Second Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, June 8, 2021

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 87

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

Message of condolence

Hon. S. Robinson

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Early Childhood Educators Act

Hon. M. Dean

Bill 15 — Early Learning and Child Care Act

Hon. M. Dean

Bill M203 — Equal Pay Reporting Act

S. Cadieux

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Ocean protection and role in economy

J. Sturdy

Contributions of Filipino Canadians

N. Sharma

Response by Rob Amsing to house fire in Cranbrook

T. Shypitka

Chilliwack Vedder River Cleanup Society

K. Paddon

Pacific National Exhibition

I. Paton

Response to COVID-19 by Adam Turpin and Susan Walter

F. Donnelly

Oral Questions

Child care plan

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. K. Chen

J. Tegart

COVID-19 reopening and role of vaccine plan and variants

S. Furstenau

Hon. A. Dix

COVID-19 reopening and use of rapid testing

S. Furstenau

Hon. A. Dix

Gender wage gap and pay equity legislation

S. Cadieux

Hon. S. Robinson

Mental health and addiction services for women

T. Halford

Hon. S. Malcolmson

D. Davies

Government action on women’s issues

P. Milobar

Hon. S. Robinson

Speaker’s Statement

Rules for debate on private members’ motions and reference to other members

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation (continued)

T. Stone

Hon. R. Kahlon

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

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

Hon. K. Conroy

J. Rustad

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries (continued)

M. de Jong

Hon. L. Popham

TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 2021

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Hon. A. Kang.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Dean: Today watching us are Jenny Fahy and Stirling Wakefield from Mayfield,

in East Sussex, in England. From neighbouring Kent, the original, Russell

Wakefield and his family — Ilze, Darens, Elina and Louise. I hope that the

members will make very welcome my mom, two brothers and their

family.

Hon. M. Rankin: I rise virtually in this House to introduce Chief Ron Sam of the

Songhees First Nation and Chief Councillor Rob Thomas of Esquimalt First

Nation and members of their respective nations.

The Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ people are joined by members of neighbouring nations

today, and they are currently en route by canoe to the Legislative Assembly.

They arrive this afternoon to mark the 215th hour since the Legislature

lowered its flag to half-mast in recognition of the lost children from the

former Kamloops residential school.

Will the members of the House please join me in making them welcome

today.

Statements

MESSAGE OF CONDOLENCE

Hon. S. Robinson: I rise today to acknowledge that one of our colleagues, who has

since retired from this House, MLA Diane Thorne, who used to represent

Coquitlam-Maillardville…. Her husband passed away a number of weeks

ago.

I would ask that the Speaker, on behalf of all of us here in the

Legislature, please send our condolences.

Introductions by Members

T. Halford: Cannon Beach, Oregon, holds a special place in my heart for two

reasons. One is because it was where Goonies was filmed. I don’t

know if members of this House are familiar with Goonies , but yes.

More importantly than that, it was the place where I married my best friend

eight years ago today, Holly Unwin.

I just wanted to wish her a very happy anniversary. I’ve already done

that this morning, and I will continue to do that throughout the

day.

Interjections.

T. Halford: And an Elvis impersonator showed up to serenade her. Well, I’m not

there, but I just wanted to wish my lovely wife a very, very happy

anniversary.

[10:10 a.m.]

A. Olsen: Today I rise virtually to celebrate two birthdays, and as I get to

know my colleague from Cowichan Valley, I find new and interesting ways that

our lives have become intertwined with each other. As we work in this

Legislature day-in and day-out, that’s one of the ways. But I think it’s

important to acknowledge that my colleague is celebrating her birthday

today, as is my father, Carl Olsen.

I’m not going to disclose any ages, any numbers today. We’ll just

leave that to another time. I just want to say a very happy birthday to both

my father, Carl, and to my friend and colleague from Cowichan

Valley.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 14 — EARLY CHILDHOOD

EDUCATORS

ACT

Hon. M. Dean presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Early Childhood Educators

Act.

Hon. M. Dean: I move that Bill 14 be introduced and read a first time

now.

It’s my honour to introduce the Early Childhood Educators Act. The

Early Childhood Educators Act is an im­portant part of our ongoing

work to better support early childhood educators, and it lays the

foundation for the work ahead. The act removes the regulation of ECEs

and ECE assistants from the Community Care and Assisted Living Act and

creates a new statute under the authority of the Minister Responsible

for Child Care. By bringing these pieces together under a new

stand-alone act, we’re making it clear how critical early childhood

educators are to B.C. families and communities.

The new statute provides for the registration and oversight of

early childhood educators and EC assistants, as well as the approval of

post-secondary ECE programs through a public registry. This will help

improve public confidence, because child care providers and parents can

trust that the early childhood educators registered with the ECE

registry meet a high-quality standard.

The act will help to reduce barriers to certifications for ECEs.

The statute also gives the registrar authority to issue temporary

certificates so internationally trained ECEs can work in their

profession while getting certified here in B.C.

As we enter the fourth year of our ten-year child care plan, now

is the time to make sure that the workforce be­hind the workforce

and the heart of child care, B.C.’s early childhood educators, are well

supported. The Early Childhood Educators Act is an important step in the

right direction and will help ensure the profession continues to grow

for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is the first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Dean: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 14, Early Childhood Educators Act, introduced, read a first time

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

sitting of the House after today.

BILL 15 — EARLY LEARNING AND

CHILD CARE

ACT

Hon. M. Dean presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Early Learning and Child Care

Act.

Hon. M. Dean: I move that Bill 15 be introduced and read a first time

now.

It’s my honour to introduce the Early Learning and Child Care Act.

The Early Learning and Child Care Act has been a long time coming and is

an important step towards our goal of making inclusive, universal child

care a reality in British Columbia. The new act combines and streamlines

the existing Child Care B.C. Act and the Child Care Subsidy

Act.

[10:15 a.m.]

The ELCC Act authorizes the use of child care grants to improve

the inclusiveness of child care and support Indigenous-led child care.

The act will also require the Minister of Children and Family

Development to produce an annual report on the actions the province has

taken to support inclusive, affordable, accessible, quality, universal

child care; support the connection between child care and K-to-12

education and provide a smooth transition between the two; and

collaborate with Indigenous Peoples on child care matters.

This coordinated cross-government reporting approach will help

increase transparency and identify government’s actions towards

implementing an inclusive universal child care system. The act will

establish the authority for the ministry to enact new regulations in the

future, including the ability to set limits on parent fees for child

care to help keep costs down for families.

While there’s more to do, the act will move British Columbia

further along the path to inclusive universal child care, which will

make a huge difference to B.C. families, our communities and our

economy.

Mr. Speaker: Members, you heard the motion.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Dean: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 15, Early Learning and Child Care Act, introduced, read a first

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

next sitting of the House after today.

BILL M203 — EQUAL PAY

REPORTING

ACT

S. Cadieux presented a bill intituled Equal Pay Reporting

Act.

S. Cadieux: Our world has changed significantly over the past year. However,

one thing that hasn’t changed is the need for equal pay legislation.

After waiting for government to act, I once again rise, for the fourth

time, to take action and bring equal pay legislation to

debate.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the deep inequities within

our system, and reminds us that until the gender pay gap is closed, true

equity in our economy and our communities can’t be achieved. Monthly

labour force survey results continue to demonstrate that women — and in

particular, young women — have been more adversely impacted by pandemic

job losses. That’s in addition to British Columbia recording the worst

gender pay gap in Canada, at 18.6 percent.

It’s essential for them and all women in our province that we look

forward to building a better, more equal economy for the future. We must

act to ensure that the inequities of the past don’t continue.

The bill introduced today would require businesses of a prescribed

size to report out on the pay gap they have between male and female

employees — a change to previous versions of the bill, as government has

refused to call previous versions on disagreement with the threshold at

which businesses would become subject to the act. Today’s legislation

leaves the threshold to be set by regulation, so I look forward to

government calling the bill for debate.

Let’s finally get serious about working together on gender equity.

There is ample time to get this legislation passed this legislative

session. Let’s work together to get it done.

Mr. Speaker: Members, you heard the motion.

Motion approved.

S. Cadieux: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M203, Equal Pay Reporting Act, introduced, read a first time and

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

sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

OCEAN PROTECTION

AND ROLE IN

ECONOMY

J. Sturdy: Today marks the United Nations World Oceans Day. In a coastal

province like British Columbia, we have a great deal to appreciate. Yet

at the same time, we need to address some of the greatest threats

against our ocean’s health.

The ocean covers more than 70 percent of the planet, and we depend

on it to produce at least 50 percent of the planet’s oxygen. As you may

also understand, it’s a main source of protein for more than a billion

people around the world. We also depend on the ocean for our global

economy, and the United Nations estimates that 40 million people will be

employed in ocean-based industries by 2030.

However, with 90 percent of the big fish populations depleted and

50 percent of the coral reefs on their way to destruction, we are

clearly not on a sustainable path. “The ocean: life and livelihoods” is

the theme for World Oceans Day in 2021.

[10:20 a.m.]

While the coastline of British Columbia stretches 954 kilometres

from the tip of southern Vancouver Island to the community of Stewart,

it actually totals more than 25,000 kilometres when all of the island

coastlines are included.

People work and live all over this coast, and we must acknowledge

its importance as a significant part of our provincial economy. Our

ocean-based industries account for $17 billion worth of economic

activity annually and employ 170,000 British Columbians in coastal

communities stretching from the Salish Sea right up to the Alaskan

border. In 2019, total sales of primary seafood production in British

Columbia amounted to $1.1 billion. But sustainability is the key, and

given the size of the problem, it is complex.

