Fourth Session, 41st Parliament

(2019) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, May 7, 2019

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 249

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

Okanagan Mascot Games

N. Simons

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Prince George Spruce Kings

S. Bond

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Mustard Seed dental clinic

T. Stone

Child and youth mental health

B. Ma

Chilliwack Bowls of Hope Society

J. Martin

Neighbourhood houses

M. Elmore

Youth suicide prevention and mental health

services

J. Thornthwaite

Burnaby Festival of Learning

A. Kang

Oral Questions

Government policies on forest industry and softwood

lumber trade

A. Wilkinson

Hon. J. Horgan

S. Bond

Caribou protection and hunting

A. Weaver

Hon. D. Donaldson

Protection of old-growth forests

A. Weaver

Hon. D. Donaldson

Government policies on forest industry

M. de Jong

Hon. J. Horgan

Wages for community social services

workers

T. Redies

Hon. S. Simpson

Hon. J. Horgan

J. Thornthwaite

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance (continued)

S. Bond

Hon. C. James

T. Redies

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Education (continued)

C. Oakes

Hon. R. Fleming

D. Davies

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture

(continued)

Hon. L. Popham

I. Paton

L. Larson

M. Hunt

TUESDAY, MAY 7, 2019

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

P. Milobar: It gives me great pleasure to recognize several people from Kamloops,

North and South Thompson, representing Domtar here today. Domtar is a very

major employer in the Kamloops area, their pulp mill operations. They

support about 13 area sawmills with their chip manufacturing of pulp. As

well, they have direct and indirect employment numbers of around 1,500 in

the Kamloops region.

Today we’re joined by Jean-Claude Allaire, the general manager; Bonny

Skene, the regional public affairs manager; Kristin Dangelmaier, the

environment manager; Merl Fichtner, fibre procurement manager; Debbie

Kirkpatrick, human resources manager; Rene Pellerin, the president of Unifor

10B; Bob Stevens, vice-president of operations for Unifor Local 10B; and

Dave Luszcz, vice-president of maintenance for Unifor Local 10B. Will the

House please make them all feel welcome.

Hon. D. Eby: Joining us in the House today is a group from the B.C. Notaries. With

them today we have Daniel Boisvert, president; Morrie Baillie,

vice-president; Akash Sablok, director; and Jacqui Mendes, CEO. There are

also 13 other B.C. notaries from all over the province visiting us

today.

As well as the notaries, we have retired police chief Doug LePard with

us and Dr. Peter German, QC, joining us as well. Both provided great

assistance to the government in preparing the most recent analysis on money

laundering in the province.

Will the House please make them welcome.

M. Polak: We will be joined shortly — although looking at the gallery and how

full it is, I’m not sure where they’re going to put them — by 30 grade 5

students from St. Catherine’s Elementary in my riding. They are joined by

their teacher, Samantha Sheppard, and also some adults who are supervising —

parents and volunteers. We want to make them warmly welcome, and I hope the

House would join me in doing that.

Statements

OKANAGAN MASCOT GAMES

N. Simons: I’d like the House to know about an important fundraiser taking

place this weekend in Vernon. It’s the first annual Okanagan Mascot

Games, and the Powell River Kings’ very own Rocco the Lion will be there

to compete against rival BCHL mascots and others from near and

far.

Support the Vernon Vipers’ Sniper and other mascots as they

compete in relay races, lip-syncing competitions and even a dance-off in

support of the B.C. Children’s Hospital and the Kelowna General Hospital

Foundation’s JoeAnna’s House.

Go, Rocco, go.

Introductions by Members

S. Cadieux: Joining us in the gallery, along with the group from the B.C.

Notaries, is a local Surrey notary. Gordon Hepner is here, and I would like

the House to make him welcome.

Hon. H. Bains: In the House joining us today are dozens of amazing activists from

United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1518. They’re here for their annual

lobby day. They’re led by their leader, President Kim Novak, and secretary,

Patrick Johnson.

By the way, it’s Kim’s birthday as well. So in addition to giving them

a warm, warm welcome, let’s wish Kim the happiest birthday today and many,

many good ones to come.

L. Throness: I have a couple of delegations today. The village of Harrison Hot

Springs — well, not the whole village. I have the mayor and council, Mayor

Leo Facio; Coun. Michie Vidal; Ray Hooper; Samantha Piper; and the CAO,

Madeline McDonald. Thank you for coming today.

[10:10 a.m.]

We also have a class of grade 10 students, 24 students from Timothy

Christian School, who will be here in a few minutes. They’re accompanied by

their principal, Doug Stam, and teachers Daniel Van Brugge, Jody Terpstra

and Bill Beeke.

Would the House welcome all my constituents.

Hon. A. Dix: Yesterday I talked about the vigil that’s taking place for ambulance

paramedics at the memorial behind the Legislature, and it’s very moving. I

encourage members, perhaps, to visit during the lunch-hour. The vigil is

from five o’clock yesterday to five o’clock today.

I want to introduce three of the members of the honour guard —

including our friend, Lynn Klein, of course. Three members of the honour

guard who are with us in the gallery today: Sgt.-Maj. Terry Jessup, who’s

from Kamloops; Jackie Cummings, who’s a sergeant with the guard from

Victoria; and Sandra Weatherbee, a member from Salmon Arm. I want everyone

in the House to make them welcome and everyone in the House to recognize the

extraordinary contribution of ambulance paramedics in our

province.

S. Furstenau: I’m delighted to introduce Maurits Freybe, who’s in the gallery today.

He’s a student from Brentwood College in Mill Bay in Mark Wismer’s

comparative government and politics class. Maurits is in grade 11. He’s

interested in politics. He wants to study politics, philosophy and economics

in the U.K. He’s a squash player, downhill skier, cross-country

runner.

When I asked him about what he thought the most pressing issues were

in the world today, he said three things: climate change, corruption and the

health of democracies.

It’s a real pleasure to have Maurits here today. Will the House please

make him welcome.

B. Ma: In addition to the introductions made by the Minister of Labour, I’d

also like to make special mention to Abby Leung from UFCW, who was

instrumental in my campaign, and Kate Milberry from UFCW, who currently

serves as an executive in my local riding association.

I’d also like to take this opportunity to introduce the grade 11

global perspectives class from Sutherland Secondary in North Vancouver. They

are led by their teachers Jeffrey Aw-Yong, James Nevison, Claudia Panton.

I’m going to read only their first names really, really quickly. I’d like to

introduce Meena; Rheanne; Quinn; Emma; another Quinn; Amy; David; Kaya;

Jose; Graeme; Camille; Frances; Paige; Natalia; Quinn — Quinn is a very

popular name in this class; Tara; Suhayl; Maya; Lea; Harnoor; Ghazal; Ana;

Hannah; Miranda; April, Jackson; and Amber.

I’d also like to make a special mention to Grade 11 student Nikolas

Montecalvo, who sits on my youth leadership council for climate

action.

Tributes

PRINCE GEORGE SPRUCE KINGS

S. Bond: History was made in Prince George on Saturday night when the

Prince George Spruce Kings continued their winning ways. I know it’s

been an epic journey here in the Legislature as they defeated a variety

of teams. Prince George now goes on to represent not only British

Columbia, but they are now the British Columbia–Alberta champions,

having won the Doyle Cup for the first time in franchise

history.

I wanted to thank the members of this House, including the

Premier, for their good wishes to the Prince George Spruce Kings and

especially the member for Vernon-Monashee, whose very sincere

congratulations and best wishes were appreciated by the people of Prince

George.

Spruce Kings now go on to play in the national championship. I can

tell you Prince George is excited, and I hope every member of the House

will cheer on these British Columbia champions. Go, Kings,

go.

Introductions by Members

G. Kyllo: We’re joined today by a man who is no stranger to this House: Lynn

Klein, one of the biggest B.C. ambassadors for the B.C. Ambulance Service.

Would the House please give Lynn a very warm welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

MUSTARD SEED DENTAL CLINIC

T. Stone: The Mustard Seed dental clinic is a life-changing space in

Kamloops that provides compassionate dental services to low- and

no-income adults, our community’s most vulnerable members. This dental

clinic changes people’s lives every day.

[10:15 a.m.]

The simple idea that sums up their mission is this: a confident

smile can be life-changing and can break down the social barriers

preventing employment and healthy support networks. Someone who changed

a lot of lives at this clinic is Dr. Bruce Tucker, the clinic’s primary

volunteer dentist, who recently passed away.

Dr. Tucker spent the last six years volunteering nearly half a

million dollars worth of billable hours, performing essential dental

services for those who had no other avenue to access much-needed dental

care — 4,376 dental appointments, to be exact, all volunteered by this

generous man with a big heart. Dr. Tucker also contributed thousands of

dollars out of pocket for equipment and gave extra time to mentor

students and dental residents. He will be sorely missed.

Operating in Kamloops since 1999, the Mustard Seed dental clinic

was the first of its kind in B.C. and was championed by a handful of

dedicated dental professionals, like Dr. Tucker, who focused on giving

back to the community. The clinic has served over 2,600 patients in the

last four years alone, ranging from 16 years of age to 100 years of

age.

Two weeks ago, the Mustard Seed dental clinic launched its new

awareness and recruitment campaign, known as “Give a day, change a

life,” in recognition of Dr. Tucker. As the Mustard Seed dental clinic

mourns the loss of Dr. Tucker, this campaign is a call to action to all

Kamloops dental professionals, urging them to step up and volunteer at

the clinic for one day this year. Here’s hoping that lots of these

professionals heed the call so that Dr. Tucker’s legacy lives on and

many more lives can be changed.

CHILD AND YOUTH MENTAL HEALTH

B. Ma: They’re just acting out. They’re not focused. They’re being

difficult. They’re just going through a phase. They’re looking for

attention. They’re not applying themselves. Sometimes the way that

adults describe the signs of child and youth mental health challenges

are not the way we should describe the signs of child and youth mental

health challenges. By the time we realize what’s really going on,

they’ve already been living with these challenges for years, with

lasting impacts.

