Olsen: Thank you to the minister for his response.

It was part of a

preamble in one of the questions that I asked

recently in question period that we’re getting to a situation in British

Columbia — especially to the minister’s final piece of his response,

which was around protecting forestry-dependent communities — where the

transition needs to happen and needs to happen very quickly, because we

will either do that transition now, or we’ll get to a situation where

we’ll get to the edge of the cliff and fall off.

So I ask the question. An independent report on the state of

B.C.’s old-growth forest was released earlier this year, in anticipation

of the government’s own old-growth task force that the minister

referenced. This report was called B.C.’s Old Growth Forest: A Last

Stand for Biodiversity , and it was by Price, Holt and

Daust.

It included a number of extremely concerning facts about the state

of our old forests in B.C. It found that a vast majority of B.C.’s old

growth, 80 percent, consists of low-timber-value small trees and that

the majority of productive forest sites have less than 30 percent of

their natural old trees, with nearly half having 1 percent of their old

growth.

Given that this report used publicly available provincial data,

can the minister confirm the accuracy of the report’s

findings?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: To the interim leader of the Green Party, I appreciate the

question. We appreciate that the independent scientists’ report —

independent in that they don’t work for the provincial government —

included the ministry data, and it’s great that they were using a

consistent data set. That’s been pretty important. What I’ve discovered

over a number of years being the minister is that there are varying data

sets out there. I’m appreciative that they used the ministry data

set.

We’ve been focusing our analysis on the independent panel’s

report, the one that we commissioned on old growth, completed by Al

Gorley and Garry Merkel. We’ve not verified the findings with the Price,

Holt and Daust report. I have met with two of the three authors of the

report. As well, the senior management team leading our old-growth

forest review has met — just last week, I believe it was, or late July —

with the Price, Holt and Daust authors.

We’re happy and pleased to meet with the three authors again

during the engagement process following the public release of the

panel’s report. At this point, we’re committed to engaging on a panel

report after the public release.

A. Olsen: What analysis has the forest analysis and inventory branch of the

ministry undertaken to validate the findings of the report? If there is

any, when will it be done, and will it be made public?

Hon. D. Donaldson: The forest analysis and inventory branch hasn’t yet undertaken

analysis of the Price, Holt and Daust report. The forest analysis and

inventory branch, as part of our team, is focused on analyzing the

independent panel’s report on old growth, completed by Al Gorley and

Garry Merkel.

[11:25 a.m.]

As I said already, we and the senior management team put together

for the analysis of the independent panel report have met with Price,

Holt and Daust to better understand their findings. When we do the

public release of the panel’s report, as part of the engagement process,

we’ll be pleased to meet with the three authors that I’ve mentioned. Of

course, before and as part of the public release of the panellists’

report, we’ll be first and foremost engaging with a

government-to-government relationship with First Nations to formulate

any policy changes that may occur as a result of the panel

report.

The final part of the member’s question was: once forest analysis

and inventory branch work is completed on the Price, Holt and Daust

report — once we’re finished with the panel report — will it be released

publicly? Yes, we commit to that.

I also make note that when I actually met with Price and Daust, I

asked about the report and whether it had been submitted to the

independent panel that we’d convened — because the report’s final

version came out in May, I believe, and the panel’s submissions were due

by the end of March, or earlier. I was told by the authors that they had

put in a draft of the report to the independent panel. I was assured by

them, and it was confirmed by the panel, that they’d received the report

and taken it into consideration in creating their

recommendations.

A. Olsen: In budget estimates and in question period, I and my caucus

colleagues have been asking a lot of questions around old growth. We’ve

asked questions about the

definitions of “old growth” for three years

now. Before I move on to a different subject, I just want to reiterate

comments that the minister made with respect to public confidence and

the

definitions of “old growth,” how much is left, what’s high-value or

low-value. All of this is very confusing for many people.