Among other concerns, the future health of our oceans will be

dependent on our global collective efforts to effectively manage onshore

and offshore fisheries, prevent the introduction of plastics into the

ocean environment and have a credible carbon plan. We must add our voice

in support of United Nations sustainable objective 14: conserve and

sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources by

A big task, but it can be done.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF FILIPINO CANADIANS

N. Sharma: June is Filipino Heritage Month. It’s a time for us to celebrate

one of the fastest-growing populations in our country. Within the last

five years, the Philippines remains one of the top five sources of

immigrants to my riding of Vancouver-Hastings, and I’m so proud to be

their MLA and represent them.

Filipino Canadians are a prominent force in our pro­vince in

cultural, social, artistic, economic and volunteer contributions to

every part of our society. During this pandemic, we’ve seen their

significant contributions to every sector, including child care and

health care sectors, where many have been on the front lines keeping

people safe and healthy. I want to thank all those front-line workers

for all they have done to help us through this pandemic. Filipino

Canadians continue to drive change as leaders in business, technology

and advocacy work across the city, and our communities are enriched by

their presence.

Unfortunately, Filipino Canadians have been on the receiving end

of senseless acts of hate crimes that are on the rise in this city. In

August 2020, a 61-year-old named MaryLou was shoved against her car

outside a Vancouver supermarket by a stranger. Even more recently, in

May of this year, a Filipino man was assaulted by a stranger who

followed him off a bus. The perpetrator cut his eyebrow and destroyed

his cell phone.

We must all stand in solidarity against these crimes. Nobody

should feel unwelcome or unheard in B.C. or fear the threat of violence

because of who they are.

This month and every month we look forward to connecting with and

celebrating the Filipino community of Vancouver-Hastings and honouring

them for all that they bring to our neighbourhood.

RESPONSE BY ROB AMSING

TO HOUSE FIRE IN

CRANBROOK

T. Shypitka: June 7, 2019, started as an average late spring day in Cranbrook,

B.C., but it wouldn’t end this way.

Rob Amsing was outside cutting a lawn when he smelled what he

thought was garbage. When he looked down the block, he could see what

appeared to be a house that was on fire. Indeed, the house at 325 5th

Avenue and the home of Scott and Jerri-Pat Smith — which they occupied

with Scott’s father, Gene, and their granddaughter Mariah — was going up

in flames.

Rob ran toward the smoke and went to the front door to see if

anyone was inside. Rob could see a dog barking through the smoke and

kicked open the front door to retrieve the dog. Once inside, Rob found a

confused and disorientated Gene Smith, approximately 85 years old at the

time and not aware that the house was on fire and not willing to leave.

At that point, Rob was forced to take Gene out of the house. But in the

meantime, the frightened dog ran back into the burning home.

Rob then made a second selfless decision to go back into the house

and round up the dog and bring him out, but this time, the fire was

very, very intense. Rob then made a third brave decision. He entered

again to check and see if anyone else was in the home. By this time,

flames were shooting across the ceiling. He later said that it was like

a scene out of the movie Backdraft .

Finding no one else, he exited just in time, as there was a

propane gas explosion on the back deck of the home, and the main floor

of the house was levelled within minutes. Many valuables were lost that

day, but if Rob Amsing had not forced his way into the home when he did,

the unthinkable loss of a beloved family member and a family pet would

surely have happened.

[10:25 a.m.]

It should be noted that if not for the fearless efforts of the

Cranbrook Professional Fire Fighters Local 1253, the fire would’ve

surely gone a lot further down the block, due to the fire’s intense heat

and the very high winds that day.

Rob Amsing is a hero. Our community is grateful, and I am proud he

is a constituent of Kootenay East.

CHILLIWACK VEDDER RIVER

CLEANUP

SOCIETY

K. Paddon: It’s that time again, where I get to share just a little piece of

the reason that I love my home of Chilliwack-Kent. Today I want to

introduce you all to the Chilliwack Vedder River Cleanup

Society.

The society was started by local anglers in 2002 to protect and

care for the waterways we love so much. The society is entirely

volunteer and engages in a range of activities, including adopt a river

and two large-scale annual cleanups every year — in April on Earth Day

and in September for B.C. Rivers Day.

I spoke with Nikki Rekman, the president of Chilliwack Vedder

River Cleanup Society, and she shared about the endless energy of the

volunteers, specifically mentioning Ross Aikenhead, a director and a

“relentless volunteer.” She also described partnerships throughout the

community, with the city of Chilliwack, the Fraser Valley

re­gional district, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and

B.C. conservation officers, and a very valued friendship with Scott

Verschuur, of Valley Waste and Recycling, who supports the important

work by providing free bins and pickups.

What can the incredible anglers, volunteers and partners of our

community accomplish when they combine their passion, energy and

environmental stewardship? Well, since 2002, over 6,000 volunteers have

given almost 27,000 hours of effort and have cleaned up over 129 metric

tonnes of garbage from the Chilliwack River Valley and Vedder River

riparian areas.

That’s a lot of garbage, most of which is the result of illegal

dumping or irresponsible recreating. That brings me to the message they

wanted to share. Please recreate responsibly. Take with you what you

brought.

Would the House please join me on this World Oceans Day, which is

perfect, to thank the incredible volunteers of the Chilliwack Vedder

River Cleanup Society and all volunteers across British Columbia who

care for our im­portant waterways.

PACIFIC NATIONAL EXHIBITION

I. Paton: Whether it’s the smell of mini-doughnuts, the sight of superdogs

flying through an obstacle course or the unmistakable sound of the

wooden roller coaster, Vancouver’s Pacific National Exhibition holds a

special place in the hearts of most British Columbians.

It’s no different for me and my family. My grandfather John Paton

began showing cattle and horses at the PNE in the 1930s, and I even have

one of his first-place ribbons from 1938 on my lapel. My dad, Ian Paton

Sr., also showed cattle at the PNE and was livestock superintendent of

the PNE in the 1950s.

For many years, my brother Dave was the official livestock

veterinarian at the PNE. As for me, I showed cattle at the PNE in the

’60s, ’70s, ’80s and ’90s through the 4-H program and beyond. I have

also been a member of the PNE agriculture advisory committee where have

I served for more than 30 years. I’m talking a lot about agriculture

because while the PNE includes thrilling rides, midway games and tasty

treats, it’s also a huge agriculture attraction each year for city

dwellers and a highlight of the year for 4-H kids travelling to the big

city from all parts of B.C. to participate in the PNE 4-H

Week.

I’ve also had the opportunity for 35 years to serve as the

auctioneer at the annual PNE 4-H auction. It’s a chance for city folks

to see just how well farm animals are cared for and observe a livestock

auction up close. Additionally, the 15-day summer fair typically

attracts thousands of guests for its shows, exhibits, sporting events,

amusement rides and concerts.

However, the fair was forced to cancel last year, which really

hurt its bottom line and meant thousands of jobs lost, as the fair is

B.C.’s largest employer for young people. The cancellation was a huge

blow to the PNE, whose future remains in jeopardy after a year of

financial loss. The 111-year-old exhibition is likely to lose nearly $15

million due to closures over the past year and is in desperate need of

$8 million in financial aid to avoid shutting down.

The province must step up and save this iconic B.C. anchor

attraction.

[10:30 a.m.]

RESPONSE TO COVID-19 BY

ADAM TURPIN AND SUSAN

WALTER

F. Donnelly: I’m pleased to rise virtually today to recognize two residents of

Coquitlam–Burke Mountain who are carrying out commendable activities to

raise the spirits of their neighbours during the COVID-19 state of

emergency.

Adam Turpin has faithfully continued to sing his nightly rendition

of O Canada in front of his home at 7 p.m. for the past 425

evenings in a row to honour front-line and health care workers for their

efforts during this pandemic.

I joined Adam a few weeks ago to congratulate him on his 400th

performance. Adam is a music teacher and professional singer. He says it

brings him great joy to acknowledge front-line workers as he wants them

to know their work is much appreciated. He also brings cheer to his

neighbours and other visitors who enjoy his bass-baritone version of our

national anthem.

Early in the pandemic, Susan Walter, another constituent of mine,

thought she would be a good neighbour while making use of scraps of

cloth she had accumulated over time. She started sewing face masks and

has now given away over 1,400 of them, while collecting several thousand

dollars in donations to support the work of her two favourite charities.

Susan says her fingers are still limber after all the sewing, and the

thrill she feels whenever someone stops at the wooden box in front of

her house to pick up a mask or two has not diminished.

Members, I’m sure you all know someone like Adam or Susan in your

ridings — unsung heroes. Please join me in acknowledging Adam Turpin and

Susan Walter, two generous, community-minded individuals who are deeply

committed to spreading warmth and happiness during these stressful COVID

times.

Oral Questions

CHILD CARE PLAN

K. Kirkpatrick: We know women have been disproportionately impacted by the

pandemic. Unemployment for young women is 11 percent higher. Women have

dealt with the stress of juggling work and child care needs.

Four years ago, this Premier promised to: “Bring in

$10-​a-day child care.” But he has failed miserably to do so.

Instead of actual assistance today, parents get bungled and multiple

misleading government news releases.

Can the Premier confirm that only 6,000 child care spaces have

been opened to date by this second-term government?