They or their parents reach out for help, perhaps. But the system

is fragmented, and they’re not sure where to go. Maybe they’re too sick

to be helped, or maybe they’re not sick enough. Maybe they get sent from

door to door to door. “We can’t help you here,” they’ll hear. “You’ll

need to go somewhere else.” How many tragic deaths by suicide or

substance use could we have prevented with early

intervention?

Today is Child and Youth Mental Health Day, and this day is

important, because we know that most mental health challenges start

early in life. One in eight youth will experience a significant mental

health challenge, yet only one in three of them will get the supports

they need when they need them. Which is exactly why the Minister of

Mental Health and Addictions works so hard to resolve the desperately

fragmented system of mental health supports in our province, with a

strong focus on child and youth mental health.

Today, on Child and Youth Mental Health Day, while there have been

many accomplishments from her ministry already so far, as a North Shore

MLA, I’m particularly grateful for our province’s two-year project with

the North Vancouver school district and Mountainside Secondary School to

expand classroom-to-community mental health and addictions

connections.

There is still so much more to be done, and I think everyone in

the House understands the urgency of this work and the importance of

working together to build a strong system of care for all of our young

people in our province.

CHILLIWACK BOWLS OF HOPE SOCIETY

J. Martin: On Friday this past weekend, I had the distinct pleasure of

attending the 14th annual Chilliwack Bowls of Hope Society fundraiser.

It was a combination of a dinner and a silent and live auction, and it

was just a spectacular evening all around.

This event was a sellout, once again — 320 generous supporters

from throughout Chilliwack. In fact, this is the Bowls of Hope’s sixth

consecutive sellout in a row. How generous were the attendees? Well, for

instance, they raised ten times the amount the original event

accomplished some 14 years ago. What they raised this weekend will

assist in covering almost 50 percent of the cost to feed needy children

throughout the Chilliwack school district.

[10:20 a.m.]

The Chilliwack Bowls of Hope Society is headed by the leadership

and its president, co-founder Mike Csoka, as well as the tireless

efforts of the executive director, Cindy Waters, the program

coordinator, Shelbie Daase, and their chef, Michael Leduc.

The society started in 2005, feeding 17 students in one single

school. They now feed up to 850 hungry children every day in 21

different schools throughout Chilliwack. Do the math, and that is over

136,000 hot meals per year. Early in 2018, the Bowls of Hope Society

celebrated the serving of their one millionth hot lunch in Chilliwack —

just spectacular work.

Chilliwack Bowls of Hope Society is all about helping Chilliwack

children in need reach their full potential by fueling their minds and

bodies, one mouthful at a time. Bowls of Hope is just one of the many

outstanding non-profits that we have doing the heavy lifting in my

community, and they’re one more reason that Chilliwack punches above its

weight.

NEIGHBOURHOOD HOUSES

M. Elmore: I rise today to acknowledge the fifth annual Neighbourhood House

Week. Neighbourhood houses are non-profit organizations that function as

resource centres and community hubs. They’re safe, welcoming spaces for

people to find or lend a helping hand in their community.

Neighbourhood houses support people of all ages, backgrounds and

abilities and provide low- or no-cost social, educational, cultural and

recreational programs. They offer thousands of licensed child care

spaces, provide community food programs, reduce social isolation for

seniors and run settlement programs to help new Canadians find their

footing in a new place.

Neighbourhood houses are building their communities up and growing

alongside them, helping people cultivate skills and confidence, take on

leadership opportunities and forge relationships close to home. There

are currently 16 neighbourhood houses in the Lower Mainland that are

strengthening individual, family and neighbourhood life for people, and

I’m pleased to welcome a 17th on May 22, when Marpole Neighbourhood

House hosts its grand opening.

Social inclusion, reducing isolation and increasing opportunities

for community participation are important parts of this government’s

commitment to reducing poverty. It is why I was happy to welcome

submissions from neighbourhood houses as part of my work on B.C.’s

poverty reduction strategy.

Today I want to recognize these grassroots organizations that have

been leading by example in providing people with support, empathy and a

sense of belonging for all these years. I encourage people to seek out

their local neighbourhood house, find out what kinds of events are

happening to celebrate this week and learn how you can be part of this

movement to support safe, happy and healthy communities.

YOUTH SUICIDE PREVENTION

AND MENTAL HEALTH

SERVICES

J. Thornthwaite: On March 23, a 17-year-old male took his own life in the emergency

department of Lions Gate Hospital. According to the coroner, there are

between 500 and 600 suicides annually in B.C., with 20 to 30 being under

the age of 19.

More and more kids are visiting the emergency room for both

attempted suicide and suicidal thoughts. According to a study released

last month in JAMA Pediatrics , the number of suicide-related ER

visits for children and teens aged five to 18 in the U.S. has doubled

since 2007, from 580,000 to almost 1.2 million in 2015. Evidence

suggests a similar trend in Canada.

In addition to the rising rates of visits, they found that the

average age admitted was 13 years old and that half of the visits were

for children between the ages of five and 11. What is going on? We’ve

got a big problem here, and there are lots of reasons that experts have

brought forward as to why suicide ideation — attempts or, sadly, those

completed — are going up.

One thing we do know is that more needs to be done for children

and youth: identifying them early, treating at-risk youth in elementary

school or earlier. Prevention and mitigation of the early signs of

mental illness needs immediate attention by those in the education

system, and more resources in schools are vital.

Ask any teacher, and they will tell you which kids appear to be

struggling or present with symptoms that need support, but they’re not

getting it. Often these kids can struggle for years or even decades

before anyone gets them the help they need, and sadly, this results in

too many of them falling through the cracks into adulthood.

[10:25 a.m.]

The Foundry one-stop shops are a great first step, and I’m happy

this government has continued on the initiative that we started. We also

instigated the new school curriculum that encompasses social and

emotional learning. But more needs to be done.

This week the Canadian Mental Health Association’s annual

campaign, “Celebrating everyday victories,” encourages youth and young

adults to pause and acknowledge their small daily wins and celebrate

their journey towards positive wellness. CMHA estimates one in seven

young people will experience a mental illness at some point in their

life, and anxiety and depression are some things that they should seek

help about. With the right tools and practice, they can bounce back and

reclaim their mental health.

Check out mentalhealthweek.ca. Let’s get loud this week and

inspire our youth and young adults to celebrate their everyday

victories.

BURNABY FESTIVAL OF LEARNING

A. Kang: The 2019 Burnaby Festival of Learning celebrates a week-long

series of free events from May 4 to May 11, featuring a wide variety of

unconventional, life-long learning. This fantastic festival has

something for all learners of all ages, interests, learning styles and

all stages of life. Activities range from art exhibits to hands-on

workshops to sign shows to PechaKucha Night. Other festival features are

performances, lectures, discussions, tours and more, all designed to

inform and engage and to spark creative conversations among Burnaby’s

vibrant and diverse audience.

As a teacher by trade and lifelong learner by passion, I believe

in celebrating life-long learning. Learning allows you to contribute to

society. Learning allows you to be who you want to be. Learning makes

you stronger. Learning new things helps bring out the genius in you, and

learning makes you more open-minded. Learning never ends, and that is

awesome.

It seems like there’s something new to learn every day. New

technology, new world events, new cultural lenses to explore. The world

is always changing, and we keep on learning. Studies have shown that

active participation leads to better understanding. That is what the

festival is all about — learn, grow and thrive.

The Burnaby Festival of Learning is co-presented by Simon Fraser

University and the city of Burnaby, in participation with so many local

Burnaby organizations. Events and activities take place across the city,

inviting the community to enjoy Burnaby’s rich variety of civic spaces,

including Burnaby libraries, Burnaby Village Museum, Burnaby Art Gallery

and various parks and community centres and more.

The Burnaby Festival of Learning is hosted by the community for

the community. For more information, you can check out

festivaloflearning.ca. Many thanks to all the members and the

organizations that make up the festival team. Thank you for your

dedication to making this event successful year after year.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT POLICIES ON FOREST

INDUSTRY AND SOFTWOOD

LUMBER TRADE

A. Wilkinson: Today Canadian lawyers are appearing in Washington, D.C., as they

seek to find relief from the American softwood lumber

tariffs.

Now, most of us remember the grand statements made by the Premier

exactly two years ago when, before the election, he said he was going to

solve this problem. Then within days after the election, he scooted off

to Washington, D.C., and accomplished nothing at all.

Not only has the Premier failed on the softwood lumber file, but

he has failed to keep any commitment to consult with the forest sector.

We’re now faced with a high-handed, top-down Forest Amendment Act.

Rather than working with the forest industry, the Premier has decided to

ignore the communities, to ignore the industry concerns in the middle of

the highest lumber costs on the continent. This is the attitude taken by

the Premier.

Will the Premier do the right thing, as he did with the caribou

file: pause, admit the blunder made by his Forests Minister and go to

these communities and accept that he has to listen to the communities

before he comes in with this heavy-handed legislation?

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. It’s a

shame that he hasn’t been following the file more closely. He would know

that I wrote to major forest companies just a month ago, encouraging

them to sit down with local communities, to sit down with Indigenous

leaders, to sit down with labour leaders.

[10:30 a.m.]

Almost uniformly, those companies have agreed because we need to

do a timber supply area review, area by area, to ensure we’re protecting

the very people that the member raises.

I’ve talked to leadership at Interfor. I’ve talked to leadership

at Canfor, at West Fraser, Kalesnikoff and Tolko. All agree that there

is going to be a falldown in allowable, available timber and in annual

allowable cut. That requires cooperation, and that’s exactly what we’re

doing.

Had we not brought in Bill 22, we would have been in the same

situation the former government was in 2013 when West Fraser and Canfor

just swapped tenures, closed mills, put people out of work and left

communities stranded. We’re not prepared to do that. We want to work

with companies, but in the interests of the people of British

Columbia.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Well, we only need to look back on the track record of this

Premier in the forest industry. Let’s take April 26, 2017. The Premier

made the ultimate empty promise to the forest sector: “I’m going to

directly involve myself in the softwood lumber negotiations and make

sure that we get a deal.” Result: total failure.