I think it is important for this government and for future

governments, if they are going to have the confidence of the public on

this issue. that they get those

definitions and those numbers very

clear, that they make them public and that they be defensible, because

this has been a frustrating exercise over the past three-and-a-bit

years. Unless those numbers get clarified, it will continue to be a

frustration for British Columbians.

I’m going to switch gears here now to tenures and the increasing

number of boats in bays and inlets. The minister knows that this is an

issue that has been in front of me for quite some time, an issue that

has been growing in the coastal communities for the past decade, maybe

even a generation. It’s an issue I was introduced to when I first got

elected to the district of Central Saanich — the regulation of mooring

buoys in sheltered bays and inlets. In my riding, I can just name four:

Brentwood Bay, Tsehum Harbour, Ganges Harbour and Burgoyne Bay. They’ve

all got a proliferation of boats, and it’s been exponential

growth.

In some cases it’s actually making boating very difficult to get

in and out of established marinas, because there is very little

regulation and very little coordination that I can see between the

federal and the provincial governments. There are currently few or maybe

no tools in place for communities to address the social and

environmental issues that come as a result of this. Bays and inlets are

clogged, barely passable. Each winter boats sink, and rarely do the

owners take responsibility for the cost. It then just gets borne by the

taxpayer.

With no enforcement come other challenges. The federal and

provincial governments have basically had a staring contest on this one.

That’s what has happened in Central Saanich, Saltspring Island and other

places up and down the coast of the province. The district of Central

Saanich was finally successful in getting a licence of occupation for

Brentwood Bay.

[11:30 a.m.]

However, the province essentially said: “Our problem is now your

problem.” They basically downloaded it to the district. No small

community — whether it be Central Saanich, North Saanich or Sidney — can

accept all the lia­bility that is carried by having the licence of

occupation.

Essentially, what the district has been asking the prov­ince

is whether or not they will share in the cost of the liability if a boat

sinks — if they’ll share in the cost of disposing of that, as an

example. But this government has done what past governments have done.

There has not really been much difference in this.

To the minister, Central Saanich is approaching the capital

regional district to help with the problem. If the CRD steps in to help

with the management, will this provincial government step up to share in

the liability of this issue?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: Apologies for the delay in answering. It is a complex topic

because of so many jurisdictional overlaps. I appreciate the member

bringing this issue to my attention almost immediately after I became

the minister. I’ve learned a lot more about this issue from him and have

had lengthy discussions with staff around the topics that he brings to

me on this.

He’s correct. There are many players involved — Transport Canada

federally; the Coast Guard federally; local government, as he’s already

outlined; ourselves as the specific regulator when it comes to moorage,

because the ocean floor is considered provincial jurisdiction and under

the ministry I represent.

Specifically to the Brentwood Bay situation, there were meetings

just as recently as February with all the players that I just discussed,

as well, and the district, of course — this local government. The

specific responsibility we have is, as regulator, with respect to the

licence. We will continually be involved with those who we issue tenures

to and, in this case, the licence of occupation.

The suggestion on the district pursuing cost-sharing on the

liability with the CRD is something that we would like to learn more

about, and we’re willing to meet more on that front. The legal opinion

that we have, from our legal staff, is that the liability with respect

to these kinds of tenure allocations is the responsibility of the tenure

holder.

However, as I said, I’m not shutting doors. I’ve asked staff to….

And please, the member could encourage the district to share information

around the cost-sharing initiative that they’ve proposed with the CRD.

We’re willing to meet with the district more on that.

A. Olsen: I’ve heard for years, for basically a political generation, that

this is a complex issue. The multi-jurisdictional issue makes it

complex.

I guess one of the challenges I have with that is that if we’ve

recognized that it’s complex…. One of the things that we learned in

Brentwood Bay, as an example, is that when those parties got around the

table, we could sort it out.

I understand that it’s a complex, multi-jurisdictional issue. I

understand that as a response, but I don’t think that that is, frankly,

acceptable when we’ve had a situation that has been persisting for a

very long time and is not being resolved.

Basically, what’s happening in Brentwood Bay now is we’ve got

mooring buoys with chunks of dock attached to them, multiple boats.