Hon. K. Chen: For many, many years, British Columbian families have been

struggling with a lack of affordable, high-quality early learning and

child care opportunities. When we became government in 2017, we were

faced with child care chaos and crisis, with the former B.C. Liberal

government’s actions that caused families to struggle for many, many

years.

We’ve started that journey to build and bring in a universal,

high-quality, inclusive early learning and care system with over three

dozen strategies, including the fastest space creation ever in B.C.’s

history. To put that in perspective, we have created and supported the

creation of spaces twice more than the former B.C. Liberal government

has created in 16 long years.

Mr. Speaker: The member for West Vancouver–Capi­lano,

supplemental.

K. Kirkpatrick: Well, interestingly enough, between 2005 and 2017, the B.C.

Liberals created 39,959 spaces, which is, on average, 3,030 spaces per

year. Let’s hope that the Premier’s NDP math isn’t being taught to our

children.

In estimates, the minister was clear: “6,000 spaces have been

opened.” The Premier told every family in British Columbia they would

get $10-a-day child care. He has failed to deliver.

Will the Premier commit to stop with the talk, stop ma­king

even more promises and announcements and actually deliver on the ones

he’s already made to parents?

[10:35 a.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: The member opposite can throw out any information they want, but

that’s incorrect. We have been accelerating the creation of

spaces…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. K. Chen: …and created twice more of the spaces in three years than the

former B.C. Liberal government has created in 16 years together. We have

been bringing affordability to tens of thousands of families.

Ninety percent of providers in this province are joining our fee

reduction program to bring down the cost of child care up to $350 a

month. When the former government actually took away child care subsidy

from B.C. families, that caused families to face fee increases of $100,

$200 per month. We are bringing $10-a-day and affordable child care to

tens of thousands of families in British Columbia.

We are proud of the work that we do when the other side of the

House voted against our Childcare B.C. plan every step of the

way.

J. Tegart: We have a quote from the minister from est­imates last week:

“About 6,000 spaces have been opened.” So which information is

true?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. One member at a time.

J. Tegart: Is it the estimates, or is it the minister’s statements today,

talking about throwing out numbers.

It happens all too frequently. The Premier makes a big promise,

then botches it and hopes people forget. People like advocate Sharon

Gregson haven’t forgotten: “It is not okay for the B.C. government to

put forward a minuscule commitment compared to what they

promised.”

Two elections in a row, Minister, the Premier made the promise of

$10-a-day child care, and then he bungled it.

Can the Premier tell us why he has chosen to break his promise to

parents not once but twice?

Hon. K. Chen: We need to remember where we came from. The former B.C. Liberal

government has left a chaotic system that we have been trying to fix

since 2017.

I am going to share this with the opposite member, that they need

to face the reality, that it is since we became government, every single

week, there are new child care spaces being created and being supporting

families across B.C. communities. This is what a single parent, Sarah,

has to say. If the opposite member doesn’t want to hear what parents are

saying, then why are you asking the question, when you neglected the

child care crisis for 16 years? Through the Chair, sorry.

This is what Sarah, a single parent, has to say: “The new

affordable child care benefit has been tremendous help to my family. As

a single mom, this financial support has been instrumental in giving me

the opportunity to go back to school to retrain for a new

profession.”

That was not available when the other side of the House were in

government. We have been bringing down the cost of child care to tens of

thousands of families. We are creating new child care spaces across B.C.

communities every single week. We are supporting early childhood

educators with the wage enhancement. This year, September, early

childhood educators will get a $4 an hour wage enhancement, when the

other side of the House — when they were in government — they took wage

top-ups from early childhood educators.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Who’s asking a question, please? Can we have one member asking a

question, or everybody wants to ask questions?

J. Tegart: Well, to the minister, the numbers you are throwing out — a child

care space every week is 52 spaces. Last week it was, in estimates,

about 6,000 spaces have been opened, and that’s a direct quote from the

minister. So what is it, minister?

Despite the Premier’s clear promise four years ago, the minister

confirmed in estimates that there is no plan in place for universal

$10-a-day child care: “Different funding models are definitely being

taken into consideration.”

This Premier has gone from universal $10-a-day daycare to

prototype sites to some alternative plan. Can the Premier tell us

exactly what this alternative funding plan is?

Hon. K. Chen: I really want to take this opportunity to thank all the child care

providers, early childhood educators, advocates who have been working

with us, together, to make sure we can create an early learning and care

system for B.C. families.

[10:40 a.m.]

We need to learn how to bring down the cost of child care. The

other side of the House, when they were in government, ignored the

crisis. We have a fee reduction program that’s bringing down the cost of

child care up to $350 a month, with 90 percent of providers joining this

program.

We also have the affordable child care benefit….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, continue.

Hon. K. Chen: We also have the affordable child care benefit. That brings

$10-a-day child care to tens of thousands of families along with the

prototype site. So many families have benefited from our program, and we

have the space creation that’s the fastest in B.C.’s history.

If the members opposite want to hear what the community is saying,

this is a quote from the city of Prince George. Chris Bone, the city of

Prince George social planner manager, is saying: “At the time when the

former Liberal government…. There wasn’t enough money av­ailable

to help create spaces that were required for child care. But the

environment is very different in 2019, because, thankfully, we now know

there is funding available to help create the spaces.”

And those are the actions our government has been taking, when you

ignored the crisis for 16 years.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, you’re wasting your precious time.

Leader of the Third Party.

COVID-19 REOPENING AND

ROLE OF VACCINE PLAN AND

VARIANTS

S. Furstenau: As low case numbers hold steady and more British Columbians get

their first dose of the COVID vaccine, it has been a sigh of relief

after almost a year and a half of severe stress. We have a lot of

reasons to be cautiously optimistic.

Yet once again, we can see trends elsewhere. In the U.K., due to

the delta variant, the seven-day rolling average of cases has doubled

from 2,400 on May 28 to 5,000 on June 7. Yesterday, Dr. Gustafson said

that the delta variant of COVID-19 is still relatively uncommon, with

just over 500 cases identified in B.C.

In the Peel region of Ontario, however, they are just a couple of

weeks away before the variant takes hold, ac­cording to their

medical officer of health, Dr. Loh. In Nova Scotia, chief medical

officer Dr. Strang says while the province is “at the tail end of the

third wave, the delta variant, first identified in India, is something

to be concerned about.”

The emerging information, Dr. Strang says about the delta variant:

“…shows it is more easily transmitted and not as well protected against

by one dose of the vaccine. This is further evidence to how we need to

remain cautious until the majority of Nova Scotians are fully

vaccinated.” In a few short weeks, Canada-wide travel may be on the

table, including to regions with high transmission of the delta

variant.

My question is to the Minister of Health. How is his government

managing the risk that the delta variant poses to the many British

Columbians with only one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine?

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you to the member for her question. What, I think, the

evidence suggests is that we have to continue to pursue our immunization

campaign with the kind of speed we’ve been engaged in, in the last

month. For example, last week — 380,000 new doses administered in our

province, significantly more. As of the end of the week, 98 percent of

the Pfizer vaccine that we had received from the federal government was

in people’s arms, which I think is an extraordinary

achievement.

It’s also the reason why we have taken a step-by-step plan to

limiting or easing restrictions in British Columbia, such that the step

2 will not occur before June 15, and the step 3, under any

circumstances, won’t occur before July 1. A step-by-step, prudent

approach.

In addition — and this is a concern, as the member suggests, with

other jurisdictions that may have lower levels, ultimately, of

immunization, such as some areas of the United States and less testing

for variants of concern, less whole genome sequencing than is done in

British Columbia — the best way, as Dr. Gustafson said yesterday, for us

to prevent against these variants is to continue with first-dose and

second-dose immunization.

[10:45 a.m.]

That’s exactly what we’re doing. We’re continuing to monitor the

COVID-19 pandemic and continuing to take a step-by-step approach to the

easing of restrictions, considering every day the circumstances on

hospitalizations, on critical care, on cases and on

vaccination.

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

COVID-19 REOPENING

AND USE OF RAPID

TESTING

S. Furstenau: Thank you to the minister for the res­ponse. Yes,

vaccinations and the immunization program, as we can see, are moving us

in the right direction. How­ever, the emerging variants of concern

remain a problem in many places in Canada and the world.

One thing that British Columbia hasn’t done that other places have

done is to lean into rapid testing. Yesterday in Nova Scotia, the

Halifax news reported that the government in Nova Scotia is going to

expand rapid testing. Again, this is a quote from the newspaper: “We’ve

been working with employers and the federal government to pilot a

workplace testing program across the province,” said the chief medical

officer of health. “Almost 50 employers, as well as the Halifax Chamber

of Commerce, have signed on. Dr. Strang says these employers will get

free rapid point-of-care tests, as well as training and support to help

them set up testing programs in their workplaces.”

As they went through the recent third wave, Nova Scotia has

determined that they discovered 10 percent of asymptomatic cases of

COVID through their use of rapid testing in that province.

My question is to the Minister of Health. We’ve learned a lot in

the last 16 months about COVID-19. We’ve been able to look at other

jurisdictions and how they’ve responded and what has been successful and

not. As we enter into this phase of the pandemic, where we hope to see

the cases reduced, will we be more assertively going for an elimination

strategy that uses rapid testing in order to keep our cases

low?

Hon. A. Dix: One thing that has worked in British Columbia — and we’ve seen it

as other jurisdictions have reviewed what has happened, especially with

respect to testing…. What we have done in British Columbia is have our

provincial health officer and our medical health officers lead on the

question of testing — to use the gold standard PCR testing principally

and to incrementally use more rapid testing, which is what we’re doing

right now.