On April 1 of this year, the Premier wrote to the forest industry,

and he said, “You’ll be consulted. We’ll be fully engaged. The

communities will be part of the story. We’ll introduce the right kind of

amendments to the Forest Amendment Act,” and then a week later: “There’s

the act. Take it or leave it.”

That’s the Premier’s idea of consultation — an empty promise; a

top-down, high-handed approach. This is after the Premier has totally

failed on the softwood lumber file — has nothing to show for two years

of effort.

Was this another empty promise, Premier, or was this just a

high-handed NDP approach to the forest sector?

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, it’s always rich when the official opposition brings up

forest policy — 100 mills closed, 30,000 jobs lost.

I know this is a particularly sensitive issue for one member on

that side of the House, but there was a thing called tree farm licences

that was created in the 1950s to ensure that communities had access to

lumber that was being felled and manufactured in their community. What

did the B.C. Liberals do in 2008? Arbitrarily — without consulting First

Nations, without consulting workers, without consulting communities —

disbanded tree farm licences, giving massive windfalls to corporations

with no benefit to people.

We’re not going to repeat their folly. We’re going to go step by

step, working with all of the stakeholders to get a positive outcome for

our forest industry and the people that depend on it.

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

supplemental.

A. Wilkinson: Here we go again. The Premier sat and watched as his Forests

Minister completely botched the mountain caribou file, and the Premier

rode in to his rescue. Now we’re on the same pathway — this poorly

developed, ill-advised Forest Amendment Act. The Premier says: “Don’t

worry about it. We have an ideological, top-down answer. You’ll like it.

Just learn how to suck it up.”

Well, Premier, that doesn’t work in forest communities. When are

you going to admit the blunder by your Forests Minister and ride to the

rescue and tell him to slow down, listen to communities, listen to the

industry and avoid another fiasco like mountain caribou?

Hon. J. Horgan: I hate to do this. I’m usually a charitable marker, but that’s

going to be an F-minus for mixed metaphors on the other side of the

House.

We’ve reached out in an unprecedented way to the forest industry.

I spoke with them directly at COFI. I’m available to them all the time.

They don’t have to give massive campaign donations anymore. They just

have to talk about good policy.

I sat down on the break week with the CEO of Interfor, one of the

biggest forest companies in British Columbia, and we talked about the

future.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we shall hear the response.

[10:35 a.m.]

Hon. J. Horgan: We talked about the future of communities, about forestry and

about workers — about workers that they can only remember in a

derogatory way. Here’s a news flash. If you stop denigrating workers for

five minutes, they might listen to you.

I, on the other hand, have decided to work with industry, to work

with communities, to work with Indigenous communities and people who get

paycheques from forestry to make sure there is an industry after

tomorrow, unlike those guys who just said: “Let ’er rip. Just keep the

donations coming.”

S. Bond: Well, let’s talk about donations. The only success that this

Premier had in his trips to Washington was picking up one big fat cheque

from the Steelworkers.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, we shall hear the question. Thank

you.

S. Bond: On April 5, this Premier gave a speech to the Council of Forest

Industries. Here’s what he said. He said that solutions “will take

trust, commitment and goodwill from everyone at the table.”

The members can clap, but you can imagine the surprise when less

than a week later his Forests Minister sandbagged the industry with a

bill that creates massive uncertainty in a sector, with zero

consultation. So much for trust and goodwill.

The Premier has a chance today to do what he said he would do.

Will he press pause and conduct meaningful consultation with industry

and communities?

Hon. J. Horgan: I’m glad that the member was able to read portions of my

presentation to COFI, because that’s exactly what we’re doing. We’re

asking everyone to come together and figure out where we go from here —

Indigenous people, community leaders, First Nations and

workers.

Now, the companies that I’ve talked to…. I guess they’re not

returning the calls from the official opposition anymore, but the

companies that I talked to understand that the government’s

responsibility is to protect the public interest.

I’ll remind the member that in 2013, when West Fraser and Canfor

flipped their tenures, people lost their jobs. The shareholders — the

amorphous shareholders — did just fine, but the people of British

Columbia did not. The province has a responsibility to protect the

public interest. We’re doing that. Forest companies understand

that.

West Fraser’s CEO is departing into retirement. He wanted to take

a pop at the government before he left. Fair enough. Everyone else who’s

left — Interfor, Canfor, Tolko — are more than willing and prepared to

sit down and work with government in the best interests of their

industry and the people of B.C.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, order, please.

The member for Prince George–Valemount on a

supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, the Premier is simply wrong. It is absolutely clear that the

forest industry does not believe that this Premier and his government

have one clue about how to create a globally competitive forest sector.

In fact, we have been bringing their concerns to this chamber day after

day after day, while the Premier ignores them.

The Premier sat on the sidelines and watched the handling of the

mountain caribou file that caused anger and frustration all across this

province. He was finally forced to admit it was a mess, and he called in

help, by the way, from someone who used to sit with this side of the

House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, you are being disrespectful to the member.

S. Bond: Key leaders in this sector want to have consultation with this

government about forest policy that is impacting their sector. Will the

Premier, for once, stand up and do what he said he would do?

[10:40 a.m.]

Talk about trust and the lack of trust. It’s time for the Premier

to do the right thing, take a pause and consult.

Hon. J. Horgan: I’ll just go back to the caribou question because, as most people

know, the caribou challenge didn’t happen last week, last month, last

year. We were advised in 2003…. I think, if I’m not mistaken, that those

guys used to sit over here in 2003, when we knew that we had a problem

with caribou. They were declining in numbers. In 2014, a decade later,

we heard again from the federal government: “You have a problem.

Species-at-risk-legislation requires action.” What did they do?

Bupkis.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: Not a darn thing. So I will not take advice from any Liberals,

save and except Blair Lekstrom, on this question, because he’s got

common sense.

On the question of sitting down and working with the forest

industry, the CEO of Tolko…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: …wrote to me — after the tabling of the legislation, after I

presented at COFI — and said the following, “Tolko would like to seize

this opportunity to work with you in,” as he said at the end of his

letter, “the interests of competitive forest industry and opportunities

for local workers, real partnership with First Nations and a secure

forest industry.”

That’s what we’re doing, and I know that troubles the people on

the other side, because they had it their way for a decade and a half.

What did they do when they had it their way? Not like Frank Sinatra.

They broke up a tree farm licence and put hundreds of people out of

work. They put hundreds of millions in the pockets of shareholders, and

they put 100,000 people out of work.

I’m not following their lead. Not a chance.

CARIBOU PROTECTION AND HUNTING

A. Weaver: I’ve just been walking around with a smile on my face today from

ear to ear, and I continue to ask that question in that

spirit.

There are 54 caribou herds in British Columbia, 30 of which are at

risk of extirpation. Fourteen have less than 25 animals, and the B.C.

government website lists that one of these herds has precisely one

individual,

whereas another has three. Since the information was posted

on the site, it’s likely that they’re gone as well.

British Columbia’s caribou herds are in crisis, and scientists

have been raising the alarm for many, many years. After nearly managing

the species into oblivion, we’re now desperately trying to save them by

any means possible. Yet at the same time as we try to avoid extirpation

in one area, in a neighbouring area, the government endorses and permits

a legal caribou hunt.

To the Minister of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource

Operations, aside from the First Nations food, social and ceremonial

hunt, how many caribou is he permitting to be hunted in British Columbia

in the 2019-2020 limited area hunt and general open season in management

units 617 to 620 and 622 to 627?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party for the question to

talk about an important animal, an iconic species in B.C. and across

Canada and internationally. That is the caribou.

I think it’s been pointed out already in question period so far

that unlike the old government, we take the decline in caribou

populations very seriously. Going back to 2003, the previous government

ignored calls for action to protect caribou habitat for over a decade

and kept in place a patchwork of measures that don’t meet federal

standards, putting jobs at risk and caribou at risk.

As far as the hunting of caribou that the member asked about, we

know that the Chase, Wolverine and Itcha Ilgachuz herds are classified

as threatened, and the herd populations continue to decline. That’s why

we closed the caribou hunt for these three herds this past March, and

this hunt will remain closed until further notice. There are some herds

that are still available for hunting, and those are the Carcross and

Atlin herds in my constituency, in the northwest corner of B.C. Both

herds have in excess of 800 animals.

The member is right. Based on the best available science and once

conservation is the top priority, followed by First Nations food,

spiritual, and ceremonial needs — only then is hunting allowed. There

are very few animals available for hunt, approximately ten.

[10:45 a.m.]

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

PROTECTION OF OLD-GROWTH FORESTS

A. Weaver: Well, that’s inconsistent with the information I have here, where

it looks like 268 permits have been issued for caribou in Skeena region

6, which would be ironic in light of the fact the minister just

mentioned 800-some animals in and around that area.

The point I’m making here is we’re hunting caribou while we try to

save caribou. There’s no overall strategy. Caribou, as we know, are

dependent on old-growth boreal and mountain economic systems. For many

herds, their main food source is lichen that grows on old trees, and

cutblocks and logging roads make them much more vulnerable to predators,

as we all know.

Yesterday the United Nations released a landmark study reporting

that over a million species are now at risk of extinction, and habitat

loss is the driving factor. In B.C., we only act when it’s already too

late. For example, our invaluable Vancouver Island valley-bottom old

growth is globally rare and is an essential habitat for many

species.

My question is again to the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural

Resource Operations. Will this government stop its Loraxian approach to

resource management and step in to protect the last intact, productive,

valley-bottom old growth on Vancouver Island?

Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, I understand we were talking about caribou. There are no

caribou on Vancouver Island. I’m sure the member knows that. As far as

old-growth forests go on Vancouver Island, we’re committed to creating

an old-growth plan in consultation with industry, in consultation with

environmental NGOs and in consultation with communities.

We know that old-growth forests provide incredibly important

habitat for biodiversity. There are over 500,000 hectares of old growth

already protected on Vancouver Island through protected areas and parks.

We also know that old-growth forests provide important revenue for

communities and important jobs for forestry workers. We’ll continue to

manage old growth in a sustainable way, and we’ll continue to work on

the caribou file to protect jobs and to protect caribou.