There is basically a party float out there. None of this is legal, from

what I understand the situation to be, and no level of government is

taking responsibility for it. So it just proliferates. It just

continues.

That’s not to say that there aren’t potential housing solutions

for people living on board boats. That’s all aside on this. But what is

right square, centre that we should be looking at is that if we are

going to have a responsibility, then we have to have the enforcement.

Otherwise, what’s the point?

[11:40 a.m.]

If I’m correct in hearing the minister, if the district did not

accept that licence of occupation, then the tenure holder would be the

provincial government, and it would be the responsibility of the

provincial government to actually enforce this situation. If that’s the

case, why is the provincial government not doing that and creating

incredible headaches and social challenges in these communities up and

down the coast and then basically looking to local governments to lean

on property tax payers to foot the bill of what is essentially a

provincial responsibility?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. D. Donaldson: I can hear the frustration in his voice. It is a situation that

when you have a number of jurisdictions and you see the problem, as he’s

described, proliferating, yet there doesn’t seem to be a coordinated

response, it can be absolutely frustrating to the people who live in

that area and see this going on.

The member asked about compliance and enforcement and

accountability. Part of the solution we heard from local government was

tenuring. That’s why we, at the request of local government, pursued a

form of tenuring, the licence of occupation. Part of the reason I

believe the local government wanted to achieve a certain amount of

control was to, for instance, have the ability to prevent vessels coming

in to use the moorage — prevent those ones that were in imminent danger

of sinking or for safety concerns or those kind of things.

When a vessel does sink, that’s Transport Canada’s responsibility,

federally. The majority of the enforcement and regulations, once the

moorage is attained, is a federal government responsibility. However, as

I described before, we’re willing — our staff is more than willing — to

sit down with the district around their pursuit of more support from the

CRD around liability. We’re very willing to keep the discussion going on

trying to solve this issue, because it is an ongoing and difficult

one.

A. Olsen: Just one final question here. I recognize I’m getting to the end

of my time. But I do want to highlight another issue that’s relevant in

my riding. It’s also an issue that highlights some of the lack of

coordination between the various levels of government and the multiple

jurisdictions. This is with respect to the forests on the southern Gulf

Islands.

You would think that the Islands Trust, with their mandate of

preserve and protect, would do that — would preserve and protect the

southern Gulf Islands — especially considering that there’s a trust

called the Islands Trust that was set up to preserve and protect the

Gulf Islands on behalf of all British Columbians. It is a great idea,

and generally, it has worked, except it has not preserved and protected,

for example, some of the last remaining of the coastal Douglas fir on

the coast.

I began receiving messages that entire properties were being

clearcut, and residents asked that I step in to stop it. I learned that

there was nothing I could do. When I talked to the Islands Trust

trustees, I learned that they also had no powers to stop it granted to

them through the Islands Trust Act. When the Islands Trust was created,

they were not given the same powers as municipal governments to regulate

tree cutting. This power is granted through the Community Charter to the

Local Government Act. So it’s a result that both the provincial and

local elected representatives have their hands in the air with no

ability to actually preserve and protect the last remaining stands of

Douglas fir on the British Columbia coast.

The provincial government has had, in the past, the Douglas fir

and associated ecosystems conservation partnership. The goal was to

provide sound science, conduct education outreach, cultivate effective

partnerships, facilitate securement of additional protected ecosystems

and support active ecosystem management. From what I can see, this has

been ineffective on the southern Gulf Islands. While the politicians

have been obfuscating, the chainsaws have been roaring.

[11:50 a.m.]

To the minister, a difficult and complex policy area, but a simple

question. Does he support amending the Islands Trust Act to grant the

local Trust Council similar powers to a municipal elected council to

have the ability to regulate tree cutting?

Hon. D. Donaldson: I want to describe the situation around whether…. In the instance

where harvesting is happening on private managed forest land, we have

conducted a review of the Private Managed Forest Land Act and the

Private Managed Forest Land Council, and we’ll be coming up with

recommendations from that to address that particular situation. But

that’s not the situation that he is describing. He’s describing amending

the Islands Trust Act to enable the regulation of tree cutting on

private property under that act.

It’s our understanding that that act falls under the Ministry of

Municipal Affairs and Housing. I will tell the member that I will pursue

his request with the minister responsible for that act, the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and Housing. I can’t presume to talk to

an act,

specifically, that this ministry isn’t responsible for. But I will

pursue it with the responsible minister.

Oh, and before we…. I know that we’re probably heading back to my

official opposition critic. I wanted to make sure I had time to read

into the record a couple of corrections from items on two previously

debated topics.

One was on spruce beetle stumpage from July 31, the last day we

met in July, regarding the statement I made about instituting a 25-cent

stumpage rate to encourage licensees to go after beetle-kill wood. The

stumpage system recognizes there is a $55-per-cubic-metre difference in

the value between a live spruce tree and a grey attack spruce

beetle–kill tree. However, if the timber in a stand is less than 100

percent spruce beetle attack as appraised, the stumpage rate will likely

be higher. So I just wanted to clarify that. It’s not a carte blanche

25-cent stumpage. It depends on the amount of attack in a

stand.

Then on the Boundary TSA annual allowable cut from yesterday’s

debate. Regarding the question on the Boundary TSA AAC determination,

where I noted the last one was done in 2015, that was incorrect. The

chief forester last determined the AAC on May 24, 2014. It maintained

the AAC at 700,000 cubic metres. On October 11, 2016, the AAC was

reduced to 670,142 cubic metres to reflect the land removed for a

community forest agreement.

[11:55 a.m.]

J. Rustad: I was hoping we would get some time this morning to wrap up. Looks

like we will not be able to wrap up, so we’ll have to come back just

after lunch. If I can get a little bit of time this afternoon, we’ll be

able to wrap up then.

I’ll take the few minutes we have to ask a couple of little

questions on the same issue.

Yesterday we spoke about the Gidimt’en blockade. The minister

wasn’t aware of any communications. The media had approached the

Ministry of Forests locally about cleaning up the site, provided

pictures of the material and the issues that were left behind on that

blockade, on the Morice River Road. The Ministry of Forests people sent

them to the Ministry of Indigenous Relations. They went there for an

answer.

The Minister of Indigenous Relations then responded saying, on

behalf of the Ministry of Forests, there were no plans to do any

cleanup. The Gidimt’en hereditary chiefs say the site is not abandoned,

although obviously there is no activity happening there at the moment.

Perhaps the minister could look into that and provide something in

writing as to how that will be addressed.

The second question — I’ll just pose it here before we go to our

break at lunch — was with the Wet’suwet’en First Nation. They have

written the minister on several occasions now with frustration that

their forest consultation revenue-sharing agreement, FCRSA, is not being

moved forward. They want to move it forward. The ministry is not

advancing it.

Their concern is that the MOU between the province and the

hereditary chiefs of the Office of the Wet’su­wet’en is getting in

the way, which means they can’t renew their consultation revenue-sharing

agreement. Of course, the big issue for the Wet’suwet’en First Nation….

That’s a revenue stream for them, as well as access on their land and

other issues associated with that, which comes with the forest

consultation revenue-sharing agreement, so there’s a big

concern.

The question to the minister is: why is the ministry not renewing

the forest consultation revenue-sharing agreement with the Wet’suwet’en

First Nation? Is it hung up in the MOU in terms of who has the authority

on the land base? The Wet’suwet’en First Nation in the letter to the

minister is questioning if the ministry is hanging it up. Do they need

to go to court, then, to assert their rights over their traditional

territory, and hence, of course, create all kinds of potential

disruption to forestry?

I recognize we’re out of time, so I’ll leave those two questions

with the minister. I look forward to the opportunity to come back after

the break to continue the debate.

Hon. D. Donaldson: I move that the committee rise and report progress on the

estimates of the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations

and Rural Development and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:58 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 12 noon.

Copyright © 2020 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.