We will continue to follow that advice from experts who are

putting the resources and the means in the hands of experts to deal and

to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 in British Columbia. I think that

is and continues to be the right course.

Of course, the government and public health does not always get it

right, but we have continued to adapt and put the resources in the hands

of those that can make the best decisions for all of us. We’re going to

continue to do that. There will be, and there will continue to be, as

the technology improves, greater and greater use of rapid testing in

British Columbia, as there are in other jurisdictions.

The decisions around what we should do in that regard will be led

by public health, as they have been from the beginning of this

pandemic.

GENDER WAGE GAP

AND PAY EQUITY

LEGISLATION

S. Cadieux: B.C. has the dubious distinction of having the worst gender pay

gap in Canada. Between the COVID-19 pandemic and this government’s

failing child care promises, things aren’t looking a lot

better.

The Premier could start by keeping his snap election promise to

pass pay equity legislation, which has been introduced four times now by

the official opposition.

Will the Premier keep his promise to voters on pay

equity?

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m really pleased to get up on my feet and talk about equity. We

just heard from the Minister of State for Child Care, who talked about a

significant child care plan finally organizing for the lives of women,

when so many of us have suffered and struggled to find child care, and

we finally have a plan in place here.

That is the biggest social program we can do for equity for women

in this province.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey South, supplemental.

S. Cadieux: Well, it’s disappointing that the minister is completely missing

the point. This isn’t about child care. It isn’t about minimum wage.

It’s about pay equity.

When I first proposed pay equity legislation, the Premier called

it a “political stunt.” With the pandemic having delivered a crushing

blow to gender equity, the Premier is still missing in

action.

How much longer will it take the Premier…? Or will the Premier

make women wait on pay equity? It’s a simple question.

[10:50 a.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, women are often the servers in the restaurant industry. I’m

sure the member is well aware of that. I’m sure that there are many of

us who have had that role.

We got rid of the server wage. If I recall, the other folks on the

other side of the House thought that was perfectly acceptable. We’ve

done more for women than the people on the other side of the House have

ever done.

MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION

SERVICES FOR

WOMEN

T. Halford: We know we’re in a crisis when it comes to addictions and mental

health, and we know that the plan laid out by this government is simply

not working. A report from the B.C. Women’s Health Foundation shows that

over 40 percent of women in British Columbia don’t have access to the

mental health they need during this pandemic — more than 40 percent.

This government is failing women who need assistance.

My question to the Premier is a simple one. Will he pro­vide

women with the help they need not based on their ability to pay but

solely based on their need for treatment?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: At the foundation of our government’s work through this ministry —

the first time that a Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions has been

established in Canada — is to build that system of care that did not

exist when we formed government. We’ve been working hard every day to

build up that continuum of care so that people can access both mental

health and addiction services when and where they need it.

There is more to do, there is no doubt. But the progress that we

have been able to make already, I imagine that the member opposite would

be in support of. We’ve just put a historic half a billion dollars for

mental health and addictions service, so that people can get care when

and where they need it, into this year’s budget. There’s never been such

a new infusion of investment in the province’s history.

I would imagine that the member would support the 100 new adult

treatment beds that we’ve added this year already and our budget

commitment to do another almost 200; our expansion — particularly during

COVID, which has made everything worse, from the addictions crisis to

mental health — for us to stand up new counselling grants; for us to put

$25 million into the system in quick order, with the support from across

the aisle, to stand up community counselling grants. Particularly

focused on women are our new investments in eating disorders in every

single health authority and working with non-profits on the front

line.

There is more to do, but absolutely, we are working hard every day

to build that system up despite the setback that the pandemic has

posed.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey–White Rock on a supplemental.

T. Halford: Given this minister’s past performance in last week’s estimates, I

was hopeful, optimistic, that she would not continue to politicize —

incorrectly, I might add — such an important file such as mental health

and addictions. But she continues to amaze.

What I will point out from the study: two-thirds of women that are

essential workers are experiencing worry, anxiety or stress, and two in

five are experiencing depression. And 63 percent of younger women

reported feeling worry, anxiety or stress. Indigenous women and those

from a minority community were more inclined to rate their emotional

health poorly.

Again to the Premier, will he do the right thing and ensure the

services are provided and that no one has to choose between feeding

their families, paying their rent or getting the support they

desperately need?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: In every way, despite the setback of the pandemic and the huge

surge of stress that people are under…. Everybody’s mental health is

worse. The toxic illicit drug supply is more poisonous. More people are

dying every day. It is a tragedy, and one that we have tried to stand up

new resources every day in order to meet.

But keep in mind, while fighting two public health

em­ergencies, we’ve been building up a system of care:

ex­panding Foundry; enhancing suicide prevention in post-secondary

institutions; standing up 24-7 access to counselling — no-cost and

low-cost counselling across the province, virtual counselling available

in every region; 80 new seats to train new mental health

workers.

[10:55 a.m.]

In every aspect of the health care system, we are building in new

supports for people. There is more to do, no doubt. But if the member is

going to make comments about my performance in estimates last week, for

him to spend three days with the minister and not ask a single question

about Pathway to Hope, not a single question about the service plan that

we’re required to file associated with the budget…. If he wanted to ask

questions about the system of care that we’re building up, he had three

days to do it and failed to.

D. Davies: The minister keeps talking around the issues, which isn’t what

women and those suffering with mental health issues need right now. They

need the minister to listen and to act.

More than 40 percent of women reported not having access to the

mental health supports that they need. Getting help requires a referral

from a doctor, which can take months, or private counselling, which

isn’t covered by the province.

Will the Premier commit to actually investing…?

Interjections.

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

D. Davies: Will the Premier commit to actually investing in a seamless mental

health and addictions system that ensures people get the help that they

need when they need it?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: That is exactly the system that we are working hard every day to

build, one that did not exist before, one that we are investing in, in

unprecedented ways through our budget.

Here are some of the tools that we’ve already added to the mental

health, addictions and health care system that, despite the setback that

the pandemic has posed, are already creating more access for people,

regardless of their pocketbook.

We are embedding mental health care services in a team-based

approach across the province, to have already opened at 23 new urgent

primary care centres. That is same-day access.

We have opened B.C.’s first mental health and addictions substance

use urgent response in Surrey, opened the 75-bed new Mental Health and

Substance Use Wellness Centre at Royal Columbian last August, provided

$15 million to 49 community organizations to provide no-cost and

low-cost counselling and $2.4 million to 20 other organizations to

expand counselling virtually and in person.

We’re helping to train 100 South Asian youth ambassadors to be

able to help get the word out to people and remove the stigma about

asking for help. We’ve expanded Foundry Virtual and now funded a new

Foundry app so people can engage in an online system — again, no cost —

built for and by young people.

The list goes on. There is so much more for us to do, but in every

way, there is more support available for people who are in need. We urge

anybody who’s struggling under the mental health impacts of COVID to ask

for the help that they need, and we will get that to them.

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

D. Davies: The results, though, aren’t there for everyone to see. The

minister continues to speak off of her stale speaking notes, day after

day, with no end in sight, and the crisis continues to

worsen.

The reality is, particularly women…. They are not getting the help

that they need. Racialized women face even more challenges.

Interjections.

D. Davies: And I will.

Michaella Shannon…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s listen to the question.

D. Davies: …with the Support Network for Indigenous Women and Women of Colour

says: “For a racialized person….”

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Members will come to order. Members. Both sides.

D. Davies: I’ll read a quote, again, from Michaella Shannon with the Support

Network for Indigenous Women and Women of Colour. She says: “For a

racialized person to be able to speak to a therapist from a racialized

background, someone who understands the negative and traumatic effects

of racism from their own personal experience, makes a massive positive

impact in the success of their treatment.”

The Premier’s in charge. His budget is bigger than the Mental

Health and Addictions budget. Will he take leadership, break down the

barriers and get these women the help that they need?

[11:00 a.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Anybody that is struggling with mental health challenges — lots of

people are — and addictions, as well, please go to our website. At

gov.bc.ca/covid19mentalhealthsupports, you’ll see a whole list of

translated services…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members on the opposition bench, please come to order.

The minister will continue.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: …that are being stood up by fantastic community organizations —

multiple languages.

Please. We want people to reach out. If the member has got a

particular constituent that he wants me to talk with, I’m very happy to

learn more.

I’ll also note that $2.7 billion is spent every year on mental

health and addictions, I’m sure the member would be glad to know — not

inside a new ministry but integrated across government, through the

Health Ministry, through Education, through the Ministry of Children and

Family Development. That’s the way we’re going to tackle this terrible

mental health and addictions crisis.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON WOMEN’S ISSUES

P. Milobar: Well, let’s be clear. This is a minister that’s a minister on

paper only. By the answers in estimates last week, it made it very clear

that every other minister is actually responsible for approving funding

and programming or not. It seems that day in, day out in this House,

when we bring forward questions….

Interjections.

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

Opposition House Leader, continue.

P. Milobar: It seems every day in this House when we bring forward questions

and concerns from our constituents and people across this province, this

government gets very, very amazed that we would have the audacity to

remind them of their own promises and their own commitments, and refuses

to actually acknowledge or answer based on those.

Today we asked very simple questions, straightforward questions,

about their twice-promised $10-a-day universal child care. We asked the

minister about her own statements in estimates, only a week ago, that

only 6,000 spaces were created under this government’s watch. Instead,

this minister has the audacity to stand in this House today and try to

give a completely different answer.