GOVERNMENT POLICIES ON

FOREST

INDUSTRY

M. de Jong: Almost two years into term, the Premier seems to have developed

quite a talent for, quite frankly, making things up. He said he was

developing options to address high fuel prices. No options. He said he

was going to get a softwood lumber deal. No softwood lumber deal. He

said he was going to consult with the forest sector, the forest

industry. Then a week later his government and his minister table

legislation that is the product of zero — zero — consultation with the

forest sector.

If you ignore the people that sign the paycheques, they’re going

to eventually stop issuing paycheques. If you ignore the people who are

making decisions about investing in our forest sector, they are going to

eventually stop investing and creating jobs. Surely the Premier

understands that with this latest legislation, he and his government are

imposing a massive additional amount of uncertainty upon an industry

that is already suffering from a tremendous amount of

uncertainty.

Will he do the right thing and order his minister and his

government to take a break and consult with the people that employ the

majority of forest families in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Horgan: We are consulting with the forest industry, and the vast majority

are very excited about sitting down with leaders in the communities they

operate in and talking about how their workers and Indigenous

communities can find a way forward with a decline in annual allowable

cut and competitive markets internationally.

Everyone that I’ve talked to is excited about that except the

opposition. What I don’t understand about the opposition — and I suppose

I should — is that when they were in power, the public interest was

secondary to them. While we’re in power, the public interest is

paramount, and that’s exactly what we’re going to do.

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

M. de Jong: Sadly, it is impossible to reconcile what the Premier just said

with the comments from Mr. Kayne, Mr. Jones and Mr. Seraphim, the people

who actually do make decisions that impact forest-dependent

families.

[10:50 a.m.]

You know, I’ve heard it before. I’ve seen it before. If I close my

eyes, I can actually hear Forests Minister Zirnhelt saying precisely

what we just heard from the Premier. Forests Minister Streifel —

remember him? They weren’t bad people, but they made….

Interjections.

M. de Jong: I don’t think they were bad people, but they made the same mistake

this Premier and his minister and his government are making today. They

decided that….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question.

M. de Jong: They decided that they would rewrite forest management policy,

rewrite forest tenure policy without any input from the very people that

employ the majority of British Columbians in that industry, and how did

it work out? Well, for the industry, we ended up with the highest-cost

producers in the world, and by the way, for the governing party, they

ended up with two seats.

I am less concerned about the second result than I am with the

first result. But surely the Premier, upon reflection, will understand

that now is the time to push the pause button and, before he imposes a

further massive amount of uncertainty on this industry, talk to the

people that employ the families that work in forest-dependent

communities in B.C.

Hon. J. Horgan: If the member wants to test his hypothesis about how successful

election campaigns will be, I would certainly take his F-minus and put

it up against anything that we’re offering at this point in time. But

that’s entirely up to him.

I don’t have to close my eyes to see the consequences of B.C.

Liberal forest policy because I see it in my community every day, when

truck after truck after truck is leaving my community, taking logs to

tidewater to create jobs somewhere else. That’s the result of B.C.

Liberal policy. Exporting logs is exporting jobs, and that’s how they

approached forestry on their watch.

We’ve taken a different approach. I think you’re mischaracterizing

the comments by Mr. Kayne from Canfor. I would encourage the media to go

and talk to him directly about how he feels about the future of forestry

in British Columbia. Everyone that I’ve talked to who’s staying in the

industry beyond July wants to sit down with Indigenous leaders, wants to

sit down with community leaders.

The member for Cariboo North knows full well that that’s exactly

the case in her community. What is it that the B.C. Liberals don’t

understand about getting everyone in a room and figuring out how we go

forward together? I guess that just doesn’t equate for them.

WAGES FOR COMMUNITY

SOCIAL SERVICES

WORKERS

T. Redies: Since April 1, this Premier has been blatantly denying 17,000

workers, almost all women, equal pay for equal work. To quote Linda

Perry with Vela Canada: “This is a deliberate manipulation of workers.

There are people that are being punished by what appears to be a bias of

elected officials.” When will the Premier stop punishing workers and

provide equal pay for equal work?

Hon. S. Simpson: We’re looking forward to working with the key organizations in

this sector. Those meetings are established. They’re moving forward on

those. We’re going to look at how we engage that sector to make sure

that we’re supporting their efforts in supporting the people who need

their help. I’m looking forward to those discussions over the coming

weeks and months.

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

T. Redies: Well, with that answer, the Premier might as well change the name

of the party he belongs to, to the New Discrimination Party.

These answers….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question.

[10:55 a.m.]

T. Redies: These answers we’ve been hearing for weeks about consultation are

simply not true. Agencies and workers were blindsided, and they continue

to speak out. To quote Karla Verschoor, the executive director of

Inclusion B.C.: “This decision will negatively affect many of Inclusion

B.C.’s members and has the potential to profoundly impact the lives of

the already vulnerable populations we support.”

Again to the Premier, will he acknowledge that he is blatantly

discriminating against these workers?

Hon. J. Horgan: I appreciate that the member on the other side wasn’t here when

that government fired 10,000 workers over a weekend — all of them women

— and cut their wages by 15 percent. Another dark

chapter in the history

of the B.C. Liberal Party in government was ripping up collective

agreements when there were only two opposition members here.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. J. Horgan: So the hypocrisy of this group of people standing up and trying to

give a lecture about workers’ rights is laughable.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, order, please.

Hon. J. Horgan: The minister has been abundantly clear. The minister is working

with the sector to try and resolve a problem that has been developing

over a very long period of time. I appreciate that they don’t like to

hear the truth of their past or the reality of their future, but I see

F-minus every time I open my eyes.

J. Thornthwaite: Equal pay for equal work is not that complicated. The Premier’s

decision affects 17,000 non-unionized workers who provide critical

social services. The network representing these workers says: “The

government’s decision to value only those social service workers

represented by a union is disingenuous, illogical and

unfair.”

Why, under this Premier, has the NDP suddenly become the New

Discrimination Party, and will he stand up, admit the policy is wrong

and end the discrimination?

Hon. S. Simpson: We’re working with the sector. We’re working to resolve issues in

a whole array of issues that that side ignored for 16 years. We’re

working with a sector that’s working hard with people that need support

and need help. I’m excited about that work. I’m excited about working

with 36,000 people, with thousands of organizations.

We’re going to accomplish a lot over the next few weeks and

months, as we, in fact, change this system and repair the damage that

was done by that side in 16 years. What we’re not going to do is rip up

contracts and throw low-wage workers out on the street like they

did.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

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

Finance. In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued debate on the

estimates of the Ministry of Education. In Committee C, the Birch Room, I call

continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Agriculture.

[11:00 a.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

FINANCE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Chouhan in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:03 a.m.

On Vote 25: ministry operations, $265,327,000

(continued) .

S. Bond: Good morning to the minister and her staff. We appreciate the

opportunity to continue our exploration around the Finance budget and

assumptions. We’re going to start today with GDP growth, and then we’ll

move through some other topics.

I think the minister is aware that most of the GDP growth

projections for British Columbia cite LNG Canada as one of the lone

reasons for keeping growth rates above 2 percent. Can the minister

articulate for us what the risks are to B.C.’s GDP growth without LNG

Canada?

[11:05 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: The member was asking about LNG and GDP growth. I just want to

correct the member. There are a number of different economic

assumptions, as the member knows. We’ve talked about the kinds of things

that are put into the model to take a look at GDP growth.

The member is correct. It does include LNG, but it also includes

other economic assumptions, including employment, including commodity

prices, including immigration and including CUSMA, the trade agreement

signed. All of those, together, are included when it comes to GDP

growth.

I think it’s also important to note that the growth from LNG that

is included in this three-year budget would include the plant, the

upstream, the pipeline — the employment and investment in those areas —

but not the direct revenue. That’s outside the three-year plan,

obviously. As the plant is built, that revenue gets built in, but that’s

not built in at this point.

I think it’s also important to note that all the members of the

Economic Forecast Council also included LNG investment as part of their

growth. So it’s not broken out. It is part of the economic growth in our

province that also, as I said, includes more trade certainty, increased

employment and other economic assumptions included in the

budget.

S. Bond: Well, thank you very much to the minister. It’s not a matter of

correction. It’s clear that LNG Canada is one of the critical reasons

that actually moves GDP growth above 2 percent. We know this: that the

revenue from LNG Canada to government will be delayed. Can we expect

slowing growth elsewhere to impact government revenues?

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: So, just continuing the conversation we had yesterday around any

kind of projected slowing of growth in the country or in the province

or, in fact, the global economy.

As we know, and as we talked about yesterday, certainly all of

those pieces could have an impact on British Columbia and could have an

influence in British Columbia. As I said, we’re certainly watching those

growth numbers. We’re watching the projections. First quarterly is where

those adjustments occur, if those adjustments need to be

made.

Certainly, all of those kinds of factors could have an influence

on the GDP growth in British Columbia. That’s precisely the reason we’ve

built in the prudence that is built into the budget and precisely the

reason that we’ve been recognized for the increase in prudence and the

recognition for the prudence that we have built in. As we talked about

yesterday, in fact — the highest prudence number in this coming year and

$2.65 billion over the three-year plan. That’s exactly why those numbers

are built in.

S. Bond: Maybe we’ll approach the question this way, then. Can the minister

tell us what is B.C.’s projected GDP growth when LNG Canada is

excluded?

Hon. C. James: As I mentioned, there are a number of factors, obviously, that

impact growth in British Columbia — LNG being one of those, as the

member pointed out. If the member looks in the budget, we’ve got the

projections. We’ve got the three-year plan, and we’ve got the

projections out five years. The level of real GDP will be expected to be

0.5 percent higher in 2023 than it would be without LNG

Canada.

S. Bond: I’m sure the minister and her staff also are aware that RBC has

recently told investors to bet against the Canadian dollar. Some

observers are expecting a declining exchange rate against the U.S.

dollar. Have the minister and her team done an analysis, in terms of

what risk a decline in the dollar poses to this budget?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: I think the important piece to note is that a one-cent increase….

Yes, exchange rates are part of all of the economic assumptions,

obviously included as part of the budgeting process and the assumptions

we build in, in our economic statements. A one-cent increase in the

exchange rate is $25 million to $50 million, just so that there’s a

magnitude there for the member.

We use the private sector forecasters’ average on what they

project, so that’s the banks. We use their projection for the coming

year. The projection this year is lower than last year, so it has been

dropped based on the private sector forecasters’ average. But again, all

of those things get looked at, at first quarter, at second quarter, as

we’re moving along with our budget process.

T. Redies: Minister, as my colleague has been doing, we’ve been talking a bit

about some of the risks to the forecasts. I’d now like to turn to ICBC,

which I believe is one of the biggest risks facing this

budget.

In particular, on this side of the House, we’ve been very troubled

by what seems to be a complete inability of the ICBC management team to

get their forecasts even remotely correct. This year, of course, the

minister, through her budget, is forecasting that ICBC is going to more

or less break even and then show a small profit next year.

However, on February 7, 2019, it was announced that ICBC had lost

$860 million in the first nine months of this year. Far from meeting its

planned loss of $684 million for the entire fiscal 2018-19, they advised

that ICBC would record a loss of $1.18 billion instead. When did the

minister first become aware that ICBC was not meeting its financial

forecasts in fiscal 2018-19?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: I was just making sure I had the years right, because one of the

first issues that we certainly had to deal with as a government, when we

came in, were the changes to the forecast at ICBC.

The member was speaking about 2018 and when those changes

occurred. After the Q1 report came out, we continued…. I think the

important piece to note is that we continued to list ICBC as a risk. It

was obviously on a very close watch from our end.

It was an area that we had already identified as a challenge, so

after Q1 report came out, we got a further update from ICBC, which meant

that we then incorporated that in the Q2 report. That would have been

November. That was a $206 million hit to the budget so that was included

in Q2.

Then again, after we saw Q2, continuing our tracking of ICBC and

the numbers at ICBC, we received again a further challenge when it came

to the budget. That was reported out publicly in Q3, of $290 million, so

that’s a $496 million adjustment.

Q3 comes out with a budget. Just for the member’s timing, that’s

when Q3 is tabled, with the budget as well.

T. Redies: Presumably before the Q1 and Q2 forecasts came out, the minister

was briefed that ICBC was not going to hit its financial forecast. If

so, what did that timing look like?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: I mentioned Q1, that we were tracking, as we had been from the

first budget that we had announced, that there were challenges at

ICBC.

Q1, we were tracking the numbers, and we were, in fact, on track

with the numbers that ICBC had given us. Then, as I mentioned, before we

got to Q2, we got the new estimate. We were continuing to do our work

and to do the tracking of ICBC. We got our new estimate, which included,

as I mentioned, the further loss of $206 million. That was due to an

increase in a number of past claims that were coming forward to be

settled. So you were seeing an increase from ICBC. They were bringing it

forward and noticed an increase in the claim settlements that were

coming forward from past. That added to the numbers that we reported out

in Q2.

T. Redies: What were ICBC’s first and second quarter 2018-19 projections

versus actuals?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: I’ll start with the first quarter, because I think that’s what the

member talked about. The first quarter estimate was a $285 million loss.

Their actual budget was $268 million. That’s the first quarter. Again,

as the member can see, there was some tracking that was going on

there.

The second quarter, $543 million; actual was $582 million. Then

the third quarter, if the member is interested in the third quarter,

just continuing on, is where you really see the increase in the loss.

Estimated was $590 million; actual, $860 million. That’s where you see

the real difference.

T. Redies: Thank you, Minister, for that clarification.

As these losses were mounting, the actuals were mounting relative

to the forecast, did the minister discuss this with the Attorney General

and the president of ICBC? What actions arose from the Finance Ministry

to determine the extent of the issue and to assure the minister that

ICBC’s forecast going forward would be correct?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: I think I mentioned that, obviously, we had identified it as a

risk in the budget. In every quarterly report I’ve done, the public

accounts reports that I’ve done and the budgets that I’ve had, ICBC is

included as a risk. It’s obviously a piece that we’re paying close

attention to in the Finance Ministry.

I know that the AG will talk about, in his estimates, the specific

tasks they took on and the product reform work that they were doing.

From our end, from the Ministry of Finance end, making sure we were

continually tracking, making sure that we were meeting on a regular

basis…. I meet on a regular basis with the AG, and this was certainly

one of the topics. Staff were meeting on a regular basis with staff at

ICBC, as well, to make sure that we were tracking those numbers. Updates

were being given to Treasury Board, for example, on the estimates as

well.

All of that kind of important tracking was going on. As I said,

it’s been listed…. We continue to be concerned with ICBC’s numbers in

our budget and list it as a risk.

T. Redies: I actually wasn’t asking about tracking. I was asking what work

was done by the Finance Ministry to determine the efficacy of ICBC’s

forecasts going forward, particularly given the fact they have a track

record of providing forecasts that they don’t ever seem to

meet.

In fact, on November 23, 2018, ICBC announced that they had indeed

lost the $582 million in the first six months of fiscal 2018-19. That

was essentially 85 percent of what they had projected to lose in the

entire year. They projected $680 million plus, but by six months they

had lost $582 million, which, if you extrapolated that over 12 months,

would be a $1.16 billion loss. Given these, it’s not enough to track. We

need to understand what the ministry is doing to assure themselves that

they have capable people within ICBC, that they understand the forecasts

and they’ve actually tested the assumptions. Otherwise, it’s pretty hard

to have any faith in these forecasts, based on the track

record.

I guess what I’m asking is: in just what specific ways did the

ministry test the forecasts of ICBC, given their track

record?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: I think, as I talked about, that the tracking and the extent of

conversations and work between my staff and ICBC staff is constant.

That’s an ongoing process. There’s a more thorough process that occurs

when quarterly reports come out to make sure, as the member has talked

about, that we challenge the assumptions that are there — that we take a

look at the numbers that are coming forward.

When their quarterly report comes out, my staff sit down and

review ICBC’s work, line by line. We sit down with their actuarial teams

and with their forecasters. We review all of the trends to date. We

challenge their assumptions, so we go through a stress test process with

their assumptions to make sure that they’re on track. We attend their

board meetings.

Then, as I said, between quarters, we obviously continue to have

that work going on. But there is a very rigorous process that occurs

when their quarterly reports are coming out to make sure that we’ve

taken a look at their assumptions and have those discussions with their

staff, with their actuarial team and with their forecasters.

T. Redies: Thank you, Minister, for the answer. I mean, I sympathize with the

minister, because it must be very frustrating to hear that a forecast is

going to be X, and then it turns out to be significantly

different.

It seems to me that whatever is being done with respect to looking

at these forecasts, ICBC needs to be held to a higher account. In fact,

actually, I guess one of my questions to the minister…. Because these

are, obviously, significant misses, and it’s been a continuous history

of significant misses, regardless of the process that the Finance

Ministry goes through.

What conversations did you have with the president of ICBC? Did

you take him to task for these misses and the impacts it was having on

your budget?

Hon. C. James: As I said from the start, ICBC has been listed as a risk in our

budget. Certainly, as Minister of Finance and as Attorney General — and

as cabinet and as government — we have huge concerns about the economic

challenges that we faced when we came in as government and economic

challenges that we continue to face with ICBC. I know it’ll be well

canvassed in the Attorney’s estimates as well to talk about the major

changes that the Attorney has taken on to be able to deal with these

issues. But, yes, those continue to be concerns, and because they

continue to be concerns we continue the due diligence that needs to be

done.

[11:45 a.m.]

Does that due diligence involve my conversations with the

Attorney? Yes, it does. Does that include the president of ICBC being

involved in coming to Treasury Board and making reports to all of

Treasury Board — not just myself, but all of Treasury Board? Yes, it

does.

Those conversations and that work go on between all of us, because

this is an issue that has an impact on not simply the Finance Ministry

but all of government in the kinds of resources that we have to be able

to put into programs and services that are needed across

government.

S. Bond: We appreciate the minister’s answers. But let’s walk through this

for a minute again. If we were to extrapolate the six-month loss over 12

months, it yields an annualized loss of $1.168 billion, yet as late as

November 23, 2018, ICBC was forecasting a year-end loss of only $890

million.

Obviously, the minister should be concerned. British Columbians

are concerned. The question is: what did she do about it?

In six months, the company lost 85 percent of what it predicted,

in February 2018, that it would lose in the entire fiscal year. So what

we’d like the minister to do now is articulate for us what reasons….

And, yes, we understand it is, technically, in the portfolio of the

Attorney General. We’re talking about risk to this budget, and it is a

major risk.

Most people cannot imagine how we’re going to see the kind of

improvement that this minister has booked in her budget. So what reasons

did ICBC staff — or the Attorney General or anyone — give to this

minister and this staff to justify their prediction that they could

restrict the losses to $890 million? If you look at the six-month

number, it’s pretty much clear that that is impossible. What were the

reasons? Secondly, what were the reasons that ICBC gave for continuing

the sustained degree of loss?

[11:50 a.m.]

Hon. C. James: Again, as I said at the start of our discussion around ICBC, I

think the member is asking questions around our due diligence and the

work we do around due diligence. I know that the specifics around

changes that were made at ICBC will come up in the Attorney’s estimates.

But I think it’s important to note that….

I know the Attorney will speak more about the complex process that

is used at ICBC because of their business, which is that they use actual

results, but they also use actuarial assumptions. It’s complex. It’s not

as linear as the member presents when she simply looks at the

multiplication across the months. In fact, it is a very complex process

and is not linear because of having to use actuarial assumptions along

with actual results.

We sit down with ICBC. We take a look at their claim settlement

costs. We look at accident frequency. We assess their actuarial

assumptions, as I talked about. We were seeing, in the first quarter,

some evidence of flattening of accident rates. You were seeing some of

that occurring.