We ask questions and try to get a bill called on pay equity that

this government has promised, in elections, to bring forward. If they

don’t want to debate our bill, where is the government’s bill after 4½

years, after two elections? Instead, the Minister of Finance gives a

very dismissive question that ranges around everything and anything to

do but pay equity. Then we get into mental health supports for women,

who have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic.

Again, the Premier is in charge of all of this. The Premier has

made promises, in two elections, on all of this. When will the Premier

start to deliver even one of these things?

The Premier has also said that he’s all in favour of a good idea,

no matter what side of the House it comes from. When is the Premier

going to live up to even one of his commitments in this House? When is

the Premier, at a minimum, going to start bringing forward the supports

that the women that have been disproportionately impacted by COVID

desperately need for their mental health supports, moving

forward?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, I find it very interesting that on the other side of the

House, the members opposite suddenly have a new-found interest in women.

I recall when they were in government, they actually eliminated the Women’s Ministry. They

eliminated it — gone, just gone. They did nothing to advance pay equity

when they were in government. They absolutely ignored the rising costs

of child care. They even brought in legislation, in 2002, that led to

the largest layoff of women in this province’s history. These were

racialized women.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Robinson: They slashed legal aid services. That affected women so

significantly. They even deducted child care support payments for women

on disability. They refused to protect jobs of people fleeing domestic

violence, and of course, they refused to increase the minimum wage. Now,

there is a lot of work for us to do to make up for last time.

[11:05 a.m.]

We have a significant investment in child care, the big­gest

investment in child care in B.C.’s history, that is actively going on —

thousands and thousands of spaces. We’re building housing for women

fleeing violence — again, thousands and thousands of spaces. We have a

parliamentary secretary who is dedicated, absolutely dedicated, to

making sure that all ministries are addressing women’s issues. We have

representation on this side of the House. I can’t wait till all of my

colleagues are here. On this side of the House, we have more women than

the opposition has for all of their members. I can’t wait to show

everybody.

[End of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Question period is over, Members.

Speaker’s Statement

RULES FOR DEBATE ON

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ MOTIONS AND

REFERENCE TO OTHER MEMBERS

Mr. Speaker: During Monday morning’s sitting, the Chair issued several cautions

to members participating in debate on the private member’s motion under

consideration by the House. Throughout the debate, several members of

the official opposition caucus spoke about the conduct of the Attorney

General and Minister Responsible for Housing and used debate on the

motion under consideration by the House to bring accusations against the

Attorney General.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker, who was in the Chair, brought

members’ attention three times to standing order 40(2), which states:

“No Member shall use offensive words against any Member of this

House.”

As I indicated I would do at the conclusion of Monday morning’s

sitting, I have reviewed the transcript of the proceedings and wish to

provide further direction to all members.

Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia , fifth

edition, page 151, states that in making remarks in the House, members

should bear in mind the following: “Members cannot quote another

Member’s words to avoid offending Standing Order 40; a Member cannot do

indirectly what the Member is unable to do directly…. The conduct of a

Member cannot be canvassed in debate, nor can charges of personal

character be made, except by a substantive motion, for which notice is

required.”

Erskine May, the procedural authority of the United Kingdom

Parliament, 25th edition, pages 496-497, states: “The general

requirements of moderation in parliamentary language…are viewed as

particularly important when Members are speaking of other Members, not

because other Members require specific protection, but in order to

preserve the character of parliamentary debate.”

Furthermore, in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom,

Erskine May, 25th edition, page 497, states: “The Speaker has ruled that

a Member who intends to mention another Member’s name in the Chamber in

a form which amounts to personal reflection — but which is short of the

kind which anyway would require a substantive motion — should, unless

the other Member is present, inform the other Member in advance, in a

timely and reasonable manner.”

The same principle has been upheld in our own House, as reflected

on page 160 of Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia,

fifth edition.

Given the nature of the comments made during the course of

Monday’s debate and the consideration that I have outlined, this was

done in a manner that I deem to be conclusively

unparliamentary.

Furthermore, I believe it to be a misuse of the intent of private

members’ motions, which afford private members with an opportunity,

every Monday morning, to express their views on issues of importance to

them and not to make direct, indirect or veiled remarks about other

members of the House.

In future debate, I ask members to be mindful of the guidance that

the Chair has provided. Thank you.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call estimates debate for the Ministry of Jobs,

Economic Recovery and Innovation.

In the Douglas Fir Room,

Section A, I call estimates for the Ministry of

Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development.

In

Section C, the Birch Room, I call continued estimates debate for the

Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

JOBS, ECONOMIC

RECOVERY

AND INNOVATION

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B);

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 11:10 a.m.

The Chair: The committee will stand in recess for five

minutes.

The committee recessed from 11:10 a.m. to 11:14 a.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

On Vote 35: ministry operations, $78,648,000

(continued) .

[11:15 a.m.]

T. Stone: Good morning, Chair. Good morning to the ministry staff who are

here to support us in this process.

I think with the limited time that we have this morning, I’d like

to focus on StrongerBC and just begin to walk through some of the

different programs. I want to start with this sort of general

piece.

I think we can all agree there was a lot of uncertainty when the

pandemic hit — a lot of unknowns, a lot of anxiety that built up — so

there was a need to respond quickly. Respond quickly to support people.

Respond quickly to support business. Respond quickly to support

communities.

As a refresher, it may seem like quite some time ago, but it was

in March of 2020 — so over a year ago, about 14 or 15 months ago — when

this House unanimously came together and very quickly, frankly, unified

behind a support package for the pandemic, again, to ensure that

government was beginning the process of doing everything possible, with

the full support of this House, to support people and businesses and

communities.

Despite the package being approved in March of 2020, and the

StrongerBC component being announced in September of 2020, when you look

at the 2020 fiscal year, only 40 percent of the dollars that were

approved in March of 2020 were actually out the door by the end of the

fiscal year.

I guess the first question to the minister would be this. Does he

quibble with the 40 percent number? If it’s not 40 percent, what is the

number, in terms of the total dollar value of supports that were out the

door, in the hands of those that the supports were intended for, by the

end of 2020? Does he think that if, indeed, the number was 40 percent,

does he believe that that was an acceptable level of disbursement of the

supports to the end of December 2020, recognizing these dollars were

approved nine months earlier?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thank you to the hon. member for the question, and of course, a

big thank-you to all the amazing people within my ministry who are here

today and helping support this estimates process. The member, I think,

left out a few details, so I thought I’d just go back and walk through

how the process unveiled.

Of course, the member mentioned that we’re in a pandemic, and

there were a lot of uncertainties about how the pandemic would affect

people. I think what makes me most proud of government and our amazing

civil servants is the ability to adapt and adjust as the pandemic

changed throughout the pandemic time. The pandemic that was in March

wasn’t the pandemic in September, wasn’t the pandemic at Christmas and

wasn’t the pandemic we have now. We’ve been able to show an extreme

amount of innovation and flexibility as a government. It certainly makes

me very proud.

The member mentioned that dollars were approved in March. He’ll

also know that over spring and early summer of 2020, government spent

time trying to assess where the needs would be, where the pressure

points are, where the challenges may be. The StrongerBC projects were

announced on September 17, 2020. I think that’s an important date of the

announcement, just for the context of this conversation.

Initiatives that were fully developed and approved were launched

during the period when there was an election, so a lot of programs were

actually announced and launched by government at that time. I think for

the record we should frame…. There were three key themes that were

developed at that time. I’ll go through them briefly, just so that it’s

on the record.

We had supporting B.C. businesses. We had the small and

medium-sized business grants. We had agritech gra­nts, which were

$7.5 million. Manufacturing grants were $17 million. We had launch

online and digital marketing bootcamps, $44 million. Mass timber

demonstration projects were $3 million. Supports for agricultural

businesses, $5.6 million. Increasing B.C. food production and

processing, $1.95 million. Small farm business acceleration program and

provincial replant program were $890,000. On-farm innovation top-up

program was $1.6 million. Restoring Confidence app was $2 million.

Digitization of industrial land, $700,000.

[11:25 a.m.]

Destination B.C. tourism recovery strategy was $5 million. Tourism

Task Force for Indigenous tourism recovery fund was $5

million.

Of course, part of StrongerBC was getting people back to work.

There was $1.8 million for a youth employment program for parks

conservation services, $25 million for community job creation projects

and rural opportunities around wildfire risk reduction, $12 million for

forest em­ployment program and $430,000 for recreation sites,

trails and youth group program expansion.

And $20 million for employment supports for people with

disabilities facing barriers; $10.53 million targeted training for

health and human services, $20 million for short-term skills training

for in-demand jobs; $2 million for micro-credentialing; $15 million for

Indigenous communities skills training and education.

Then we also had a stream for stronger communities: $1.9 million

for anti-racism during the restart and recovery phase, which we know was

critically important, given the rise in hate and racism we’ve seen

through the pandemic. Technology and innovation connectivity was an

additional $90 million.

A mine remediation project was $1.57 million. Building innovation

fund and recapitalization, additional $8 million. Commercial Vehicle

Innovation Challenge ARC program was $30 million. The go electric

specialty used ve­hicle incentive program, $31 million. Property

assessed clean energy road map and pilot program, $2 million. B.C. Parks

stimulus proposal construction projects was $5 million.

Species and ecosystems conservation and restoration was $10.21

million. Watershed initiative, wetlands projects, $27 million. Clean

coast, clean waters initiatives, of course, on clean oceans day today,

$14.83 million. Recycled plastics and manufacturing stimulus was $5

million.

Remote and rural community access program was $25.65 million. Air

access grants, $15.75 million. Return-to-school funding, of course,

which was critically important: $45.6 million.

Of course, there was funding for jobs in health care, $299

million. Mental health support was $2 million. Additional youth suicide

prevention and life promotion was $2.33 million.

The hon. member will know that that’s a significant amount of

supports that were put in place, announced in September. That doesn’t

even go into all the other government supports that we’ve put in place,

which the member knows are quite comprehensive.

Of course, all members of this House supported that. I think

those, all those supports together, are quite substantial. Certainly, I

think, all those supports have put us in a good place, given that we’re

just coming out of the third wave and brighter days are

ahead.

T. Stone: Well, the range of comprehensive supports the minister just

rattled off and that he speaks of may sound good when he rattles it off

in a list, but we are still in the eighth position across the country

when it comes to direct support, direct relief, direct grants for

business.

I want to ask the minister, with respect to StrongerBC…. I’m well

aware that StrongerBC was launched in September. The question would be

this: why did it take six months? The dollars were all approved in this

Legislature, in this chamber, in March of 2020. The government didn’t

create and launch StrongerBC until September and waited for…. The

majority of the supports for business in particular didn’t begin to get

pushed out the door until September, when StrongerBC was

announced.

There was a tremendous amount of pain that small businesses, in

particular, felt in that ensuing period between March and September of

2020. Can the minister advise this House: why did the government wait

for six months? Why did it take six months? Why did the government wait

so long to push StrongerBC out the door, which contained critical

supports and programs for people in businesses across this

province?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: It does feel like a million years ago, but it…. So in that time,

maybe in all of our collective mem­ories, a lot of the things that

happened right away may have been forgotten by all members — even when I

was thinking back about it and thinking: “Well, what happened at that

time?” There have been so many things that have happened during this

intense time for everyone.

I think the member will know that the government

im­mediately moved to cut property taxes, cut and deferred others

to reduce pressures on the business community. We prohibited commercial

evictions, which was critically important at that time, because there

was a lot of stress being faced. We forgave three months of hydro bills.

We worked with the federal government to provide a wage subsidy and

commercial rent program, which were all things at that time that were

requested from the business community.

During that time, there were a lot of changes happening. The

member will remember that there was a lot of panic, a lot of uncertainty

around where the needs will be, how the pandemic will actually play out

in our communities and in our province and the country and the world. So

there was a lot of consultation being done around where the real needs

are, where the real pressure points are.

I think that the reason why StrongerBC was launched in a good way

was that everyone felt listened to. Everyone felt that their needs were

reflected in the StrongerBC plan. Again, that’s why we were able to see

a 99 percent job recovery rate here in B.C. We have a resilient economy,

but all the measures that we put together through thoughtful

consultation led us to a good place.

Of course, even from there, we had to adjust. As the pandemic

changed, we continued to adjust programming. I think it’s important to

note for the member that during that period of late March to summer,

lots of actions were taken to support businesses, and further supports

were put in place when StrongerBC was launched.

[11:35 a.m.]

T. Stone: Well, my question relates to, again, direct supports and direct

relief to business, and small business in particular. I’ve asked: was

the minister satisfied that having 40 percent of dollars earmarked in

the form of direct relief and support for businesses out the door by the

end of 2020 — is that’s acceptable or not? He hasn’t answered that. I

asked what the heck the delay was for, for the six-month period of time

it took from March of 2020 to September of 2020 when StrongerBC was

finally announced.

StrongerBC was the moment where the very first direct grant was

actually announced by this government. There has been a bit more on that

since, but the very first grant that was announced was the small and

medium-sized business recovery grant, which was included in September’s

StrongerBC strategy. There was no mention of it or launching of it prior

to that point, which meant there was no ability for businesses to access

it. They didn’t know about it. It didn’t exist.

I’d like to ask the minister this question: if it took six months,

from March of 2020 to September of 2020, was the reason that the

government didn’t push the StrongerBC plan out the door sooner because

the government was holding it back so that it could be pushed out about

a week before the Premier decided to call a snap and unnecessary

provincial election?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member was asking about direct supports, and that’s what I

answered. All the measures aro­und cutting property taxes,

prohibiting commercial evictions, these are direct supports that were

for businesses. That’s what was asked.

Now the member has asked about the programs. I did not, maybe,

understand in the beginning, but now I know where he is going. He wants

to know in the calendar year. I’ll update him on that.

Obviously, he knows the small and medium-sized business recovery

grant program continues to be available for businesses. The agritech

grants, which I mentioned, are direct supports for businesses:

completed. The manufacturing grants continue; that process is ongoing.

The launch online supports were available for businesses and still

avail­able, because we increased the amount of dollars

available.

The mass timber demonstration projects: completed. Supports for

agriculture businesses, the food hubs: completed. Increasing B.C. food

production and processing: completed. Small farm business acceleration

program and the provincial replant program: completed. On-farm

innovation top-up program: completed. Restoring Confidence app:

completed.

Digitization and industrial land work is ongoing. Destination B.C.

tourism recovery strategy is ongoing. The In­digenous tourism and

recovery fund is ongoing.

I mean, I can go through all the programs, if the member likes,

but the majority of the programs are completed. Many of the programs

that are still needed are ongoing. These are direct supports — again,

one of the highest per-capita supports in this country for people and

businesses. We’re really proud of that.

We debated the CCPA report yesterday. I’m happy to spend all

afternoon debating the CCPA report because it’s good news for

government. It shows that the supports we’ve put into people and

businesses were meaningful — 3 percent of our GDP. Very important

investments we’ve made into our people.

That’s reflected in the fact that in the middle of a third wave,

we’re at 99 percent of pre-pandemic employment. That’s a positive sign

for us, something we all should be proud of. It means the StrongerBC

plan was effective in the way it was designed, the consultation process

that happened, to ensure that it hit the right metrics for where our

stakeholders believed we needed to be.

StrongerBC was a success. It was a success because we took time to

listen to all of our stakeholders, and we didn’t wait, as I mentioned to

the member, for September. We put supports in immediately, but we put in

further supports in September. We continue to add supports as we know

the needs arrive.

[11:40 a.m.]

T. Stone: The minister talks about 99 percent pre-pandemic employment

levels. The province is at 99 percent, based on a massive increase in

the size of the public sector, a very significant drop in the number of

private sector jobs from one year ago, a huge increase in part-time

jobs, a big decrease in full-time jobs and an underutilization rate of

about 10 percent. Meaning, when you take the unemployment rate and you

add on all of those folks out there who have literally given up looking

for work and you add on the reality that a lot of people in many sectors

are getting fewer hours and fewer shifts, you’ve got a heck of a lot of

pain still, as reflected in an underutilization rate of about 10

percent.

Let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves here, in terms of this 99

percent employment rate based on pre-pandemic levels, when you factor in

this massive shift to public sector jobs, this massive shift to

part-time jobs and again, an ever-increasing underutilization rate.

We’ll dive into all of those numbers a little bit more later.

I want to come back to this concept of direct supports. I want to

make sure that the minister understands what I’m referring to here. What

I’m referring to here is what any economist out there, anyone engaged in

the financial sector, anyone that does any labour market analysis,

anyone who knows their way around how to classify different types of

supports for business…. When people refer to direct supports, direct

relief and direct grants, these are financial supports that are provided

to business that don’t have to be repaid. That don’t have to be paid

back. It’s cash in the pocket.

A deferral on taxes is not direct relief. Deferred taxes have to

be paid back. A loan, whether at zero interest or a low-interest rate,

still has to be paid back. The rent subsidies that were provided and the

freeze on rent — none of these are permanent and there are still

financial obligations that carry into the future for that particular

small business.

None of the above — deferrals, loans and so forth — are direct

supports. Direct supports are when you put a program on the table like

the circuit breaker grant or the small and medium-sized business

recovery grant. Again, dollars in pocket that don’t have to be

repaid.

Let’s just make sure we’re on the same page here about what direct

relief and direct grants are. When we talk about how well British

Columbia is doing in the context of the rest of the country, I suppose

it’s progress that the minister just referred to British Columbia being

among the highest as opposed to saying No. 1. But again, British

Columbia is No. 8 when it comes to direct supports, direct relief,

direct grants to business in this province.

I want to come back one more time to the minister’s timing here —

his comments on the timing of StrongerBC. Again, very simply, very

directly, is the reason that the government waited six months, from

March 2020 to September of 2020, to push out StrongerBC, which was the

first opportunity that direct relief in the form of the small and

medium-sized business recovery grant, as an example….?

The first time that direct relief was put on the table for

businesses, small businesses in particular, was the six-month delay in

pushing that out the door, because the government wanted to keep its

powder dry in case the Premier called an election, which he indeed went

ahead and did about a week after rolling StrongerBC out the door. If

it’s not that explanation, could the minister please provide

one?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, very proud of the highest per-capita supports for people in

businesses that we provided here in British Columbia.

Of course, as I said to the member, we can continue to debate. We

have a report that states that we provided significant supports for

British Columbians, and the member has a number that he has picked out

of the air without any backing. If he has a report that says anything

different than that, I’m happy to see that.

But there is a bit of a narrative that’s been coming from the

opposition that I want to address, where they frame the value of private

sector jobs as more important than public sector jobs. The member will

know that during the pandemic, we’ve been hiring teachers, we’ve been

hiring care aides, and we’ve been hiring contact tracers. These are

good-paying jobs.

I know that there is, certainly, from many members of the

opposition — perhaps not this hon. member, but many others — a really

negative view of public sector jobs, public sector employees. That was

reflected today in question period when the Minister of Finance reminded

this House that the single largest layoff of women in B.C.’s history was

done under the previous government’s watch. So that frustration towards

public sector employees has been clear in the history of the 16 years

that they were in government. My mom was one of those workers, so we

know as a family what that meant.

I do not understand why we can’t value teachers being hired the

same as we do private sector employees, why we can’t value care aides or

the important work that contact tracers did during the pandemic. The

list goes on. Why is it that we must say that, all of a sudden, their

employment means less because it doesn’t compare to a minimum-wage job,

say at McDonalds? I just don’t understand that — the framing, the

argument, the discussion.

You know, we are seeing 7,000 women who were working in

minimum-wage jobs or just slightly above minimum-wage jobs who have

gotten an opportunity to work within the health care system —

good-paying jobs, family-supporting jobs. We should be proud of that.

Taking care of our seniors so that our seniors are well taken care of

through this pandemic. We should value those jobs. We shouldn’t talk

about how, all of a sudden, a private sector job at a fast-food

restaurant somehow has more value in both the wages and all the value in

the work that they provide. We’ve been hiring people, ECEs, to provide

support for child care.

I take it a little personally when the member raises the

difference between the employment, as if, in some way, the employment

has less value because they’re working for government. I really

appreciate the work that all those folks are doing. I’m proud of the

work — anything that helps lift people up, particularly women, women of

colour, who have seen opportunity to get higher-paying-wage jobs working

within government, better protection as workers. We should all be

collectively proud of that.

Now, the member talks about the timelines. He will know, because

I’ve already shared this answer with him, that we provided additional

supports immediately. These supports were direct to businesses. It was

what they were asking for. Then we did a consultation process. We had

hundreds of suggestions and recommendations. It was very thorough. Every

ministry was involved, assessing where were the pressure points they

would be potentially facing, trying to project how the pandemic will

impact us, not knowing that the pandemic is going to continually change

and our supports will need to change. That process took time.

It’s not like we were the only jurisdiction grappling with this.

All the provinces were looking at finding ways to support businesses

throughout. Again, our motto here was “How can we keep things going in a

safe way?” We kept construction open. We kept a lot of our manufacturing

going. We kept a lot of our schools…. I’m so proud of our teachers, our

superintendents, our school boards for the work they did — direct impact

on the economy.

[11:50 a.m.]

I just wanted to make sure I clarified that so the member knows

that on this side of the House, we value the public sector employees. We

value the work and, of course, we’re proud of that.

StrongerBC, again, launched in September and hit the mark. It hit

the mark because we spent the time to make sure we knew where the

challenges were and where the various associations were recommending

that we put dollars to. That was reflected in the positive review that

we got from it.

The Chair: We’ll take one more question, and then we’ll adjourn,

Member.

T. Stone: Well, let me be clear. I think all members of this House value

public sector jobs. I certainly do; I know my colleagues do. I don’t

question that about any member on the other side.

What I would say, in response to the minister’s answer to my last

question, just moments ago: what the heck has the minister got against

private sector jobs? Private sector jobs are the ones that actually pay

for themselves. Public sector jobs are actually paid for by the

taxpayers of British Columbia. It’s private sector jobs that actually

power the economy, move the economy forward. It’s a private sector–led

jobs recovery that’s absolutely critical for us to have that

sustainable, long-term, economic recovery in the province. What has the

minister got against that?

I also take issue with his insinuations around minimum-wage jobs

and some of his comments, moments ago, about fast-food workers,

minimum-wage jobs, and so forth. I don’t understand. Why the blind spot

on the im­portance of private sector jobs? We’re down 61,000

private sector jobs from one year ago — 61,100 fewer private sector

jobs. That has been partially offset, over this past year, by 35,900

public sector jobs. But the point here is that we cannot have a durable

economic recovery without a robust, private sector–led expansion of

jobs.

We will get into more detail on that. Again, I want to ask — I’ll

keep asking the question until I get an answer — what accounts for the

six-month delay in StrongerBC being launched in September of 2020, when

all of the dollars were approved, unanimously, by this House in March of

2020? Why did it take six months? Was it because the Premier wanted, and

ended up calling, a snap election a week after StrongerBC was announced

in September of 2020?

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member spoke about how great minimum-wage jobs are. I’ll tell

the member that my mom worked a minimum-wage job. My aunts and my uncles

worked minimum-wage jobs. I was raised on a minimum-wage job that my mom

worked at. I’ll tell the member that it’s tough for families. I’m not

sure what his life experience was, but I can speak about my family and

my friends, who were new immigrants to this country and struggled on

that.

Not until she got a job where my mom became an HEU member, where

she had some rights, until they were taken away from her, did she see an

opportunity to help her family rise up. So I won’t be lectured by that

member about the value of minimum-wage jobs, unless he can tell me about

his life experience where he’s experienced that. I’d love to hear that,

because I respect people’s life experiences.

The private sector needed us. The private sector could not deal

with the pandemic. We put in additional supports, over $1 billion, to

support the private sector so we can maintain employment, maintain

people’s livelihoods, ensure that businesses survive through this

pandemic. We’re proud of that.

There were some people who say they’re free-marketers — luckily,

there are none of them here in the Legislature anymore — who said: “Let

the economy fall. They’ll find a way to return themselves. The market

will adjust and figure it out.” But we chose the path of ensuring that

we supported the private sector.

It’s going to a take a cooperative effort between the

pri­vate sector and the public sector to see a strong economic

recovery. That has been my focus. It has been the focus of the Premier.

It has been the focus of the Minister of Finance. We’re going to

continue to do that important work, because that’s the best way for us

to have a strong recovery — not one leading, but both working side by

side. That has been our model from the beginning. I look forward to

talking about this in a lot more detail in the afternoon.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to

sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:55 a.m.

The House resumed; S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. S. Robinson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: The House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS,

LANDS, NATURAL RESOURCE

OPERATIONS

AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); P. Alexis in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:21 a.m.

On Vote 30: ministry operations, $517,715,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have any opening remarks?

Hon. K. Conroy: No. Considering the amount of time we have, I think we should just

move right into questions. Thank you very much. I’m just really honoured

to be here, though.

I did want to introduce my deputy minister, Rick Manwaring. We

also have a whole team of staff, as you can imagine, sitting over in the

office buildings, waiting to answer questions with us.

I’m looking forward to it.

The Chair: I now recognize the member for Nechako Lakes.

Would you like to make any opening remarks?

J. Rustad: No. I’ll just keep my comments brief as we go.

Maybe I’ll just say that the intentions paper set the stage for a

lot of change in forestry. My hope is, through estimates, that we will

be able to explore more of what that means. Obviously, there are a lot

of issues that are going on in the sector. I’m hoping that we’ll have a

good dialogue, and I just also want to thank and recognize the deputy

here, as well, of course, as all the folks in the ministry, who I know

will be busy beavering from all corners of the province, I’m sure,

getting information to the minister.

I want to start this morning, if I could, with B.C. Timber Sales.

Before I do that, we might have one adjustment to the

schedule I

provided to the minister. It depends on what’s happening in the big

House in terms of debate on Bill 7. It may have to change where we fit

the discussion on the Columbia Basin Trust. Right now it’s currently

scheduled to be end of day on Wednesday. If the critic has to be

speaking in the House, we may need to shift that either to earlier in

the day or move it to Thursday. We’ll just have to play that a little

bit by ear. I just want to apologize, because I do try to give the

minister an opportunity to be able to make sure you’ve got the

appropriate staff available for questions as we go.

I want to start this morning talking about B.C. Timber Sales. As

we know, B.C. Timber Sales, of course, is an im­portant piece of

our stumpage system of the MPS, as well as providing the volume around

the province. Maybe I’ll start with B.C. Timber Sales, particularly on

the coast.

[11:25 a.m.]

If the minister could perhaps provide information on the number of

blocks that B.C. Timber Sales, or the vol­ume that B.C. Timber

Sales puts up on the coast for bid, how many of those blocks have gone

no bid, and whether or not that volume that is put up is covering the

whole profile of volume within the B.C. Timber Sales quotas.

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Last year B.C. Timber Sales, on the coast, represented the profile

of their timber. They had $2.9 million in total volume on the coast. Of

that, 16 were no bids, which represents almost 600,000 cubic

metres.

Do you want me to…?

J. Rustad: Sorry. What was the number again?

Hon. K. Conroy: So 600,000 cubic metres. For the first time, no sale. Then they

resold them by lowering the upset value, and they were all

sold.

J. Rustad: Out of the volume on the coast…. So $2.9 million was the total cut

that was available to B.C. Timber Sales on the coast, and 600,000 had to

be adjusted. So approximately 1/5, I guess, of the volume, roughly, had

to be adjusted in terms of price.

What is the undercut? What has the undercut been an­nually,

and what is the cumulative undercut within B.C. Timber Sales over the

last four years?

Hon. K. Conroy: On the coast or…?

J. Rustad: On the coast.

Hon. K. Conroy: Just on the coast. Okay.

J. Rustad: I’ll focus on the coast for the moment. We’ll get to the Interior

in a bit.

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Last year on the coast we actually sold 97 percent, so a 3 percent

undercut, and we need to get back to you on the four-year accumulation

numbers. They’re working that out right now, and we’ll get back to you

on that.

J. Rustad: Obviously, the issues around B.C. Timber Sales and the cut and

being able to achieve the cut…. I’m glad they were able to achieve that

over this past year, which was good. Of course, with markets being where

they are, there’s pretty good demand for the wood. There have been

years, of course, where the markets are not that good, and there is a

significant amount of undercut in those years.

I guess there are two things that come from that, which is how

B.C. Timber Sales is as a relation to the renewable cut to the amount of

volume that’s being cut in the area whether it’s a larger percentage or

more percentage than that roughly…. I’m assuming it’s around 20 percent.

It’s a little under that. I think it’s about 18 percent or 17 percent

right now — the overall cut on the coast.

I guess the question is: what is the mechanism, or are there any

mechanisms in place, for B.C. Timber Sales, where there are undercuts,

to be able to either make up that volume or find other ways to have that

volume come in to the system?

The minister, in a presentation earlier this week, in an

intentions paper, talked about the desire for people to be able to do

their full cut, and I’m assuming that applies to B.C. Timber Sales as

well, in terms of being able to achieve. So I’m just wondering what

mechanisms will be in place to make sure that the cut is being achieved

and that it is proportional to the full profile that’s available to B.C.

Timber Sales.

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Any sort of underperformance spills over to future years in the

business cycle, and it’s done on a five-year cycle. The goal is to

achieve the cut.

Your second question. If it’s a significant amount of

un­dercut, it actually becomes growing stock and becomes part of

the new AAC. So we do have mechanisms to resell the volume in the market

if the market can take it, if it can be sold. Our arching goal is to get

to the point where we can support the market pricing system.

J. Rustad: The 16 blocks that, this past year, went no bid and that were

repriced and went back into the market — how did that impact on the

stumpage on the coast?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The 16 blocks were an insignificant amount. They used over 13

years of data on the sales on the coast to determine that. They also did

test the market by putting out lower quality timber sales at the bottom

end of the profile, as you mentioned. That’s how they were testing that

out. It, again, was negligible.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to

sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

AGRICULTURE,

FOOD AND FISHERIES

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); M. Dykeman in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:15 a.m.

On Vote 13: ministry operations, $81,636,000

(continued) .

M. de Jong: Two issues to canvass with the minister to­day. One is truly

local in nature and I’m hoping will elicit a fairly helpful response

from the minister.

The people who organize one of the largest agricultural fairs in

British Columbia, the Abbotsford Agrifair, are en­countering all

kinds of difficulties trying to ascertain information about what they

can and can’t do. Graham Vanstone is the fair manager and has been

calling all and sundry — health authorities, the ministry.

They would, of course, like, as part of the restart program, to

make plans for a hybrid model fair, as I’m sure many fairs across the

province would, but are unable to obtain guidance, assistance, contact

from anyone. I’m hoping that the minister and her team today could alert

me and them to someone within the ministry that they could liaise with

to try to navigate through those challenges.

Hon. L. Popham: Many, many fairs around the province are wondering how they’ll be

able to operate. Many are interested in a hybrid model. I think we’re

all hoping that something can happen so we can attend. People really

want to demonstrate their support for community, and they often do that

at agricultural fairs.

[11:20 a.m.]

As far as the Abbotsford fair goes, first off, I believe that one

of the larger buildings on site at the fair is being used as a

vaccination centre right now. That may be complicating matters. I don’t

know.

We haven’t had direct contact by the fair to our ministry that I

know of, but there was a meeting that is in the works — being planned.

In the meantime, my assistant deputy, Arif Lalani, will reach out and

make contact with the fair folks and see if we can try and get some

answers.

M. de Jong: I am aware that the fair folks have made attempts to contact the

ministry and the minister’s office and the health authority. But the

minister has provided the response that I was hoping she would, which

is, the designation of someone that they can liaise with.

I didn’t expect, nor do I, for the minister to have all the

answers to how this might unfold. But having someone that the agency can

work with, as circumstances evolve, is most helpful, and I thank her for

that — and the fair, who are, I’m sure, watching this moment, thank her

as well and will await that call.

Now, the second issue that I’d like to visit may take a little bit

longer, and it relates to something that we were discussing during these

estimates last week. It was, as the member recalls, relating to a

project that the Carrier-Sek­ani Family Services agency is seeking

to construct — a treatment facility, much needed. I will say, again, a

project that everyone seems to agree is needed. Everyone seems to agree

should proceed. Everyone seems to agree should be accommodated on the

site that they have purchased for the purpose of the project.

What we are exploring and have explored is why that’s not

happening and why it hasn’t happened. It’s an important matter, I would

suggest, because it’s not the only such project.

The minister and I had an exchange over several hours, and

candidly, I made certain propositions that she disagre­ed with,

one of which was that a great deal of the problem here can be traced

back to changes that she, as the minister, and her government have made

to the legislation that impacts the mandate that the Agricultural Land

Commission is charged with implementing.

The minister — and she’ll, I’m sure, do this again

mo­mentarily — disagreed with me fairly pointedly and said that

was not so. She made some specific statements. I never think we should

be disputing what people said or didn’t say, so I brought a couple of

those statements that I’ll ask the Chair to pass along to the minister

and ask the minister to confirm that these remain her views

today.

Last week, during the exchange, when I posed the question about

the ALC’s mandate, I made this statement for the minister to reply to.

“The now repealed provision of the act allowed for it, in rendering

decisions, to preserve agricultural land and to take into account

economic and cultural and social values. That is no longer the case.

That’s all I’m trying to establish.” To which the minister replied: “The

ALC still has that discretion.”

Later in the exchange — and I’ll read all three of these into the

record — in pursuing the same question of whether the amendments that

the minister introduced impacted on the mandate and the ability of the

ALC to take factors into account that would have assisted them in

finding in support of the Carrier-Sekani application, the minister said

the following: “…they do have the discretion to look at what the

community needs are.”

[11:25 a.m.]

Then, later in the same exchange, in defending the

am­endments that she and the government introduced, the minister

said: “We gave a reasonable approach — that the Agricultural Land

Commission, with their panel, had the discretion to look individually at

applications. That’s what they do. Sometimes applications are approved

that don’t have anything to do with agriculture. That’s

reasonable.”

The minister took great issue with my proposition that the effect

of the amendments that her government introduced eliminated, from the

Agricultural Land Commission, the opportunity to take into account

social and economic considerations. I presume that remains her position

today, but I wanted to give her an opportunity to advise the committee

whether she has changed her view in any appreciable way on that

matter.

Hon. L. Popham: My views are exactly the same.

M. de Jong: I thought they might be. We’ll explore that a little bit. Can I

ask the Chair to pass a second document to the minister?

Hon. Chair, I’ve given the minister a document entitled “Ministry

of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries: Briefing Note,” dated March 18,

2021. Is that a note…? It says: “Briefing Note for Minister for

Information.” Can the minister confirm who that briefing note was

prepared for?

Hon. L. Popham: It was prepared for me.

M. de Jong: The document appears to have been prepared…. It’s dated March 18,

2021. Can the minister confirm that it was prepared after the

Agricultural Land Commission decision of February 26, 2021?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Yes.

M. de Jong: It’s titled “Briefing Note for Minister for Information” yet

elsewhere bears a resemblance to what I recall to be a ministerial

decision note. In fact, the labelling at the bottom of the document,

document 194283MDN, is precisely how I recall ministerial decision notes

to have been labelled, MDN meaning “ministerial decision

note.”

Was this an information note or a decision note?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: This was a briefing note for information.

M. de Jong: If I could ask the minister to look at page 3 of what she’s

describing as a briefing note for information. My certainty is it would

be the first briefing note for information that listed options seeking a

decision. In fact, on page 3, the request is that one of three options

be circled for approval. That is hardly consistent with a briefing note

for information.

Look, there’s an important issue at stake here: the operations and

the relationship between the ALC and the executive branch of government.

If the minister is truly asking the committee to take seriously what she

has just said, she’s going to have to explain how it is that an

information note requires a decision — a note, by the way, that is

labelled at the bottom “ministerial decision note.”

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: In my view, this was an information note, not a decision

note.

The Chair: Noting the hour….

M. de Jong: Thanks, hon. Chair. Probably a good time for me to put my next

question, and then we can pick it up when we come back.

I will say, first of all, a document requiring a decision from the

minister labelled “Ministerial Decision Note” hardly strikes me as a

briefing note for information only. But if that is the definition the

minister wishes to attach, she can explain that in her own

way.

I want to direct her attention to the top of page 2 of the note,

under the heading “Discussion.” I will read into the record what the

note that was prepared for her says: “The ALC is an independent

administrative tribunal. The decision-making framework for the ALC is

defined in

section 6 of the Agricultural Land Commission Act — see

appendix A — and does not include economic and social factors, including

First Nations considerations. As such, First Nations considerations are

not explicitly part of the ALC mandate.”

[11:45 a.m.]

The passage in this note directly contradicts what the minister

has told this committee about the ALC mandate. I put virtually those

words and that question to the minister, and as we have just reviewed,

she insisted — repeatedly has insisted — that the mandate of the ALC

includes those very things that her note says do not exist as an

option.

My question for the minister to ponder during the break is: why

would she provide information to this committee about the mandate, the

statutory mandate, of the ALC that directly contradicts the advice she

was receiving at precisely the same time that these events were taking

place? In unequivocal terms, the act does not include economic and

social factors. Why would she tell this committee exactly the opposite

in the face of specific advice that she received?

I’ll await the minister’s answer with great

anticipation.

The Chair: As I said previously, noting the hour, I ask the minister to

move the motion.

Hon. L. Popham: I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave

to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:47 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.