Second quarter. As I had mentioned earlier, we were also seeing

the increase in the number of claims coming forward and the cost of

those claims coming forward. I know the Attorney has talked about that

previously.

All of that kind of work goes on, as I mentioned, from a quarterly

perspective when the reports come out. With their teams, we stress-test

their assumptions. We go through that process, and those conversations

continue.

Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress

and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:53 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker 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. C. James moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

EDUCATION

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A);

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 11:06 a.m.

On Vote 21: ministry operations, $6,529,945,000

(continued) .

C. Oakes: First, I would actually like to acknowledge and thank the staff at

the ministry for the work that they’ve been doing with the school

district on finding a resolve or putting in an application for the

Quesnel middle school, a desperately needed school in our community. I

believe the application was completed last month. To the ministry: if I

could perhaps get an update on what that process looks like….

We have a very short window for building, of course, in the north.

Of course, I know that capacity is always a challenge, with lots of

requirements in the budget. But an update on the Quesnel middle school

would be greatly appreciated.

[11:10 a.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: I thank the member for the question. She has come at both an

opportune time and maybe also a sensitive time in terms of providing

details that are not yet public, because the good news is that Quesnel

Junior Secondary is now in the funding approval process with our

government. We invited the district to do a PDR. They did a really

diligent, solid job on that. So that business case has been evaluated.

We are looking at funding approval for a project there.

Just to go back a little bit, the old Quesnel Junior was deemed

not safe for students. There were snow-load issues, and we reacted very

quickly with SD 28 in investing approximately $2 million in Maple Drive,

where both groups of students are now.

I have to take the opportunity, just on the record, to say how

much the ministry appreciates not only working with school district 28,

but the ideas and the public process have been greatly assisted by Mayor

Bob Simpson of Quesnel. He has taken a very active interest in this

project. Actually, it could open up some opportunities on the old school

site, as well, that have benefits for the member’s constituents and the

people of Quesnel.

We’re just shy of some news that I think the member will

appreciate. I think it’s one that her constituents will appreciate,

should we get funding approval. We’ve been canvassing during this set of

estimates how quickly our ministry has executed on, now, $1.1 billion

worth of projects since September 2017. We have not delayed on projects;

we have accelerated. We respect the unique windows of high-peak

construction activity in her community.

When we do get to an announcement, I am sure that the member, as

well as her constituents, will be very pleased, because it will

represent the first major capital project, if you can believe it, in 20

years in school district 28. So we’ll have to, I think, maybe leave it

at that unless the member has some follow-up questions. I hope she can

appreciate that I can’t get into too many details. But I would

characterize where we’re at right now…. We’ve come a long way very

quickly, and we’re getting into the funding approval process right

now.

C. Oakes: Minister, I would like to recognize and thank you for recognizing

the incredible, diligent work of both our school district and our

community, working hard on putting this process together — again,

thanking the ministry. The weather has been a significant challenge over

the last few years. Who would have expected record snowpacks followed by

the wildfire seasons that we’ve had?

I have two more questions. They do tie into some of the challenges

that we’re having in the community. It’s not necessarily capital. I

apologize if an answer…. I would be happy to take an answer after, off

line, whatever works. But we have canvassed in the House the challenges

we’ve had with West Fraser Road. That was a road…. As a result of 2017

wildfires, we had a significant landslide that took out West Fraser

Road. As a result, the school district, for busing, has required…. It’s

been over two hours each way for busing, and it’s had a significant

impact, actually, on the buses themselves. Two buses have had to be put

on that route. As well, up until March, even just the cost of repairs

was $23,300.

We had a community meeting last Wednesday, where the Ministry of

Transportation reported out what the next steps will be. It’s going to

be a $71 million project to fix that road, and there was no timeline

identified.

[11:15 a.m.]

As one can imagine, we’re probably looking at, for the school

district’s purposes…. They’ll be required to plan for continuing on this

other route for some time.

I wonder if there’s an extraordinary expense fund that the

ministry may have to address extraordinary costs that a school district

may have to incur because of things such as wildfires and floods, and if

that may potentially be an opportunity to apply federally to disaster

financial assistance for such a cost. There was a letter that was put in

through the school district on March 4, 2019, through the Ministry of

Transportation, that really outlines the significant impacts that this

road closure has had on the school district’s budget.

Hon. R. Fleming: I will leave, maybe, the transportation aspects to that ministry’s

set of estimates. What I can say is that, first of all, we’re very

sensitive to school district 28’s situation — that this puts a number of

kids, I think two dozen or more, at a serious disadvantage in terms of

the length of their school day due to the additional transportation that

this road situation has caused.

What we’ve done from a Ministry of Education perspective is try to

assist the district with the increased transportation logistics and

costs. I am happy to say that just last month, April 2019, the school

district secretary-treasurer contacted us and explained the bus routing

issues that they’re confronting due to the washed-out highway and asked

if the ministry could assist with any additional bus approvals. So we

have approved two additional buses. These are type D 80-passenger buses.

And we have allocated an additional $350,000. I think it’s $525,000 for

all three buses.

So there will be new buses purchased. I know that the

secretary-treasurer was very, very happy with the two additional buses

that they’ve received and felt that it would alleviate the pressures

that they’re facing, which are extraordinary in this situation. We’re

able to do that because we did increase the bus acquisition program from

$10 million a year to $13 million a year in Budget 2018. That allows us

to have contingency in these types of situations where you do have

wildfire interface or you do have the kinds of weather conditions and

washed-out roads that we’ve seen in Quesnel. We’ll be able to respond to

these sorts of emergency situations in other districts as well, should

the need arise.

C. Oakes: One final question. Again, I thank the minister and the staff for

the work that they are doing on this.

The final challenge we have is that we’ve had a downgrade to the

Johnston street bridge, which is a major bridge that links industry.

It’s to the West Fraser…. It’s to the plywood plant. I know this is more

of a Ministry of Transportation question, but I’ll get to how this

impacts the Quesnel middle school and Red Bluff elementary school. It

also impacts Lhtako First Nations and a daycare.

All of the traffic, because industrial traffic can now not cross

over the Johnston street bridge, is now required to go up Highway 97 and

go on Maple Drive. And Maple Drive is really not set up to be an…. It’s

still a highway. It doesn’t have lighting, and it doesn’t have sidewalks

on it. So currently, we have 45 to 80 industrial vehicles travelling

down each day to go to the plywood plant, and they have to go by the

elementary school, the middle school, a daycare and adjacent to the

Lhtako First Nations.

We had a pedestrian death in December, which was incredibly tragic

for Lhtako First Nations, and we do need some support of some

partnerships, perhaps, between the school district and the Ministry of

Transportation to look at perhaps some lighting or sidewalks by the two

schools.

[11:20 a.m.]

I recognize this may be a conversation that may have to happen at

a later date, because the Ministry of Transportation probably needs to

be looped into that. We had talked about that with them, but I think the

school district could…. It would be very helpful if that conversation

could also be cooperatively managed with the two ministries.

Hon. R. Fleming: I’ll just have to briefly comment on this, because I probably

don’t have as much information as the member would like. But what we’ll

certainly do is…. I understand the Ministry of Transportation has had

open houses as recently as last week. Undoubtedly, the member was in

attendance. Of course, the solution the community is rallying around is

to fix the road, and I think the federal confirmation of disaster

funding will make that all the quicker.

In the meantime, any issues around student safety do concern us

and the district. We’ll make note of the information the member has

provided here, and perhaps one of the senior team can reach out to

Transportation. And I expect that the city, around lighting issues,

sidewalk safety, planning safer routes to school and those sorts of

things, would be pretty critical in finding something that will ensure

that student safety is protected and enhanced.

D. Davies: I believe that wraps up all of our questions from the MLAs

regarding capital for now, but I certainly do have some more yet. In

fact, there is one more I will be asking on behalf of my colleague from

Coquitlam–Burke Mountain in regard to a new school in Burke Mountain.

I’m just wondering if the minister can give us an update on

that.

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the critic for passing on to the member on whose

behalf he has asked.

The member will know that our government approved, not too long

ago, a replacement school, with an expansion at the base of Burke

Mountain — Irvine Elementary, a fantastic project to rebuild a pretty

tired school that was at high seismic risk. That’s just inside the Port

Coquitlam border but serves kids who live on Burke Mountain. That is

underway. We expect construction to gather pace very shortly. We have a

project ongoing at Minnekhada as well — a new school in the

district.

When it comes to schools directly on Burke Mountain, our

government is very mindful of how long that community has waited — years

and years and years. The question from the member comes at a time when

we’re very close. We’ve been working on an announcement for some time.

Very difficult site challenges. The member might be able to appreciate

just the geography there. The land that was purchased was, let’s just

say, the saw ends of the deal. Very steep slopes, very expensive

earthworks required.

Having said that, we feel very good about where we are in terms of

being able to get school infrastructure on Burke Mountain and assist

that community. Also, we’re very interested to see district 43’s new

priority list for capital investment that will come on or about June 30.

We have engaged them on their top four priorities thus far and are

looking forward to seeing the next wave of projects.

Our interest in this district is primarily seismic projects. We

have done expansions at the same time. We’re also looking at other

school expansion projects, just in pursuit of portable reductions. SD 43

is a fairly fast-growing district, so some of the work that the capital

branch of the ministry is working on is geared towards eliminating

portables.

D. Davies: I’m going to do a little interlude here. What I certainly forgot

to do was introduce some of the staff that is helping me out as well.

Dion Weisner is my research person. I’ve got Doug Secord, who helps out

in comms, and Jonah Gowans, who is my LA. I’m trying to organize myself

over here in the next few days, so I certainly want to give them a

shout-out as well, in regard to my staff. So thank you.

Just further to Burke Mountain, don’t get me wrong. I understand

the complexity of the schools and school district and issues around

Burke Mountain and within Coquitlam. But the issue, I guess, that we

have, and the issue that residents in Burke Mountain have, goes back to

a promise made by the now Premier, as well as reinforced by the now

minister. I’ll read a quote here, right from the NDP media release: “A

John Horgan NDP government is committed to fast-tracking….”

The Chair: Member, names.

[11:30 a.m.]

D. Davies: Sorry. “An NDP government is committed to fast-tracking school

construction in places like Burke Mountain.” Now, when we lead up to an

election and these promises are made, that they will be fast-tracking….

My colleague asked this question last year to the minister, regarding

this school. It really does not sit well with the residents of Burke

Mountain, having been told that this school is going to be fast-tracked.

They would like to know how this fast track might look.

Talking about schools, the minister mentioned a school that was

being built at the bottom of Burke Mountain. That’s not the issue at

hand. The issue at hand is the promise that was made to fast-track a

school in Burke Mountain.

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question.

[11:35 a.m.]

I would probably take a little bit of issue, and I think people in

Burke Mountain would also take issue, with Irvine having no relationship

to the growing Burke Mountain community. It is a school that has served

and will continue to serve Burke Mountain residents. It was welcomed by

people in that part of the Tri-Cities when we announced it, and it was

fast-tracked.

This is a project that had no support from the previous

government. When we came into office, we looked at the capital plan for

SD 43 and what work may have been done from projects that were alluded

to by the previous government, and Irvine was nowhere on the radar. We

took the opportunity not just to make it a seismic mitigation project

but also to expand it so it has room to grow.

The same goes for Sheffield elementary, which is a project that’s

of primary interest to Burke Mountain as well. I definitely expected,

given the number of promises and press releases by the previous

government, to see evidence of work when we came into office, but the

reality is that Sheffield elementary was not even at square one. In

fact, it was backed up beyond that. The previous government did not

invite the business case development. They did not begin any stage of

approval. It had been a high-ranking ask of the previous government for

many, many, many years.

What our government did was approve it in March of 2018 — so the

first budget year opportunity that we had as a government. The first

time we brought a budget through the House last year, March 2018, is

also when we announced it. Literally, no sooner had the budget been

tabled in the House, than we invited the school district to do a

business case that they were never previously asked to do before for

Sheffield elementary.

I’m happy to say that the district responded quickly. We have a

strong relationship with SD 43 on school capital infrastructure, and

they’re ready to go. They’ve been waiting for a long time for investment

like our government has demonstrated.

This is part of the $1.1 billion in 20 months that we’ve approved

— or will be, when we get to announcement. That’s what fast-tracking

looks like, quite frankly. When you’re starting from square one and you

announce two schools in the same neighbourhood, in the same community,

20 months in as government, that’s fast-tracking.

What I will also say and commit to the member is that the moment

we’re ready to announce the school, I’ll let the critic know.

D. Davies: Well, I would encourage, then, the minister to reach out to the

PAC and to the residents of Burke Mountain. I mean, this is a

fast-growing community, and I know the people are quite upset. The

people are enraged. I’ve received emails. I know the member for that

riding has received emails. I would certainly encourage the minister to

reach out and report back. Again, in our opinion, another broken promise

by this government to the people of Burke Mountain, so he can maybe

reach out and talk to that group there as well.

That completes that question. I’ll move on to a number of other

questions I have. Can the minister tell us what percentage of school

district capital projects is forecasted this year that meet the approved

schedule and budget?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. R. Fleming: What I would say to the member is this. We have a record now, as a

new government, of record levels of investment, record pace of funding

approvals for school projects right around the province — he knows that;

some of them have been in his own constituency — and $1.1 billion in

school infrastructure investment. British Columbia has not seen this in

20 years — this kind of school renaissance of construction

activity.

We have a budget before the House that this year alone has just

shy of $800 million budgeted for capital investment. That’s about twice

the historical average of the previous government, in terms of real

investment, although rarely did they spend the amount that was budgeted.

We have concentrated — and I mentioned it to the member last year in

estimates — on not only creating a budget to build schools but spending

it.

We are tracking our utilization for the year that expired March

31, and it’s looking very, very good. It looks like, for the first time

in a long, long time, we may have gotten very, very close to 100 percent

utilization rate.

A lot of money was left on the table just in the last mandate of

the previous government. We’ve talked about that before. I don’t need to

go into that now, unless the member would like me to. But the

underspending on schools is definitely a factor as to why the size of

the backlog of projects is as large as it is.

I’m happy to report to the member that we have 157 projects, now

ongoing, related to school capital in British Columbia. That is

remarkable, quite frankly, in B.C. We haven’t seen that for a long, long

time. It’s also in a construction market where we have the hottest

economy in Canada. We have the lowest unemployment rates. There’s a lot

of construction activity happening in the residential, commercial and

institutional sectors, so we are looking for workers in many different

parts of B.C. where there are significant school capital projects

happening.

I don’t expect those conditions to change, but it puts a fine

point on why we have to continue to do the acceleration that we’re doing

and get to approvals more quickly with school districts.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:44 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

AGRICULTURE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); M. Dean in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:06 a.m.

On Vote 13: ministry operations, $80,134,000

(continued) .

Hon. L. Popham: At this moment, I’d like to introduce the farm team that’s playing

today. I have my deputy minister, Wes Shoemaker; my ADM, Wes Boyd, who’s

in charge of corporate services; James Mack, assistant deputy minister,

agriculture science and policy division; Arif Lalani, assistant deputy

minister, business development division; and we have Kim Grout with us,

who is here as the CEO of the Agricultural Land Commission.

I. Paton: Thank you. I’m looking forward to a full day of questions today to

the minister.

First of all, going back to yesterday afternoon, speaking about

the committee members — I don’t want to spend a lot of time on it —

could you just briefly explain to me what the qualifications were when

you set up the committee and how you went about hiring them?

The Chair: Through the Chair, please. Thank you, Member.

I. Paton: Through the Chair, of course.

….what the qualifications were or the terms of reference for the

committee members that were put on the panel for the final

recommendation. Thank you.

Hon. L. Popham: The question was: how were the members chosen? What were the terms

of reference?

The Agricultural Land Commission, when commissioners are being

appointed, have some legislation and some guidelines that they follow.

Those commissioners would need to have an agricultural background, come

from local government with some experience, some academics, First

Nations.

[11:10 a.m.]

The advisory committee was chosen in a similar way, and I would

say that this committee was exceptionally diverse with their experience

that they brought forward. The member will know, if the member went

through the biographies of the committee members, that we do have

farmers that are farming. We have local government experience. We do

have academics represented, First Nations.

I think it’s really a well-versed sector of people that were able

to go out, talk to British Columbians and bring back opinions that they

heard. They put that into our report, filled with recommendations. I

value the time that they spent.

I. Paton: To the minister: you talked about how each member should have

agriculture experience. Probably the most important person on the

committee would be the chair of the committee. Two questions. What would

be the agriculture experience of the chair of the committee? What was

the total cost of putting on the entire committee travel, hotels, etc.,

to put the final report together?

Hon. L. Popham: With regards to the chairs of the committee, we actually did have

two chairs. One was a farmer. The next chair that took that chair’s

place did have experience at local government, understanding how the

Agricultural Land Commission interacts with local government. She also

happened to have been an MLA, and she did a lot of good chairing work in

the Legislature itself. So I think we were covered off on experience and

requirements for chairs.

As far as how much it cost, this was not a budget item in this

budget this year, but last year it was around $100,000.

I. Paton: Minister, yesterday we touched briefly on the final report, which

I will be talking about a little bit more today. Before I do, I wanted

to go down memory lane and talk about the interim report — specifically,

the one sent to you directly by your deputy minister on April 24, signed

off by the now chair of the ALC, Jennifer Dyson. The public consultation

didn’t end up until April 30, yet email obtained through FOI clearly

states that it includes “recommendations for immediate legislative

change.” The report was sent to the minister on April 24, a full six

days before public consultations closed.

Minister, we know that legislation takes time to draft, yet you

announced a public consultation starting in February 2018.

The Chair: Through the Chair, please, Member.

I. Paton: Chair, through you to the minister, was the minister or her staff

working on these legislative changes prior to the public consultations

closing?

Hon. L. Popham: I think this is a good time to just make the point that when I was

tasked to revitalize the Agricultural Land Commission and the

agricultural land reserve, this was not a one-step process. This will be

a continual process.

[11:15 a.m.]

The committee was doing that consultation work. The Ministry of

Agriculture was sitting at the tables with that consultation, so we

already knew the input that we were receiving from the public. I had

also been the critic for eight years, so this was not new information,

necessarily, that we were receiving. There was some direction that we

had in mind. The consultations confirmed that work. There was an interim

report. I think the member will understand that policy work takes time.

So the ministry was started on that.

I. Paton: Thank you, Minister. It would be understandable for the public to

be a bit wary in light of the drastic changes that have been implemented

in the ALR. It is clear to this House that the minister’s agenda is so

strong that she is willing to shut down consultations prior to the

closing date.

Will the minister agree to release any emails pertaining to this

report and any work that was done to create legislation prior to the

release of the report in August 2018?

Hon. L. Popham: Well, of course, I know that there have been many FOI requests

regarding this specifically. Everything that has needed to be released

has been released. But I also would like to remind the member, through

the Chair, that there is also cabinet confidentiality. Cabinet decisions

are not subject to FOI, but any other emails or work that was done has

been released.

I. Paton: To the minister, of the 2,300 submissions, how many were from

farmers or with an agricultural background, and how many were made from

the general public?

Hon. L. Popham: Well, I think one of the strengths of the submissions that we saw

was that they came from all British Columbians. For the face-to-face

meetings in communities, the invitations were targeted at local

government and at agricultural stakeholders. There was a very good

representation from the farming community. But we also considered that

British Columbians, in general, would have opinions around the

agricultural land reserve, and we found that there was incredible

support for this reserve.

This included consumers of British Columbia products and people

that have been living in our province for quite some time. We had

submissions from people that were farming when the agricultural land

reserve initially came in — and the support that they had for it today.

I think we saw a really great cross-section of opinions of British

Columbians, but definitely, agricultural stakeholders were

represented.

L. Larson: To the minister, I’d like to just focus a little bit on

agritourism and recommendations No. 16 and No. 17 in the report. In

those particular recommendations, events at wineries….

[11:20 a.m.]

Several recommendations from this report on revitalizing the ALR

suggest that there should be restrictions on events that happen — on

events that are currently happening at wineries, on other types of

alcohol-production facilities that are also holding events that are on

ALR land, and even on events selling farm products on a farm itself. Did

the minister discuss the impact on tourism revenue with the Tourism

Minister, with these restrictions on events?

Hon. L. Popham: Thank you for the question. Just a reminder to the members that

this report that we received was an independent report and that those

recommendations are independent recommendations. The bill that was

brought forward in the House last fall and the current bill that’s on

the floor are the recommendations that we’ve accepted. In any future

consideration of recommendations, of course, we’ll move forward with

fulsome consultation with any part of the industry that would be

affected.

L. Larson: I understand that there is no specific legislation on the table at

this current time regarding this, but considering the amount of

recommendations in here that have already been actioned by this

government, I do find it very concerning, especially from a tourism

perspective.

Currently several small producers of farm products — honey,

lettuce, berries, etc. — can get together at one of the farms and create

a farmers market. This report is suggesting that that practice no longer

be allowed. Why would that be?

[11:25 a.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: I’m sure the member is aware of the 50 percent rule that currently

exists. If there were to be a farmers market set up on a farm

establishment, 50 percent of what’s being sold at that market would have

to be coming from that farm where the market is being hosted. Then the

additional 50 percent can come from other vendors. There have been no

changes with that.

I certainly agree with the member that if there were to be any

consideration of changing that idea, there would have to be fulsome

consultation. We would not want to see any negative effects.

L. Larson: The minister has said many times that British Columbians should

eat more B.C. farm produce, but any of these recommendations would

certainly not help to promote B.C. produce if it is more difficult for

consumers to purchase. I still have grave concerns about this direction

from the recommendations that appear to be making it more difficult for

British Columbians to access farm produce by limiting the amount of

produce available at any one location.

Hon. L. Popham: I’d just like to reiterate that there is currently, and has been

for quite some time, the 50 percent rule. And nothing has

changed.

L. Larson: If nothing has changed, then I am assuming that these types of

recommendations that are in this book have no value.

However, further restrictions on agritourism accommodation are

also recommended in the report. What is the rationale behind restricting

time and removing cooking facilities from those tourism units which are

currently in the allowable footprint of a particular ALR land, winery or

farm?

Hon. L. Popham: I think that it has to be stated again that the committee was

independent of myself, and the recommendations are independent

recommendations.

I think I can say that when writing the recommendations, I’m

almost sure that the committee had in mind two things: that was, how are

things affecting the farmland, and how are they encouraging farming? The

mandate of the Agricultural Land Commission is, of course, to protect

land and to encourage farming. I think we see that theme coming through

in those recommendations, but they’re independent of me.

[11:30 a.m.]

I know that there is some necessity to clarify the current

legislation. Under the current legislation, the amount of time that

someone is allowed to stay at an agritourism facility has always been

limited. It is supposed to be short term. It’s not supposed to be a

long-term stay. That’s current legislation.

Then the current legislation also includes that it’s just bedroom

capacity. There has been no legislation that allows for a kitchen and

cooking facilities built into those farmstay accommodations.

That’s current legislation. If there were to be any movement

towards changing that, there of course would be consultation with the

agriculture community, the tourism community and local

government.

Let’s also be reminded that in all of this revitalization, the

idea is to protect that farmland so that it can be farmed. So making

sure that farmland is for farming needs to be the highest and best use

for that land.

Of course we know that we have legislation that allows for other

things to happen on farmland. We just want to make sure that agriculture

is the primary activity.

L. Larson: I guess it’s more the fact that this type of recommendation can

even come in a report — that, obviously, if the committee had expertise

in the economics of farming, some of these things would never have been

in this report at all.

For instance, as the minister well knows, through the South

Okanagan and Similkameen, fruit stands line the sides of our highways,

all the way along. The fruit stands are on the footprints of the

agricultural land that they sit on, on the edge of the highway, and the

stand itself belongs to that particular farmer.

Certainly, there is, inside that fruit stand, a multitude of B.C.

product that is not produced on that land. There’s honey. There are

jams. There are spices. There’s everything — all B.C., but it has come

from many other locations to be in that stand. It is what draws the

tourists to our area every year and does about $50 million worth of

accommodation alone in the South Okanagan.

I have very grave concerns that people who are not familiar with

the economies of the industry have made recommendations in this report

that someone, at some point, may think is a good idea. I do have a very

grave concern, and I would sincerely hope that nobody goes down this

particular path.

Hon. L. Popham: To answer the member’s question and concerns about farm stands,

for example. The farm stands right now must comply with that 50 percent

rule as well. That’s not a change. It’s certainly not something that’s

being contemplated.

I think what the independent committee did is that they did

broad-range consultation with British Columbians. The input that they

have compiled into recommendations in that report is just one piece of

information that would be considered if changes were being made. We’re

certainly not bound to those recommendations. Of course, if a change was

going to be made around anything that would affect farm income, there

would be consultation with the agricultural community. Absolutely,

that’s a necessity.

[11:35 a.m.]

I’d also like to say about the committee members that it’s a very

diverse group of people. Many of them are farmers. I take a bit of

exception to saying that they wouldn’t have any agricultural economic

background. I would actually go further to say that they do. But we also

had local government. We had the Real Estate Association. I mean, we had

a diverse group of people collecting information from British

Columbians. So I appreciate this report that they put together, but

we’re not bound to those recommendations. We certainly have other ways

of gathering input as well.

I. Paton: I would like to just start with a bit of a diatribe on the fact

that I think we’re missing the boat in a lot of these recommendations.

You know, agriculture in British Columbia, especially in the Fraser

Valley and Vancouver Island…. This is not Nebraska. This isn’t the open

plains of Wyoming. This is small-scale agriculture, where people are

trying to make a living in this province on smaller-scale

properties.

Agritourism is so important for farmers to try to make a living in

this province. We keep talking, and I keep hearing from this ministry

about saving the land, saving the land. We need to talk about saving the

farmer. How can the farmer and the family in the next generation

continue to make a living on the farms that they’re on all throughout

British Columbia?

Madam Chair, I’ll give you examples. In Delta alone, we have Day

at the Farm. I think the minister has been there. It’s a huge day at the

farm, where city people come out. Over 3,000 people attend Day at the

Farm on Westham Island every year in the fall, at Emma Lea Farms. Just

last weekend, they had a huge craft fair at their farm, at Emma Lea

Farms, on Westham Island. We have nine agritourism businesses just on

Westham Island in Delta alone. We have Horsting’s vegetable stand. It

draws people in. It’s not just about purchasing veggies that they grew

on the farm. It’s pies. It’s coming in to have soup and a sandwich at

lunchtime, as you’re heading north towards Prince George.

Desert Hills Farm in Ashcroft, same thing. There are so many

things. We have U-pick all throughout the Fraser Valley and British

Columbia. We have pumpkins that are picked in the fall. There are

hundreds of cars that come onto farms.

I don’t get it. Why are we trying to turn away agritourism? We

have corn mazes on farms. That’s not necessarily farming, but it’s

bringing an income to the farmer who’s trying to farm other types of

farming. But these agritourism abilities give the families an

opportunity to make some extra money.

Recommendation 14, if implemented, would devastate agritourism in

B.C. The report makes it sound like agritourism is a bad thing when, in

reality, agritourism is keeping the industry vibrant and encouraging the

next generation of young farmers to stay on the farm.

Does the minister agree with the recommendation that

agritourism-related activity should be severely restricted on

farmland?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. L. Popham: Well, from what I interpret from that recommendation, it’s really

addressing the amount of buildings and amenities that go with

agritourism and how they’re placed on the farm. The recommendation is to

put them together. Currently under the legislation, you aren’t able to

have permanent structures or permanent parking associated with an

agritourism activity, so there are no changes there.

I think that where they’re going is: “Let’s not have 100 different

agritourism operations happening on a farm that takes away the primary

activity that should be happening, which is farming.” Do I support

agritourism? Absolutely. Do I know that it’s part of what brings people

out to our farms, that supports the agricultural economy? Of course I

do. But I think that we also need to understand that the primary

activity on that farm should be agricultural activity.

M. Hunt: I get it that we’re protecting farmland. I get that. I get the

fact that some farmers have basically converted barns into wedding halls

and are having weddings every weekend. I get it, okay? But we also have

the reality that we have farm tours, where we have people coming to a

barn that is very much a barn, and things are moved around, and we have

tables, and whether it’s the chamber of commerce or whoever, people come

in, have a big party for the day, that sort of thing.

Well, what we have is we have a greenhouse that grows flowers. The

market for flowers rises and falls, so as a result, they’re not always

using all of the inside of the cement-floored greenhouse. During part of

the shoulder season when there is nothing else happening in a

section of

the greenhouse, they just slide things aside and have a party for the

neighbours. Whether it’s a Christmas party, a Thanksgiving or Halloween

type of thing…. To me, this sounds like the kind of good, wholesome

stuff to bring the urbanites into the rural and see what it’s like, and

we celebrate.

The problem is that now they’ve got a letter that says: “No, no,

no. You can’t do this anymore. You have to cease and desist.” You must

get a non-farm-use permit to have a couple of events in the greenhouse,

in a part that isn’t being used for agriculture during that particular

moment. But it is used for agriculture for the whole year.

Is there some change in policy that’s provoked this?

Hon. L. Popham: I see we’re going to be wrapping up soon, but I’ll just answer the

question the member posed before we wrap up.

There have been no changes in legislation. Anything that has

pertained to the situation that the member is talking about….

I don’t know the details, so I won’t get into the details, but

something like that would fall under the legislation changes that were

made under the former government. If the member wants to just talk more

broadly about that legislative policy, you would require a permit for

activities such as that through the Agricultural Land Commission,

depending on the size, the scale and the scope of the event. That’s

nothing that we’ve changed. That’s actually legislation from the former

government.

Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and

ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:45 a.m.

The Official Report of Debates ( Hansard ) and webcasts of

proceedings

are available on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on

television.

Copyright © 2019: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada