British Columbia Hansard — Monday, November 15, 2021, p.m., Issue 128 (42nd Parliament, 2nd Session)

20211115pm-House-Blues

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Second g Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, November 15, 2021

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 128

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 30 — Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2021

Bill 20 — Access to Services (COVID-19) Act

Hon. D. Eby

Bill 28 — Forest Amendment Act, 2021

Hon. K. Conroy

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Millwrights and Millwrights Local 2736

D. Coulter

Multiculturalism and anti-racism movement

T. Wat

Evacuated pets from Lytton fire and work of SPCA

B. Bailey

Diabetes awareness

N. Letnick

Oceanside Hospice Society

A. Walker

Apprenticeships in skilled trades

G. Kyllo

Oral Questions

Service model change for children with support needs and

funding for autism services

S. Bond

Hon. M. Dean

K. Kirkpatrick

A. Olsen

J. Tegart

Deferral of old-growth logging and consultation with First Nations and forest industry

J. Rustad

Hon. K. Conroy

Forest policy changes and socioeconomic analysis of impacts

L. Doerkson

Hon. K. Conroy

Petitions

A. Olsen

Reports from Committees

Finance and Government Services Committee, Budget 2022

consultations

J. Routledge

B. Stewart

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 24 — Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2021

Hon. G. Heyman

P. Milobar

I. Paton

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 24 — Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2021

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 23 — Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2021

Hon. K. Conroy

J. Rustad

A. Olsen

L. Doerkson

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2021

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

M. Dykeman: It’s an honour to rise and, for the first time, make an in-person introduction in this House today.

As countless other MLAs have said before me, as MLAs, we really cannot do our jobs without

the work of our highly trained and wonderful CAs. Today I have the honour to host

two of my fabulous CAs here at the Legislature, Carley Haugen and Madison

Portner.

I was wondering if the House could please help me make them feel very welcome today in the precinct.

Hon. R. Kahlon: We have two very special guests here today. They are here visiting you and visiting all members of this chamber. Sitting up in the chamber, we have Rajinder Pandher, who was a founding member of the Burnaby Multicultural Society in the 1980s.

[1:35 p.m.]

He’s a founding trustee of the Khalsa School in 1986, served on the Multicultural Advisory

Council in British Columbia from ’97 to 2001, awardee of the Burnaby

community volunteer hero award and awardee of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee

Medal.

His partner, Raj Pandher, was a Second Street Community School volunteer. She served on

the Burnaby library board as a member — vice-chair, as well as chair for five

years — and volunteers with the Royal Columbian Hospital in New

Westminster.

Hon. Speaker, they are celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary with all of us today. So

please make them welcome.

R. Merrifield: Today I rise to celebrate Kelowna’s newest centenarian, Arnold Newman.

He was born on November 15, 1921, in a small town in Poland and emigrated to Canada in

June of 1928 with his parents and four siblings to a small farming village just

outside of Leduc, Alberta. In 1939, at the age of 18, Arnold left the family farm

to search for work. He was eager to try all things new and found work all across

Canada. He tried farming, coal mining, carpentry, construction, logging, camp and

institutional cooking, heavy-equipment operating and just about anything else he

could find.

He served briefly in the Canadian military but was not able to actually go overseas as he

was not yet a Canadian citizen. Canadian citizenship he sought and found in

October of 1948. In 1954, he met and married Reta and lived with her happily for

53 years until Reta passed in 2007.

Arnold currently lives in a supported housing facility in Kelowna and, despite being wheelchair-bound, is very independent and does most of his chores without much help. Arnold is viewed by those who know him as a grateful and content individual. As he turns 100 today, he still loves to read and is very much engaged by the world around him.

When I asked him what turning 100 meant, he said he was truly content with life and believes he is greatly blessed and still living his best life.

Would the House please join me in celebrating his 100th birthday today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the gallery today, we have a visitor from Manitoba. Gord Mackintosh served 23 years as an NDP member of the Manitoba Legislature, including 17 years as a minister in the governments of Premiers Gary Doer and Greg Selinger. He’s visiting to see how our House operates.

Would the House make him most welcome.

T. Shypitka: Just a point of recognition, not so much an introduction. A couple of birthdays to announce. Over the break, my father, my mentor, a very big support system whether I was in business or right here in the Legislature, turned 80 on November 12.

Then my grandson, on November 9…. Well, as he puts it: “I am two.” He turned two years old on November 9.

I’d like the House just to wish them a happy belated birthday.

Hon. B. Ma: The year is 1995, and it’s the month of September. I’m ten years old

at the time. The member for Nelson-Creston is nine years old. I’m not entirely

sure about her, but for me, I was completely oblivious that something historic was

happening.

You see, nobody had told me that there was a ridiculous man beginning a

three-week-long, 1,400-kilometre swim down B.C.’s longest river, the Fraser. It

was called the Swim for Life to raise awareness for the deteriorating condition

and health of the river.

In the years that followed, this incredible man founded the Rivershed

Society of British Columbia, made 14 more environmental marathon swims covering

3,200 kilometres, swam the Fraser River again and devoted much of his life to

protecting west coast waters, including through his work as a local Member of

Parliament and now as an MLA.

[1:40 p.m.]

Last Tuesday, November 9, the member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain,

who is also the Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Aquaculture, was

inducted into the Fraser River Hall of Fame.

Would the members of the House please join me in congratulating him on this

honour.

D. Coulter: I’d like to introduce, in our gallery today, Dale Jackaman. Dale is a

Chilliwack, Richmond and Vancouver business person, a long-time NDP stalwart and a

former B.C. NDP candidate. He’s the president of a private investigation firm.

Currently he is the constituent of the member for Richmond-Steveston, but I’m told

that very shortly he will be my constituent. He does own property in my riding.

And I’m told that very shortly he turns 65.

Would the House please welcome Dale today.

R. Russell: The member for Langley East mentioned earlier that there are some people we

need to get our jobs done. It extends beyond staff, I would say, and our family

and friends certainly are part of that. It’s my privilege today to introduce in

the House my partner, Christine, and my children Juno and Gabriel. I would hope

that everybody could join me in welcoming them.

Also, I didn’t forget this, but last week when we were at home, we also

celebrated our 15th wedding anniversary.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 30 — ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

Hon. D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2021.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I’m pleased to introduce the Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2021. This bill would amend the COVID-19 Related Measures Act to change the sunset date for the act to December 31, 2022, an extension of one year from the act’s current automatic repeal date.

Extending the time period that the COVID-19 Related Measures Act would be enforced would

provide continued statutory authority for a number of orders and regulations

that are still needed to respond to and alleviate the effects of the

pandemic.

This bill would also amend the Judicial Compensation Commission

amendment act. The Judicial Compensation Act sets out the appointment,

functions and reporting of the Judicial Compensation Commission, as well as a

process for government’s response to the commission’s

recommendations.

The Judicial Compensation Commission is the constitutionally required independent body that is appointed every three years to determine the remuneration, allowances and benefits of Provincial Court judges and judicial justices. This bill contains amendments that are procedural in nature and will streamline the commission process, leading to a timelier and more efficient process for all parties.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 30, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2021, introduced, read a first time and

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

sitting of the House after today.

BILL 20 — ACCESS TO SERVICES

(COVID-19) ACT

Hon. D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Access to Services (COVID-19) Act.

Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I’m pleased to introduce the Access to Services (COVID-19) Act. The purpose of this bill

is to preserve safe and unimpeded access to services of public importance

during the COVID-19 pandemic, including protecting users and service providers

from intimidation and other disruptive behaviours. The bill will establish

access zones around certain classes of facilities and specifies the types of

conduct or behaviour that are prohibited in an access zone.

The bill also includes the power for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

to make regulations that establish access zones around other facilities or

classes of facilities. Before making such a regulation, the bill requires the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to have regard for a number of factors: the

strain placed on services of public importance by the COVID-19 pandemic, the

importance of the services provided at the particular facility or facilities to

the health, education, safety or well-being of members of the public and the

need to protect access to those services.

[1:45 p.m.]

The bill includes a provision to clarify that lawful labour action under the Labour

Relations Code, such as strikes, lockouts and picketing, does not constitute an

offence under the act.

The proposed legislation contains a sunset clause and will be repealed

on July 1, 2023, or earlier by regulation.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 20, Access to Services (COVID-19) Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BILL 28 — FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

Hon. K. Conroy presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Forest Amendment Act, 2021.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 28, the Forest Amendment Act, 2021. In line with our government’s new vision for forestry, this bill proposes amendments to the Forest Act that will provide us with the tools to better care for our forests, support reconciliation with Indigenous nations and build a more diverse and inclusive forestry industry.

Our forests make B.C. one of the best places to live, but the outdated forestry policies

aren’t working for British Columbians. As the pressure on timber supply

continues due to the impacts of beetle epidemics, wildfires and climate change,

government needs the tools to manage our forests in the public

interest.

First Nations, local communities and smaller companies want to play a

greater role in the forestry sector and to benefit from the opportunities it

could provide. The proposed legislation will establish a tool that will enable

government to reduce timber harvesting rights of existing forest tenure

holders, provide compensation and redistribute the timber harvesting rights to

First Nations and communities.

The tool will also enable redistribution of harvesting rights of B.C. Timber Sales, which directly supports over 8,000 forestry jobs to British Columbians. In addition, the amendments will address uncertainty with respect to the current compensation rules by developing a consistent and clear framework outlining what is compensable and how it is to be valued. This will apply in instances when a licensee’s timber-harvesting rights are reduced to support reconciliations or other objectives.

We’re also requiring transparency by requiring area-based tenure holders to share forest inventory information with the chief forester. This will provide government with the information and tools necessary to ensure our forest sector remains sustainable. There will also be increased accountability for log exporters through a new auditing system to make sure they have paid their full fee in lieu of domestic manufacturing, ensuring that British Columbians are receiving their fair share of resource revenue.

We are also bringing forward a legislative change that will give the Ministry of Finance

the necessary power to ensure that companies pay their fees in lieu as required

by the Forest Act. The Forest Act requires a fee, referred to as a fee in lieu,

to be paid to the government for timber exported out of British Columbia under

an exemption from the requirement to manufacture timber in B.C.

The amendments to

part 11.1 of the Forest Act will provide authority for

the income taxation branch of the Ministry of Finance to audit and make

assessments in respect of the fee in lieu. We know from our work with other

programs that this proposed change promotes voluntary tax compliance within the

sector, and this will help us ensure a fair regulatory program for businesses

in B.C.

Overall, this proposed legislation makes long-overdue changes to ensure that our primary forest sector remains strong while building a more diverse and inclusive forest industry. We’re taking action to ensure that our forests are managed in the public interest and that the benefits are better shared for generations to come. We owe it to our kids and grandkids to better care for our forests in a future where workers, communities and First Nations have a sustainable sector with new, innovative opportunities.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 28, Forest Amendment Act, 2021, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

MILLWRIGHTS

AND MILLWRIGHTS LOCAL 2736

D. Coulter: As many of my colleagues know, I used to work as a millwright. In fact, I never shut up about it.

Millwrights work in nearly every industry, everything from power generation, textiles,

mining, forestry, dairy, ski hills, solar and wind power, brewing. The list

goes on. Today I’d like to congratulate some very special millwrights, those

from Local 2736, on the 65th anniversary of their union.

[1:50 p.m.]

Millwrights Local 2736 was chartered on May 17, 1956, under the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, as the international trade union. Currently they represent 450 members, journeypersons, apprentices and retirees in B.C. On a yearly average, they employ 50 apprentices and currently have a female apprenticeship representation of 13 percent and an Indigenous apprenticeship representation of 10 percent.

Millwrights 2736 has been a major supporter in construction of B.C. Hydro dams and pulp

and paper mill plants being built throughout the province. Often they are

dispatched to facilities on emergency jobs to support their contractors and

clients in need. The millwrights help their clients avoid shutdowns, lost

product and potential interruptions in customer service.

With this all said, Millwrights 2736 is probably the number one supporter of indentured apprenticeships in the province of B.C. and becomes a gateway for many major companies to hire young journeypersons to their maintenance team and avoid having to indenture apprentices themselves. They train their young apprentices to the best standards and work ethics in their dynamic trade. This produces the most efficient and productive workers in the province of B.C.

Next time you flick on the lights, crack a beer or write a speech on a piece of paper, thank a millwright.

Will the House please join me in congratulating Millwrights 2736 on their 65th anniversary.

MULTICULTURALISM

AND ANTI-RACISM MOVEMENT

T. Wat: The third week of November is known as Multiculturalism Week, a week to celebrate the many contributions our multicultural communities have made to build B.C. and honour the incredible cultural diversity that drives our province’s success and identity.

As an immigrant myself, I share similar experiences with many of our colleagues in this House and countless British Columbians across our province. Whether we are First Nations, first-generation or fifth-generation British Columbians, we must embrace our diverse cultural backgrounds and celebrate our common identity as British Columbians.

Being a British Columbian is not determined by the soil we are born on. It is an identity earned by each and every one of us when we adopt the values of inclusion, openness and prosperity for all by dedicating ourselves to the shared mission of making B.C. a more welcoming and inclusive home for all. We must also recognize and honour the traditional lands and territories of the more than 200 First Nations across our province, on which we are blessed to work, play and live every day.

Today is about more than celebrating our cultural diversity. It’s about recognizing the many challenges our cultural minorities have and continue to face. From the rising race incidents perpetuated against Asian Canadians and other cultural minorities to the horrific discovery of unmarked graves at residential school sites, we are reminded every day that we still have far to go to truly eliminate racism, advance truth and reconciliation and build a province where cultural identity and background are never barriers in life.

B.C. is the most culturally diverse province in Canada, and we welcome 40,000 British Columbians from across the globe every year. So let’s all do our part to promote and celebrate our province’s multiculturalism this week and every week and build a better B.C. for all.

EVACUATED PETS FROM LYTTON FIRE

AND WORK OF SPCA

B. Bailey: We are all familiar with the terrible situation this past June when a forest fire tore through the town of Lytton and the Lytton First Nation.

As people fled to safety, it was sometimes necessary to leave animals behind. Elder Byron Spinks of the Lytton First Nation went every day for three weeks to the perimeter of the town, hoping to get news of his lost dog, named Baby. Elder Spinks said that they were just about to give up hope when Baby was found.

And here’s the thing. When you hear him speak, it’s not just the hope of finding his

beloved dog. I think he’s talking about hope in general. Pets play such an

important role in our psyche. They help us keep going when times are

tough.

[1:55 p.m.]

Last week I learned about the incredible work of the SPCA during this tragedy, how 323 animals were brought to the emergency animal care centre or to local SPCA branches. These animals were provided veterinary treatment, often for burnt paws, and the work to reunite them with their families began. Sometimes even when the families were found, they were unable to take their pet in their current setting. The SPCA then set up long-term foster homes for these pets, giving owners peace of mind that their fur babies were safe until they could take them back.

In addition to this, the SPCA animal protection officers went behind fire lines to care for 238 animals, mostly livestock. That puts the total number of Lytton animals cared for by the SPCA at 561 animals. It matters.

Elder Spinks says it best: “Our family is complete now. Although our house is gone, we can rebuild. We’re just taking it day by day for now, but it makes it a lot easier with our little fur baby here.”

To the SPCA, to all those who made donations to the wildfire response and to everyone fostering animals for our fellow British Columbians forced from their homes, thank you.

DIABETES AWARENESS

N. Letnick: Yesterday, November 14, was World Diabetes Day. British Columbians and

Canadians use the colour blue to honour World Diabetes Day, a day that unites

the global diabetes community to raise awareness and advocate for positive

action to help the 11 million Canadians living with diabetes.

Chances are that we all know somebody with diabetes. Actually, in this

House, we all do know someone with diabetes: our Health Minister, who makes no

bones about it and uses that to promote World Diabetes all around our

community.

We have people like my mom, like the Health Minister, who…. Although

it’s possible for the majority of people to live healthy and normal lives, as

we see, there are many risks associated with diabetes, including kidney

disease, foot and leg problems, eye disease that can lead to blindness, heart

attack, stroke, anxiety and nerve damage. People with diabetes must balance the

challenges of everyday life with a strict diet, nutrition, fitness and a

balance of blood sugar and insulin levels.

Although recognized around the world, Diabetes Day Canada has a special

significance, for we often pioneer the many studies and innovations that have

allowed people with diabetes to live healthy and normal lives. November 14 was

chosen as World Diabetes Day back in 1991 to honour the birthday of Canadian

Sir Frederick Banting, who, along with Dr. Charles Best, J.J.R Macleod and

James Collip, is credited with the discovery of insulin.

Our duty as British Columbians and Canadians is to carry on their legacy

and the generation of heroes who have done so much to forward this incredible

cause. So let’s all do our part to raise awareness and donate to Diabetes

Canada so that, together, we can bring an end to this scourge for all

time.

OCEANSIDE HOSPICE SOCIETY

A. Walker: I rise in the House today to recognize the incredible work of the Oceanside Hospice Society. For over 30 years, this community-funded and volunteer-driven charity has supported individuals who face end-of-life issues, bereavement, grief and loss, both for patients and for families and caregivers. This also includes supports for those facing sudden loss, ranging from suicide and overdoses to accidents.

The society was formally incorporated to continue the legacy of many years of community support and today has over 65 volunteers and five part-time staff.

Hospice is an integral part of the interdisciplinary end-of-life team within the Oceanside

community, practising a holistic approach to care, where the quality of life

and the patient’s comfort is the top priority. They strive to provide links in

the continuum of care by supporting caregivers at home, in a hospital or

palliative care unit and at a community care facility.

Bereavement counselling has increased and continues to rise with the COVID-19 pandemic. Their work of on-site counsellors provides more than 21 hours every week, with a second on-call counsellor to cover the overflow.

Their equipment loan program is unique, as they’re the only hospice on Vancouver Island to provide this valuable service. This allows palliative patients to stay at home longer, in comfort and surrounded by those that they love. All of these services are offered free of charge, and they are accomplished through the continual and dedicated fundraising efforts of volunteers year-round.

The end of a loved one’s life is a difficult time under any circumstance, and the COVID-19 pandemic has made things even more challenging for families and those left behind to grieve. But one thing is certain. Oceanside Hospice Society will continue to find ways to ensure end-of-life care is provided safely and compassionately.

[2:00 p.m.]

Before I conclude today, I would like to specially recognize the executive director, Julie Chambers, who has gone above and beyond during the pandemic and has exemplified leadership for our community.

APPRENTICESHIPS IN SKILLED TRADES

G. Kyllo: I rise in the House today to recognize a very special group of workers. With over 100 different trades available in B.C., apprenticeships play a key role in delivering skilled tradespeople to meet the needs of training our workforce.

November is Apprenticeship Recognition Month, a time to highlight the importance of trades careers in B.C.

The Industry Training Authority has embarked on an apprenticeship awareness campaign, #apprenticenow, aimed at showing the real-world value that skilled trades bring to our province: bakers, barbers, boilermakers, cabinetmakers, carpenters, cooks, motorcycle mechanics, meat cutters, machinists, power engineering and plumbers. Who knows? Maybe one day we might even see a training program for politicians.

Now, despite their vital importance to our everyday lives and the incredible opportunities available through the trades, apprenticeship training oftentimes lacks the recognition and the appreciation it truly deserves.

Demand for skilled trades workers in B.C. continues to grow. According to the 2019 labour market outlook, 73,000 job openings are expected in trades through 2029. A lot of these job openings are the result of many of our skilled tradespeople retiring, which is why apprenticeships are so vitally important to our province. They help build and inspire the next generation of skilled tradespeople.

Trades continue to be underrepresented by women, Indigenous Canadians and cultural minorities. Only 10 percent of B.C. apprentices are currently women, with only 7 percent of B.C. apprentices being Indigenous.

Now, I also want to take a moment to recognize and honour those who are instrumental in encouraging young British Columbians to pursue careers in trades. In my own school district, people like Reid Findlay, Michelle Hall, Curtis Bellows, Doug Brown, Greg Seed and John Quilty are invaluable for encouraging and guiding our students to develop the skills, knowledge and passion they need to pursue careers in the trades through the district’s career education in applied design, skills and technology programs.

Would the House please join me in recognizing all of the incredible people who are helping to raise the next generation of tradespeople — including the apprentices, their educational institutions and teachers, the sponsoring employers and the regulatory bodies that oversee the training and certification of our tradespeople — and in wishing all British Columbians in the trades a great Apprenticeship Recognition Month.

Oral Questions

SERVICE MODEL CHANGE

FOR CHILDREN WITH SUPPORT NEEDS

AND FUNDING FOR

AUTISM SERVICES

S. Bond: For weeks, we’ve been raising legitimate questions on behalf of parents about this government’s clawback of autism funding. We’ve heard a minister of the Crown call the comments “sanctimonious.”

Just today we heard dismissive comments by the member for Chilliwack-Kent. Well, you know

what? A constituent of that member, Donna Hemmings, listened to her words

today. This is what she had to say to her MLA:

“We’re not scared of change. What we’re scared of is how the NDP

government decided for us not to be part of the decision-making process for our

children. How rude for my MLA to say that people are capitalizing on fears.

This is just another proof that they are not listening. The minister created

the fear by not consulting, by not listening to us. My MLA’s comment is rude

and dismissive of what are the justifiable fears of parents.”

Parents across this province are worried. They are frustrated, and they are angry. It has everything to do with a unilateral decision by this minister and this government — not the words of the opposition. This is squarely on the shoulder of this minister and government.

Today, on behalf of parents across British Columbia, 17,000 of whom have signed a

petition, will the minister and her colleagues stop being dismissive of the

concerns that parents are expressing? Will she end the clawback and do the

right thing today?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Dean: It is really important to be listening to families and to be hearing the

expertise and experiences of families caring for children and youth with

neurodiverse needs, including families with children with a diagnosis of

autism.

We started this work nearly three years ago now, and we’re continuing

this transition through to 2025. We are holding information sessions starting

this very month, and those conversations will continue. We’ll continue to hear

from families and Indigenous communities and service providers to inform this

operationalization of this new framework in the best interest of children,

youth and families.

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

S. Bond: To the minister again, she missed a step. The information sessions — and the minister knows this — are not about consulting. They’re about talking about implementation. Parents are asking and begging this minister to back up, not to talk about implementation.

Well, if the minister stubbornly refuses to listen, every single one of her silent colleagues should start speaking up for their constituents. We know that MLAs on that side of the House have had dozens, if not hundreds, of letters from parents.

In fact, will the MLA for Richmond-Queensborough listen to his constituent Mike Sachs, who says: “I question the need to destroy a service that has helped thousands of families over 20 years and replace it with government-run hubs. I call on the minister to immediately stop this plan.”

Will the MLA for Vancouver-Fraserview listen to a constituent, Sabrina Sandhu, who is heartbroken and scared for her son, Dominic. She writes: “We need you to care. We need you to put a stop to this. Please don’t turn our world upside down.”

Not my words. Not the words of the opposition. The words of desperate, frightened and upset parents who are writing to their MLAs, who were sent to Victoria to be their voice in this Legislature. And what do they hear? Nothing.

Will someone, anyone, in the government please listen to parents? They are asking for the

minister to back up, to consult like she should have done in the first place

and, most importantly, to end the clawback today.

Hon. M. Dean: We will continue to listen to families, and we will continue to listen to service providers and Indigenous communities as well.

As we move forward now, starting at the end of this month, we’re engaging in those meaningful conversations, and that dialogue and those conversations will continue in the weeks and months ahead. We are delivering on early implementation areas so that we can evaluate the process of delivering on the new framework.

I absolutely understand that some families have concerns and have anxieties. We will be working with them. We have the time to be able to create really positive transitions with families, putting their child and youth at the centre, working in partnership with parents, understanding that, for a long time, they’ve had to create that package of services for their children and youth.

More children and youth will receive services under the new framework, children and youth who get left behind today.

K. Kirkpatrick: We continue to ask questions, and we continue to get the same platitudes back from this government and this minister.

[2:10 p.m.]

She says: “To believe that immigrant families are unable to select or manage their service teams is naive and culturally insensitive. To take away this individualized funding and the families’ freedom to choose will effectively disenfranchise these families.”

Will the minister respect parents’ choices and stop this clawback?

Hon. M. Dean: I do understand that there are many parents out there who are concerned and who are worried. There are families for whom they have been able — eventually, after struggling, we’ve heard, for a long time — to create a package of services. But for many other children with support needs, they have been left behind, and it hasn’t been possible for them to receive the services that they need.

Under the new framework, children with autism will still receive the services that they need. Not only that, children whose parents are concerned that they might have an autism diagnosis will receive services earlier and while they might be waiting for a diagnosis. In addition to that, children and youth, where there are other concerns — brain injury, for example, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, Down syndrome — will also be able to access services that meet their needs. What that means is that they will be able to thrive. They will meet their developmental milestones. They will fulfil their potential.

Mr. Speaker: Member for West Vancouver–Capilano, supplemental.

K. Kirkpatrick: Alisha Mohamed-Pal is a constituent of the MLA for Vancouver-Hastings. She is the mother of Leila, an extraordinary little girl who wears braces on both of her legs and was recently diagnosed with autism. Alisha has past experience with the hub model, but with individualized funding, she is now working to set up a team to help Leila thrive. Alisha writes: “We are her parents, and we know best how to do that. The thought of these choices being taken away is just not acceptable.”

We will ask again. Will the minister listen to Alisha and countless other families and end this clawback?

Hon. M. Dean: I absolutely understand that parents are the experts in the lives of their children, the needs of their children. I’m absolutely passionately committed to working in partnership with parents. Having worked in the field for over 30 years, I know that that is the best model, and in the new framework, that is the commitment that we are making, to work in partnership with parents. We’re putting children and youth at the centre.

There’s a multidisciplinary team of professionals and workers who will work with that family to make sure that each child and youth, based on their unique and individual needs, will receive the services that they need for them to be able to fulfil their potential.

As Dr. Chow, president of Doctors of B.C., has said: “I am very pleased to see the

provincial government move towards a needs-based system of supports for these

children and their families. As a specialist in child and youth mental health,

I know that neurodiversity and disability do not always fit nicely into

diagnostic categories. I look forward to the positive impact for everyone

involved in helping our children grow and succeed.”

A. Olsen: For weeks, we’ve heard the Minister of Children and Families repeat the

same rhetoric. Unfortunately, it’s failed to provide the comfort that she’s

been hoping that it would.

Darwyn Danesh had Down syndrome, autism and other conditions. For his

entire life, like thousands of children in British Columbia, he fought for

basic access to services, which he never got, including when he was dying last

year. His father, Dr. Roshan Danesh, who is well known to this government as a

human rights advocate, made it clear in an editorial this weekend that changes

proposed by the Minister of Children and Families will make things worse, not

just for kids like Darwyn but for all children with disabilities.

Dr. Danesh said these changes will lead to each child not being treated

as an individual with integrity and dignity. He warned the changes are

unscientific and will lead to a system that is even more

discriminatory.

[2:15 p.m.]

My question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development. Will

the minister listen to people who have lived experience and professional

experience like Dr. Danesh and put their plans to change the system on hold so

the proper engagement with parents, experts and organizations can take

place?

Hon. M. Dean: I thank the family for sharing their story with us. What a difficult story to tell. I thank all the families who have shared their stories with us on our journey as we try and make improvements to services for children and youth with support needs here in British Columbia.

I have been hearing concerns from families, and we will continue to listen to families. In

fact, listening to feedback from families has been at the heart of the work

that we’ve been doing in this ministry.

For example, during the pandemic, we heard from families who told us

that they wanted to be able to use the respite funding that they get in a more

flexible way so that they would actually feel better supported in taking care

of their children and youth. We implemented that as an emergency measure. We

have now turned that into a permanent measure, as well, because we were

listening to families and what they need from us as a government.

We are continuing to listen to families. We’ve started to register people for information sessions that will be starting later on this month. We will continue those conversations, and we will continue to show families where and how we’re listening to them as we continue to develop these services.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Saanich North and the Islands, supplemental.

A. Olsen: You know, the only people that are nodding to this rhetoric are the

people that are sitting in this room. For weeks, we have heard story after

story of British Columbians coming and imploring this government to stop, to

take a step back and to start a process at the beginning, not in the

middle.

Over the last few weeks, Dr. Danesh has spoken with senior

representatives of this government about how the proposed changes will impact

children like Dr. Danesh’s late son, Darwyn — those with the most complex

special needs. From the response of those representatives, it was apparent that

they did not know what the impact of these changes would be on the children.

Government representatives suggested that this is why they will be running a

pilot project, to figure these impacts out.

This is a shocking admission. These are children’s lives, and these

uninformed decisions will impact thousands of families in British

Columbia.

Is this government really going to experiment on these already

vulnerable children and families?

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member will continue.

A. Olsen: To the Minister of Children and Family Development, does the minister really think that it is sound public policy to subject children and families in crisis to a pilot project to see if their government plans may work? Does the minister think that her approach is in the best interest of children and families?

Hon. M. Dean: I can absolutely assure everybody in this House that nothing is more important to us and our government than the children and youth of British Columbia. We are continuing our work, making sure that we put children and youth at the centre, and we will continue to listen to the experiences of families as we go through this process. We will continue to adapt the process as well.

I’d like to take this opportunity to say thank you to all of the staff in my ministry who also put the welfare and the well-being and the health and happiness of the children of this province as the number one priority in their daily work.

J. Tegart: The NDP have decided they know better than parents and have caused chaos and confusion in the entire disability sector. AutismBC says: “The government has failed to provide any information about how the sweeping changes impact many other programs in the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction. The fear and stress this is causing families is unacceptable.”

[2:20 p.m.]

The clawback impacts eligibility criteria for multiple services in the Ministry of Social Development, including the personalized supports initiative, individualized funding and Community Living B.C.

Will the Minister of Social Development give a clear answer to parents on how the clawback and lack of assessments will affect those who need CLBC supports?

Hon. M. Dean: I thank the member for the question.

We are putting children and youth at the heart of the framework that

we’re developing. The new model does not require a diagnosis for service for

children and youth, but that doesn’t mean that a diagnosis is….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue.

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

Having a diagnosis can also be a helpful tool for children and youth and for individuals

to create a service package. We’re not saying that it’s not helpful for

children and youth to have a diagnosis.

Families will make their decisions about what’s helpful for people in their family. The

Ministry of Children and Family Development will be working closely with other

ministries to make sure that there are seamless wraparound services for

children and youth wherever they are. As we know, they live multifaceted lives,

and we’ll make sure that we work in partnership across government to support

them.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Fraser-Nicola, supplemental.

J. Tegart: Well, without sounding sanctimonious, the parents and advocates don’t believe the government. On a whim, the system is being thrown out without consultation or detailed answers, and this has added stress and fear for parents and the entire community.

As AutismBC president Kaye Banez says: “There is no faith that this new framework is

actually going to work because there has been no transparency or consultation….

And we don’t see it happening now.”

Will the Minister of Social Development stop the clawback and listen to parents and advocates?

Hon. M. Dean: It is really important to make sure that we listen to families and also other people with experience and experts as well. For nearly three years now, we’ve been engaging with and listening to families and service providers, people with expertise, Indigenous communities as well, and over the next few years, as we continue this work, we’ll continue those conversations. Indeed, just last week….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Let’s hear. Okay.

Member for Nechako Lakes.

DEFERRAL OF OLD-GROWTH LOGGING

AND CONSULTATION WITH FIRST NATIONS

AND

FOREST INDUSTRY

J. Rustad: We’ve heard all kinds of problems about consultation and the lack thereof, and the reviews are in. In the forest sector, there is agreement. The NDP’s lack of consultation is absolutely astounding.

First Nations are saying no. You can’t have a decision in 30 days. Chief Willie Sellers

says: “What is the expectation out of the government — that we’re going to turn

this thing around in 30 days and actually give them a meaningful response?” The

Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs refers to it as a political soufflé.

Can the minister explain why she chose not to properly consult with the First Nations and other communities on such an important issue?

Hon. K. Conroy: I really appreciate the question. This is such a critical issue for the people of B.C., so I’m really happy to get a question in question period about it.

I’d like to point out to the member that, in fact, there has been considerable consultation since 2017, when we first formed government, because we recognized that there were outdated policies in this province that needed to change.

We needed to ensure that the forests of this province were being shared with the First

Nations people. And what I have been hearing — critically important, very

critically important — is that we have to consult with the rights and title

holders. I hear that every time we reach out to Indigenous nations.

They…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s hear the answer, please.

Hon. K. Conroy: …are saying to us that we need to consult with the rights and title holders. We have let nations know that we are looking at a 30-day time period to hear whether they want to engage further, to hear whether they want to defer or not.

[2:25 p.m.]

It’s really interesting that the members laugh at that. We think this is critically

important. We think it’s critically important because we have to find out if

they do want to defer; if, in fact, they feel that there has been enough

deferral on their traditional territory; if they want to talk about further

harvesting, other deferrals, conservation. We want to have those conversations.

It is critically important, and we will continue to do that.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Nechako Lakes, supplemental.

J. Rustad: Let me just get it right in terms of what the minister said. They spent four years out, apparently doing some sort of consultation, and then they come out with an announcement and blindside everybody. How is that consultation? I have trouble understanding what the minister is trying to say.

First Nations have been very clear. What they’ve been told is that they have 30 days to decide whether these deferrals go forward or not. How is that the proper consultation? That’s not proper engagement.

But you know what? It’s not just First Nations that were blindsided. Government’s announcement, of course, around this also took the Steelworkers by surprise. Jeff Bromley, for the United Steelworkers, says the NDP announcement was “a gut punch.”

The biggest punch is, quite frankly, the complete uncertainty this has now created for 18,000 forest workers whose jobs are now at risk, according to COFI. They have no idea what the future holds, and quite frankly, the government has not put any plans in place to support them through any kind of transition that may or may not be implemented.

First Nations are unhappy. Labour leaders are unhappy. Forest communities aren’t happy. Will the minister stop this brutally political process and actually listen to those directly impacted?

Hon. K. Conroy: Again, I want to thank the member for the question, because I do want to clarify that there have been discussions. I mean, we introduced our intentions paper this spring, and before we introduced the intentions paper, we had those consultations.

Last fall the government introduced the strategic review on old growth. Everyone we talked

to agreed with the recommendations in the old growth strategic review.

Everybody agreed with it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s….

Hon. K. Conroy: We talked to industry. We talked to labour. We talked to communities. Everybody agreed.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. K. Conroy: Everybody agreed that we needed to move forward with new legislation. We needed to move forward with deferrals of old growth because we needed to recognize that it’s not either-or. It’s not about jobs or the environment. It’s not about the economy or the environment. It’s about doing both, and it’s something we can do.

Ask your own colleague about that. The member up in Prince George–Mackenzie said that something should have been done decades ago. You know, your own member said that it should have been done….

Interjections.

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

The minister will continue.

Hon. K. Conroy: The member also said that if something had been done years ago, we

wouldn’t be in the position we’re in now. As the minister responsible, I will

not have people talking about me ten years from now, saying: “She should have

done something and didn’t do anything.”

FOREST POLICY CHANGES AND

SOCIOECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF

IMPACTS

L. Doerkson: The one thing that has happened on this side is that we do share differences of opinion, unlike the other side over there that has not put anybody up to debate the FOIPPA bill or anything else. We definitely…. Not only has there….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. The member is asking a question. Let’s listen to him.

L. Doerkson: Not only has there been surprise, but there’s been confusion as well. The minister might want to focus on what she’s doing to the thousands of families who count on the forest sector.

[2:30 p.m.]

The people on the front line estimate 18,000 jobs could be lost. We have the Minister of Forests saying it won’t be that bad. There will be just 4,500 jobs lost. And the Minister of Jobs has said: “It’s impossible to guess the exact number. I think it’s a little premature to throw numbers out.” It’s confusing, to say the least.

Will the Forests Minister table a socioeconomic study today or admit that she was just throwing numbers out?

Hon. K. Conroy: I thank the member for this question.

Yeah. I’d like to throw a number out. I’d like to throw the number out

of 30,000 people, 30,000 people who lost their jobs under the former

government. I know the member wasn’t there. I’ll tell him what happened. So

30,000 people lost their jobs.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Conroy: Some 30,000 people got absolutely no support from members opposite — 30,000 people and communities.

Communities got no….

Interjections.

Hon. K. Conroy: Well, you can keep beaking off all you’d like, but I’ll tell you what happened. You know, 30,000 people lost their jobs. Absolutely no support.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, come to order.

Minister.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members will come to order now. The question was asked. The minister has to give the answer.

Minister.

Hon. K. Conroy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There was absolutely no support for communities. We are doing things differently because we respect workers. We respect communities. We understand.

I know what it was like to go through living in a forestry-dependent community under that jurisdiction. I know how many people lost their jobs with no support. I know there was no support to communities.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Conroy: We will have supports in place…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members will come to order now.

Hon. K. Conroy: …not only for workers but for communities and for their families. We will have those supports in place because we are committed to this.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

L. Doerkson: You know, under the B.C. jobs plan, the forest sector saw the addition of 10,000 jobs…

Interjections.

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

Order. Let’s listen to the question.

L. Doerkson: …all of which have been lost under the NDP, and the minister seems to be

just warming up.

More than 18,000 people are being threatened by the government’s

decision, and the minister hasn’t even bothered to do a socioeconomic study.

The Forests Minister claimed there would be 4,500 jobs lost. The Jobs Minister

contradicted her, saying: “The numbers are premature. It’s jumping the

gun.”

What this government has done has caused confusion. It has caused chaos

and anxiety right across the province. The minister has let down First Nations,

labour leaders and forest communities and created a patchwork plan that raises

FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT

SERVICES COMMITTEE

J. Routledge: I have the honour to present the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for the second session of the 42nd parliament, titled Report on the Budget 2022 Consultation .

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

J. Routledge: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

J. Routledge: In moving adoption of the report, I would like to make some brief comments.

The annual budget consultation is an important exercise of democracy that allows British

Columbians to share their views, ideas and priorities for the upcoming

provincial budget. From June 30 to September 30, British Columbians provided

thoughtful, informative and passionate input on a range of issues, including

health, education, economic development and more. We heard 347 presentations,

the most in the history of the consultation, and received 710 written

submissions and 1,417 responses to the survey.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to express our sincere appreciation to everyone

who took the time to participate. Your input directly informed the committee’s

143 recommendations for the 2022 provincial budget.

In making these recommendations, the committee highlights climate change

and emergency preparedness as areas that require urgent and immediate action.

It was made clear to the committee that the impacts of climate change are being

felt across the province. With increasingly extreme weather events, such as the

heat dome and the Lytton fire, the next climate-related disaster could happen

tomorrow or today. British Columbia needs to take every action to mitigate and

prepare for its impact.

[2:40 p.m.]

Committee members also highlight the need to address housing affordability and supply. Many British Columbians stressed that housing is at a crisis point and affecting health and the economy. Addressing this issue will require a multi-pronged approach.

We are in a time of unique challenges. But with these challenges come opportunities. We heard stories across the province of people working together, investing their time and energy to make their communities better. The committee is of the view that support of these local efforts and investment in proactive planning and prevention across sectors is both a prudent economic decision and an important step forward in improving quality of life for British Columbians.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all committee members, including the member

for Surrey-Fleetwood, who stepped in during an emergency on a temporary basis,

and members of the committee on both sides of the aisle who stepped in, in the

moment, to make that emergency from being even worse.

I would especially like to thank the Deputy Chair, the member for Kelowna West, for their

support and work on this consultation and for their thoughtful contributions

and discussions during deliberations.

This consultation covered a wide range of important topics, and this

committee worked tirelessly to review, engage with and discuss each of these

issues with the gravity they deserved.

As members of this House are likely aware, there is a considerable

amount of work behind the scenes to conduct a consultation of this scope. On

behalf of the committee, I would like to acknowledge and extend our

appreciation to the Legislative Assembly staff for their work on this

consultation. From the Parliamentary Committees Office, thank you to Jennifer

Arril, Mary Newell, Karan Riarh, Katey Stickle, Jesse Gordon, Jenny Byford and

Jonathon Hamilton. From IT, thank you to Darren Parfitt. From Hansard Services,

thank you to Mike Baer, Amanda Heffelfinger, Simon DeLaat, Dwight Schmidt,

Billy Young and the entire Hansard broadcasting, transcribing and publishing

teams.

B. Stewart: I just want to echo the remarks of the member for Burnaby North, who acknowledged so many of the people that were a part of this. The staggering numbers of presentations. The challenges with COVID.

We’ve reintroduced in-person meetings. I think we all agreed, as a committee, that that

would set a new standard — that we were out there vaccinated and made certaibn

that people were heard. The voices that we heard represent the diversity of our

province, and we worked hard to ensure that the majority of those voices were

included in this report.

There’s one moment of disappointment. A last-second decision to amend the recommendations that had already been approved. The strength of the report comes from hearing from as many people as possible, and the attempts to reduce those voices are unhelpful and regrettable.

Overall, the report reflects the hopefulness of British Columbians, and it’s been a pleasure to be a part of this engagement process working with the committee members on both sides of the House, the Clerk’s office, all the staff at Hansard. I just want to thank everybody for their participation.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is the adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 24, Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2021.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 24 — ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 24;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 2:45 p.m.

The Chair: All right, Members. I’m going to just put us into a short recess to

prepare for the next bill, committee stage.

The committee recessed from 2:45 p.m. to 2:49 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

On clause 1.

The Chair: All right, Members. We are here for committee stage of Bill 24, the

Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2021.

Did the minister want to open with a statement? Or we’ll dive right

in.

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: I look forward to questions from members. I know there has been some

health issues will be addressed in the consultations that will accompany the

development of regulations. I will welcome the opportunity to offer clarity on

those questions.

P. Milobar: Thank you to the minister.

Certainly, quite a few questions around

section 1, trying to get a good

sense of the scope and what is intended by the definition around “single-use

product.” I think everyone agrees, and we’ve seen with polling, that we want to

see as much reduction of plastic as possible within our lived environment and,

by extension, our natural environment as it turns into waste. But certainly,

there are good intentions, and then there is the practicality of enforcement or

actual day-to-day usage and things happening within our daily lives.

I guess if the minister could just provide a broad overview of the

intent. Under the definition of “single-use product,” what types of products

are intended to be captured by the definition that we see in the

bill?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question.

Currently there is no definition of “single-use product,” so we wanted

to provide that definition. The member’s question is a good one. Including the

definition of “single-use product” will allow the ministry to regulate and

restrict products that have both a single use or a short-term use, which is

more than one, but, really, relatively short-term, very short-term. Let me give

some examples. A Tupperware container may be a short-term single use.

Disposable razors are, I think, a good example. Moving boxes would be a good

example.

P. Milobar: Thank you. Can the minister confirm, then, that the intent is truly to

restrict the single-use products, so things like disposable razors and

Tupperware that were just mentioned could quite easily fall under the

regulation, moving forward, once this bill is passed?

Hon. G. Heyman: The answer to the member is yes, subject to the consultation that we

will do and the economic analysis, as well as the environmental analysis that

we will do. The intention is to restrict.

[2:55 p.m.]

There are some items, of course, that were put forward for bans by local

governments, which I have already approved as minister. I think it’s pretty

fair to assume that we would include those, given they’ve already been

approved. Plastic bags are one of them, polystyrene foam containers are

another, and straws, by request — straws being allowed by request, not

automatically handed out.

P. Milobar: One of the recurring themes we’ve seen with legislation, certainly,

throughout this session…. Some of the bills are still open and being gone

through at committee stage but other bills as well…. We have a bill in front of

us with a concept, and then everything is left to regulation after the fact,

without a clear understanding of what the regulations’ boundaries would

be.

We have been hearing concerns from people wanting to know, under these

definitions, if things like…. You go to a Canucks game, and you get your drink

and go back to your seat. You’re not allowed to have glass in a Canucks

building. You’re not allowed to have a reusable container that you bring in

from the street.

Will products such as that be subject to regulation? Or is there

somewhere that I’ve missed in this act where they would be excluded?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member. That’s, actually, a very good example, and I’m

sure it’s on the mind of every hockey fan or football fan.

We will consider, through the process of consultation, exemptions for

exactly that kind of example offered by the member. Part of it will also be

considering if we can find or if the marketplace provides viable alternatives

that reduce the use of plastic that can be used in places like games to reduce

waste and eliminate single-use containers.

P. Milobar: Again, the questions are maybe sounding flippant at times. I assure the

minister they are not meant to be. But again, people do have a lot of serious

questions around this type of a proposal, especially because everything is

being left to after-the-fact regulation.

Some other examples we’ve heard of. Is there anything in this that would

prevent the sale…? Or is this intended to…?

Let me rephrase that. Under regulation, would this legislation enable

the minister to ban things like the sale of garbage bags that people use at

home, and things of that nature, that you might buy in a large box, 100 at a

time, where you have the actual product inside the box that is most certainly

single use? I think of garbage bags. I’m not aware of many people that would

re-use their doggy bag when they take their dog for a walk, but certainly,

those types of products are in high demand, especially in urbanized areas where

sidewalks and such come into play when you take your pets out for a

walk.

Is there anything in this act? This act seems to be structured in such a

way that would make it possible, through regulation, to ban those types of

products. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Heyman: I want to assure the member that I don’t find the questions flippant at

all, because they probably represent questions that many people in British

Columbia have. It’s great to be able to provide an answer.

[3:00 p.m.]

Our focus would be, certainly, on instances where retailers are

providing single-use products that actually have viable alternatives to replace

them. Theoretically, the act could allow that, but we would not be seeking to

ban something for which there is no viable alternative — for instance, a

garbage bag or a doggy bag that people are using. We may, however — and

hopefully, the market will work with us on that — encourage the development of

viable alternatives, which may be truly biodegradable, that could, ultimately,

replace some of these products.

Of course, as the member knows, a large focus of our time is spent on

encouraging people to reduce waste overall, therefore requiring less garbage

bags — although there’s not much we can do about dogs — and contributing to a

true circular economy by reducing what people use. This is where the single-use

plastic amendment comes in and, ultimately, the regulations — recycling and

ensuring that we have adequate extended producer responsibility coverage for a

broad range of items in British Columbia.

P. Milobar: I’m not sure if my question around packaging, which I have, is for this

or for later on, on clause 2 or on 11.

Overall, when it comes to packaging, could the minister clarify…? When

it talks about packaging of products and when you think of things like, say,

bottled water…. I’m assuming that bottled water may fall under single-use

plastic as well. It typically comes with some form of plastic wrapping around

it to make sure you’re not shipping 24 bottles at a time that are rolling all

over the place.

Is that the type of packaging — the shrink-wrap that goes around a

pallet when it’s getting shipped from one store to another and off the

containers to the store — that is referenced in this bill as well?

Hon. G. Heyman: First of all, I just want to assure the member and the public that we’re

not considering banning plastic water bottles, although we would certainly

encourage people to find and use reusable ones.

The answer with respect to shrink-wrapping, for example, that holds

bundles of things together for packaging…. Yes, we could ban that. We would ban

it if we found that there were viable alternatives available that reduced the

necessity to use that kind of plastic.

P. Milobar: Could the minister, then, clarify…? Bottled water — obviously not.

Ultimately, it’s the bottle and not the product that people worry about the

most.

Is the minister, then, saying that any type of plastic bottle that one

would associate with, say, bottled water but that, obviously, holds juice and

other beverages in it…? Those are not contemplated with this legislation or

this regulation?

Hon. G. Heyman: No. I can confirm that we are not considering banning those kinds of

plastic containers. They’re covered under our bottle deposit and recycling

program, which encourages people not to toss them in the gutter or in the

garbage but to ensure they’re included in the recycling program and repurposed

or reprocessed following that.

[3:05 p.m.]

I. Paton: Based on the massive use of agricultural plastics throughout the world….

It has become one of the biggest users of plastic. In the United Kingdom a few

years ago, a statistic showed 45,000 tonnes of plastic was used for an

agricultural purpose in the United Kingdom in one year.

In British Columbia, we have several types of heavy plastic that are

used in all aspects of agriculture, including baler twine, netting that goes

around the round bales that are produced to hold them together, the white

plastic and green plastic that goes around the silage bales, which look like

marshmallows in the field. It would be devastating to the agriculture industry

in B.C. to somehow have those removed or considered as a single-use

plastic.

To the minister: could you comment on different varieties of

agricultural plastics that are used? Will they be, under regulation,

banned?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question. It’s an excellent question.

Agricultural plastic and agricultural plastic waste are, of course, a concern

to the agriculture industry, to farmers as well as to the people of

B.C.

The way that we are addressing agricultural plastic waste is through the

extended producer responsibility system. Our proposal and consultations that

are currently going out now with respect to how we update that plan for

institutional, commercial and industrial sectors…. That’s where we will be

likely to address the handling of plastic waste and how we ensure that we bring

it back in a way that handles it properly through the recycling

system.

The focus on single-use plastics through regulation, which will be

enabled by this bill, is in response to the consultations and what we heard

from the public about single-use plastics. While there’s concern about

agricultural plastic use, it wasn’t something that came up in this

consultation. It has come up in consultation generally on the broader extended

producer responsibility system.

That’s what we’re going to bring in. It will take some time to bring it

in because we have to ensure that there’s facility and capacity to handle those

plastics and that it’s cost effective for everyone. But that is the route we

will take on agricultural plastics.

I. Paton: I’d like to, further, just give a definition of some of the many, many

uses of plastic. It would be devastating to agriculture in B.C. and throughout

Canada if they were to be banned.

As I’ve said before, polyethylene baler twine for baling hay, of course.

Bale netting that goes around the round bales. Massive tarps that go on top of

bunker silos for corn silage and grass silage. The white plastic that goes

around round bales.

[3:10 p.m.]

Plastic that goes over seedlings. We see, in B.C., rows upon rows of the

plastic that goes down over top of seedlings, which keeps the weeds down and

creates a bit of a greenhouse effect for the seedlings that are

growing.

Fertilizer bags. Pesticide containers. Greenhouse coverings. The plastic

that goes over the greenhouses hoop houses. PVC pipe for irrigation purposes.

Greenhouse packaging that the peppers, tomatoes and cucumbers go in is a vital

part of our greenhouse industry and food production. Seed bags and, of course,

like I said, fertilizer bags.

To the minister, having such an impact on agriculture in B.C. and having

a devastating impact if it were to be banned, when it comes to consultation,

probably the number one consulting group in British Columbia to stay in contact

with would be the B.C. Agriculture Council, which was just here a week ago or

two weeks ago for B.C. Agriculture Day….

My question to the minister. Have you consulted (

a) with the B.C.

Agriculture Council and (

b) with the Minister of Agriculture?

Hon. G. Heyman: I want to repeat and reassure the member that we don’t propose to ban

things for which there are no alternatives. I want to also reiterate that our

focus on the real issue of agricultural plastic waste is through our extended

producer responsibility

section of our plastics action plan, not through this

bill.

We are consulting with the B.C. agricultural association on how we deal

with agricultural plastics through, ultimately, changes to extended producer

responsibility and recycling. I have, in fact, consulted with the Minister of

Agriculture on a number of occasions, both with respect to this bill and

addressing agricultural plastics in general, and she, of course, is a strong

advocate for the continued viability of our important agriculture sector which,

of course, is what we rely on for food security.

Our focus with respect to agricultural plastics where there may not be

alternatives is to not ban plastic. It is to increase the percent of content of

recycled plastic in the plastic products. So when we attempt to deal with it

through extended producer responsibility, ensuring that people have a real

incentive to collect and recycle, we have an industry in British Columbia,

unlike other jurisdictions, where we have plastics remanufacturing.

I hope to see even more plastics remanufacturing plants than those that

currently exist in British Columbia. Part of the StrongerBC recovery program

was an invitation to different entrepreneurs and companies to make proposals

about different ways that they could recycle plastic and use plastic so that it

can be used again and reduce the use of virgin plastic. We had a broad range of

thoughtful and viable proposals.

That is how we propose to deal with the agricultural sector — not

through bans but by extended producer responsibility and ensuring that we up

the content of recycled plastic and plastic products in B.C. for the

agricultural industry, as well as elsewhere, and that we do that with

manufactured-in-B.C. recycled plastics.

[3:15 p.m.]

I. Paton: If you’ll indulge me, since I have an opportunity to ask a few questions

to the minister on maybe a slightly different topic, the massive amount

of….

I would say British Columbia might be a third of the U.K. in tonnes of

plastic used in a year for agricultural purposes. In the Fraser Valley and on

my own farm, I was one of the first persons to import equipment from Germany

that actually wrapped these round bales in white plastic. They looked like

marshmallows in the field.

I’m getting comments and information from farmers and ranchers all over

B.C. about: what do we do with our plastic? In the Fraser Valley, we do have

opportunities to take this plastic to some recycling facilities. But if you

live in Fort St. John or in Hudson’s Hope or in the Kootenays or Vanderhoof….

They’re absolutely out of ideas on what to do. We really don’t want to burn

this plastic. We really don’t want to dig a hole with the excavator and put it

in the ground.

I’m asking, to the minister: what facilities do you have in place in

northern B.C. and eastern B.C. for farmers to be able to recycle their

plastic?

Hon. G. Heyman: I’ll start by saying that probably the single topic that engenders the

most meetings and comments for me at the Union of B.C. Municipalities is

recycling, in general and particularly from Interior and northern communities

which don’t have the benefit of the same economies of scale that have led to

facilities existing of the kind the member referenced for agricultural plastic

in more populated areas.

Among the demands that local government make is that we focus on

institutional, commercial and industrial recycling and including that in

extended producer responsibility in our recycling program, which is exactly

what we are proposing to do.

We’re currently working with the recycling industry, with local

governments, with industry, to bring that online, but we can’t collect it until

the facilities exist to handle it and process it. Otherwise, we’re simply going

to be collecting it, and it could well end up in landfills or burnt or

whatever. So that is not our long-term plan.

We’re working as quickly as we can, but the member asked what facilities

are in place in the north, for instance, to handle them, and the answer is:

none yet. We’re working on it.

The Chair: The member for Kamloops–South Thompson. North Thompson. Both

beautiful places.

P. Milobar: We get mistaken as one and the same — often called twins.

The Chair: Definitely. I’ve got a twin in Kamloops.

P. Milobar: Actually, you do. That’s true. So there you go.

Thanks to the minister for that. I think where some of the apprehension

is starting to come with the bill is that in

section 1 here, in clause 1, we’re

talking about adding in a definition to the act around what a single-use

product is, and every

interpretation of that, moving forward, is left to

regulation, an unknown regulation.

By virtue of that, almost every product out there could almost meet the

definition that the minister has clarified for us. When even Tupperware is

being invoked as a short-term product, well, I can tell you…. Well, at least

the Tupperware lids in my house last a long time. I don’t know what happens to

the rest of the Tupperware, but if you’re like my house, you’ve got a lot of

lids and not a lot of containers.

The point being, I think, is that there is not enough detail in what is

being excluded at this point. So as we’ve heard about the concerns on the

agricultural side of the equation, we’re also hearing the same within the

health care realm and things around PPE, especially in light of what’s going on

with COVID and you think of all of the first-aid attendants and on-site

construction sites with first aid kits and everything else.

[3:20 p.m.]

Would “single-use product,” under this definition…? Would that include

things like plastics used in the provision of health care, based on this

definition? Not what might happen in regulation, but based on how this

definition is worded — would health care plastics also fall under this

single-use definition?

Hon. G. Heyman: I want to reiterate for the member….

Well, first of all, let me say that the member knows, and members

opposite who have served in government know, that it is not uncommon to leave

certain details to regulation for a number of reasons, not the least of which

is the ability to more easily keep them current and amend them and ensure that

they meet the intent. So that is why much of the detail will be developed in

regulation, following real consultation with the public, with retailers, with

manufacturers about what’s possible.

It’s not our intent to ban things where there is no alternative or where

they’re necessary. It is clearly our hope that alternatives will be developed

over time to reduce plastic waste where that’s possible. It’s also our

intention, as I’ve stated, to increase extended producer responsibility,

recycling of plastic and inclusion of more recycled content in our plastic

products, rather than virgin plastics.

This is an excellent question by the member with respect to health care.

It gives me the opportunity to make absolutely clear…. I want to make

absolutely clear that it is not the intent under this bill to — and we will not

— ban the use of plastics, single-use or otherwise, where they are necessary

for health care, whether it’s personal protective equipment or other health

care uses. Nor would we ban the use of single-use plastics — for instance,

with any kind of disability where that single-use plastic is the only

alternative for them. We will not do that.

In fact, in all of the bans that were submitted by local government for

my approval as minister, before we made it possible for them to develop them on

their own, it was made absolutely clear that the bans had to provide provision

order that allowed municipalities to go ahead without my approval, the order

addressed as exemptions to single-use plastic bans.

I hope that is absolutely crystal clear for the member or anyone else

who shares that concern.

P. Milobar: I take the minister, certainly, at his word on that. I guess it’s

sometimes a function of….

When we each have jobs or titles, so to speak, under our governmental

elected–type work, you start to feel like: “Okay. What I say today is how it

shall be forevermore.” Certainly, there were mayors in my office in Kamloops

before me, and when last I checked, there’s one in there after me. There were

Environment ministers before this minister and, you know, at the whim of the

Premier, there’s a new Environment Minister. That’s just the system that we

work under. So what one minister’s intent might be is not necessarily the

actions of another minister, moving forward.

[3:25 p.m.]

When things are left wide open, under legislation, to be decided by

regulation after the fact, and there are no exemptions in here, it does open

the door for future governments, future ministers, anybody in a position of

power to change that.

Could the minister please just clarify, then…? I was just simply

checking whether or not medical plastics would fit under the definition, as

it’s written right now, of single-use product, under this legislation, the way

it is written.

Hon. G. Heyman: First of all, I appreciate the member’s comment and the concern that he

is raising. I also know that

interpretation of

an act is guided by statements

that are made by the minister in introducing the act and in answering questions

at committee stage, which is why I tried to give such a clear answer to the

question in my previous response.

I don’t think I can make that more clear, but I want to assure the

member that we would not consider medical use plastics that are necessary and

for which there is no alternative to be covered by the definition in this act.

I think we’ve demonstrated that in the exemptions that we insisted on with

respect to local government.

P. Milobar: Well, that sounded like a fairly succinct answer as to how an exemption

could have been worded when this bill was brought forward to make amendments to

the existing act.

Within the discussion and within the development of clause 1,

specifically, but these whole four clauses that are in front of us amending the

act, why were there not any exemptions just highlighted right off the very

front end instead of leaving everything wide open for

interpretation of a

regulation process as opposed to flat out making sure that…?

As the minister just laid out, a fairly clearly defined wording around

medical plastics could have easily been inserted in as an exemption. There

could have been an exemption, with a reference made to agricultural plastics in

terms of how this act directly pertains to them, and leaving other waste acts

to deal with agricultural plastic.

[3:30 p.m.]

Why were there no actual exemptions highlighted and defined in this bill

that would have actually very clearly told everybody — especially on medical

plastics — that this is a no-go zone, full stop, and that it’s not being left

to regulation now or in the future?

[3:35 p.m.]

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Hon. G. Heyman: I think I addressed the issue of medical-use plastics and the

The member asked about agricultural packaging and products and why we

didn’t specifically include an exemption. Actually, I would say that almost

exclusively, that kind of packaging of agricultural materials or commodities is

already covered by the act, which was brought in, in 2003, by the previous

government.

The existing provision says: “‘packaging’ means a material, substance or

object that is (

a) used to protect, contain or transport a commodity or

product, or (

b) attached to a commodity or product or its container for the

purpose of marketing or communicating information about the commodity or

product.”

That is currently the language in the act. The act contains no specific

exemption with respect to agricultural products, but as the member knows, those

things have not been banned where there is no suitable alternative.

P. Milobar: Yes. Thank you for that on the agricultural side. Again, there are still

questions around packaging, as we canvassed earlier, in terms of what would

qualify or not. It comes down to some of that

interpretation.

I guess the bigger concern I have was actually the question around the

discussions as this bill was being crafted, as it was being brought forward, as

it was looking at amending the act, why was there not…? What discussions led to

there not being a very clear exemption for medical-grade, medical-use

plastics?

[3:40 p.m.]

If there is absolutely no intention through regulation moving forward,

now or infinity, to ban those, why was there not, just clearly articulated, an

exemption in this bill, which is already updating the act? It would seem to be

a very simple way to update the act and put people’s minds at ease. We’re in

the height of a global pandemic where PPE is in short supply, and people are

already, rightfully, nervous around those supplies and other medical

provisions. This seems to be a very easy way to address that.

What discussions led up to deciding? Was there even any consideration of

bringing in an exception, and why was it not acted upon, if there were those

discussions?

Hon. G. Heyman: It is our intention to develop regulations through consultation about

which items to specifically name.

again, I’ve made very clear statements in this House that can and will be used

to interpret the act.

With respect to consultation, we consulted with the Provincial Health

Services Authority, with the provincial health officer, with the Disability

Alliance B.C. and, within government, with the Ministry of Health and the

P. Milobar: Well, I guess we’ll try to FOI to see what the decision-making process

was with that. I’m not holding my breath on that either.

I guess the concern, though, is…. I get that the minister is saying this

will all come into effect under regulation, but in fact, the act commences on

royal assent, which will happen next Thursday, at the latest. Then it’s up to

people, the citizenry, to interpret the act and the lack of regulation attached

to it.

[3:45 p.m.]

I guess the question to the minister is, then: if this comes into effect

on royal assent, what is the timeline to actually have the consultation done

and actual regulations known, given that there has been no preliminary look at

proposed regulations attached to this bill, as seems to be the practice with

this government lately with bills?

It’s an unknown regulatory scheme being proposed. Pass the legislation,

and we’ll tell you after the fact how it is going to operate or not.

What is the actual timeline for the regulation? I don’t see anything in

this bill that spells out how quickly it has to be developed or not.

Hon. G. Heyman: As the member knows, the bill…. Anyone reading the bill will know that

it is an enabling provision, and nothing is banned until there is a regulation

banning it. It is our intention to….

First of all, I’ll back up a minute. We have been having discussions

with the industry. We’ve heard lots from the public in previous consultations

and discussion papers around generally what people are looking for, what

concerns they want addressed. We’ve heard from industry and

retailers.

In the spring of 2022, sometime around February or March, we’ll begin a

60-day consultation on an intentions paper, which is about 33 percent longer

than our normal consultation period on an intentions paper. Then following

that, based on the feedback, we will begin drafting regulations, which we

intend to bring in by spring 2023.

P. Milobar: Three months from now there will be some consultation. It will be about

a two-month consultation.

Does that include…? Is there any intention to include Indigenous

communities in that consultation? I didn’t hear them mentioned in any of the

consultations being proposed at this point.

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: We have, in fact, been consulting with Indigenous peoples. We provide

funding for an Indigenous zero waste technical advisory committee that serves

as a vehicle for hearing Indigenous views and concerns. That has been ongoing

and will continue as part of the upcoming consultation.

P. Milobar: Just to be clear. Was that group, then, consulted with the development

of this bill as it stands today?

Hon. G. Heyman: I think it’s been, certainly, public knowledge that we intended to bring

in bans on single-use plastics. I’ve been speaking about that publicly for over

a year, that it would happen via a combination of legislation and/or

regulations.

The consultations that we’ve had with the Indigenous zero waste

technical advisory committee have actually been on what regulations would look

like, further to the enabling legislation that led to us bringing them

in.

P. Milobar: On the development of this Bill 24, were any groups consulted with? If

so, who? Were any of those groups required to sign non-disclosure

agreements?

Hon. G. Heyman: A letter was sent to all treaty and non-treaty nations, advising them

that government was intending to bring in an amendment to the Environmental

Management Act to address single-use plastics.

[3:55 p.m.]

We, of course, went on with the zero waste technical advisory committee

to hear their input on what kinds of things they would like to see, ultimately,

in the regulatory framework. That work is ongoing.

With respect to the letters to all the nations, we invited a response.

We received a response from many nations and considered those responses as we

brought the legislation to development and forward.

P. Milobar: I guess I’ll be a little more specific with my question. It wasn’t

really just around Indigenous consultation but in general. So any groups, any

and all groups. Were people or groups consulted on the development of Bill 24?

If so, who were they, and were they required to sign non-disclosure

agreements?

Hon. G. Heyman: First of all, no non-disclosure agreements were required. Every treaty

and non-treaty nation received a letter providing formal notification of

pending amendments to provincial legislation regarding the Environmental

Management Act to provide regulation-making authority to ban the sale or use of

specific types of products, etc., and then describing the intended effects of

the proposed amendment to EMA as follows.

If I may….

The Chair: Go ahead, Minister.

Hon. G. Heyman: If I may, Chair, we’d be happy to make a copy of one of the letters

available to the member.

P. Milobar: Thank you, no. That’s all right.

Again…. I guess I’m a stickler, but I’ve been around the mulberry bush a

few times with the minister on the fine points of how answers and questions get

worded, in estimates and otherwise, over the years.

There was no requirement to sign an NDA. But were NDAs requested? In

other words, were they requested, and then just quietly, if they didn’t happen

to sign, they were still consulted or listened to, but the preference of the

ministry would have been that non-disclosures be signed off on for consultation

to happen? Of course, I ask that because we’re finding out, from bill after

bill, that this has started to be fairly prevalent. So we’re just trying to

find out if this particular bill was subject to the same ask of participants to

provide input or not.

Hon. G. Heyman: We did not request that the nations sign an NDA with regard to the

letter, which described, in more than general terms — quite some specificity —

about what our intention of the amendment to the Environmental Management Act

would be and then to go on and talk about the kinds of things that we would be

working to address through regulation and further consultation.

Had we actually shared the precise language of the act, we might, at

that point…. We likely would have required an NDA, for obvious reasons. But we

were giving them a description of what would be in the act and inviting

comment. Therefore, we did not ask them to sign an NDA.

P. Milobar: Again, I think the minister has made the answer around Indigenous

consultation fairly clear, but the question was also around other consultation.

I mean, there are a lot of environmentally minded groups. There are a lot of

people, stewards, associations other than that — other groups like that that

may have been consulted on the creation of Bill 24.

[4:00 p.m.]

Again, were any of those groups consulted, and if so, were they required

or requested to sign an NDA?

Hon. G. Heyman: We did a broad consultation on our plastics action plan consultation

paper, which was circulated quite some time ago. It was the result of that

consultation that led to our plans to develop an amendment to the Environmental

Management Act and then to go forward and consult on the

regulations.

The simple fact of an enabling amendment to the act…. We did not think

consultation was necessary on that with groups, so obviously, we did not ask

for an NDA from any groups. We will, however, be consulting with them on the

regulations, should this bill pass.

P. Milobar: That’s a beautiful segue into my next question for the minister. As we

roll into regulation of this bill, will there be, through those consultations,

either the requirement or the request for NDAs to be signed from participants

of any fashion towards the development of the regulations?

Hon. G. Heyman: It’s our intention to consult, publish an intentions paper, which is a

public document, so we wouldn’t be requiring an NDA for that. Then, usually, we

publish a what-we-heard document — again, a public document — after we get

feedback on the intentions paper. If we get to the point of actually wanting to

run specific regulatory language by any specific groups, at that point, we

likely would require an NDA and ask for an NDA. But talking about general

principles, no.

P. Milobar: There are all sorts of NDAs. Certainly, I get…. Especially if you’re

talking about things that would potentially impact saleable goods, in theory,

in some market areas, that can be understandable. But there are all sorts of

NDAs. There are NDAs in perpetuity, and there are NDAs until things are

officially released, where people could then talk about the process they went

through and whether or not they were listened to and their recommendations were

actioned or ignored and why.

Is it the minister’s intention, if an NDA is required…? We have seen,

with other legislation that has just come through recently, that some ministers

of this government have required that there be absolutely no discussion — even

after things are tabled in this chamber and being discussed in the public realm

— about any of those participants’ actions or interactions with government

through the process.

Would the intention of the minister be that an NDA is for the timeline

that those fine points are being dealt with and that once it’s now made a

public document of regulations, people are then free to discuss what they’ve

worked on the government with? Or is it in perpetuity, and they are essentially

bound to not discuss the making of the sausage, as it were, forevermore if they

agree to participate in the consultation around regulations?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: It’s an interesting question. I was just checking.

We can’t think of a situation where we’ve required an NDA of people

where we have asked them to not discuss information that is subsequently

publicly available. But I can’t speculate about whether there might be

information to which people under an NDA would be privy in the future that

might be commercially sensitive or might be potentially prejudicial to an

industry or parties within an industry where we would not consider that an NDA

that extended beyond the actual public release of a regulation might not be

required. We’d basically take legal advice on that.

P. Milobar: Well, it sounds, then, based on that answer from the minister, that it’s

more of a ministerial choice how restrictive an NDA may be in this day and age.

So we will continue to follow up with other ministers, I guess, on how they

want to conduct themselves, moving forward, in terms of those longer-term gag

orders, for lack of a better word.

Mr. Chair, I have no more questions until

section 4 now.

Clauses 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On clause 4.

[4:10 p.m.]

P. Milobar: I just want to confirm on (

b) of this

section of 22(2) being amended. Is

the intent around this to start to be able to better dictate percentages or

volumes of plastics being used that would help differentiate whether it’s

considered a single-use plastic product or just a product in

general?

Hon. G. Heyman: I just want to clarify. Did the member say “b” as in bravo or “d” as in

dog?

P. Milobar: There is no (d). It’s just (b).

Hon. G. Heyman: We’ve added the word “material” so that we could, in fact, ultimately

regulate the makeup of a plastic product with regard to what percentage of

recycled plastics was required to be contained in it, for obvious

reasons.

Clauses 4 and 5 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. G. Heyman: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:13 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 24 — ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

Bill 24, Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2021, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Heyman: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 23, Forests Statutes Amendment Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 23 — FORESTS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill 23; N. Letnick in

the chair.

The committee met at 4:15 p.m.

The Chair: The committee will recess for five minutes while we wait for a

change of teams.

The committee recessed from 4:15 p.m. to 4:19 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

On clause 1.

The Chair: For those of you who’ve joined us, we are doing what’s called

committee stage.

[4:20 p.m.]

After second reading, which is where both the government and

the opposition get to make speeches, the minister gets to answer

questions, clause by clause. There are 111 clauses. Hopefully, you

can stay for a few days, as we go through all 111

clauses.

With that, Minister, would you like to introduce your

team?

Hon. K. Conroy: I would. Thank you very much, Chair.

With me today, I have Ariel Taylor, manager of Indigenous

consultation and negotiations; Tony Cheong, senior legislative analyst; Doug

Kelly, director of forest tenures branch; and Diane Nicholls, ADM and chief

forester for the province of B.C.

J. Rustad: Welcome to the minister’s staff.

As the Chair has said, this is a rather lengthy bill, and there

will be a variety of questions as we go into the bill, questions from myself

and my co-critic, as I like to call him — although he’s not quite co-critic, I

guess — the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin. Of course, the members from the Green

Party have a number of questions as well. So there will be a little bit of

bouncing around as the discussion goes with this.

If the minister is okay with this — we had a brief little

conversation outside — I would like to start with maybe just a couple of

general questions around the intent of the bill and process before we go

into sections, just to try to have a little bit of up front that may

drive or may help to eliminate some of the questions that may need to be

asked at a later date.

Starting off with the bill. The bill is a pretty significant shift

in forest policy. I think the minister probably agrees with that, in

terms of the landscape-level plans and the intent and, sort of, what

flows underneath that.

Perhaps just a start for people listening, as well as for my own

sake, if the minister could provide a little bit of background around

the rationale for implementing this bill, as well as what the objectives

are. I know that it’s laid out in this discussion in the bill. It was

laid out in the press release, but I want to give the minister an

opportunity to expand on that, if possible here, just as we start going

on this bill.

Hon. K. Conroy: The member is right. B.C.’s forest sector is undergoing a

significant transition and reformation, brought on by compounding

economic, environmental and social pressures.

This proposed legislation responds to the profound challenges that

B.C.’s forest sector has experienced in the last decade and creates a

legislative framework to address both current and foreseeable needs

related to supporting reconciliation with Indigenous nations and

starting that process to align the forestry framework with the

declaration.

[4:25 p.m.]

Also, enabling increased opportunities for participation in forest

planning by stakeholders and B.C.’s communities; coordinating forest

development and management areas; realizing sustainable timber harvest

levels in support of B.C.’s economy; achieving greater government

oversight of forest management to protect public safety, the environment

and natural resources; and ensuring that land managers have the right

tools to establish resilient forests and range lands when faced with the

uncertain impacts of climate change upon these ecosystems.

It’s all about ensuring that the public trust is there for the

forest industry, as well as forestry in general. It also is the

continuation of the foundation of Bill 21.

J. Rustad: The minister just talked about greater stakeholder engagement in

terms of the forest sector, in terms of, I think, what’s happening in

forestry. Perhaps if the minister could elaborate on that a little bit

more in terms of how those stakeholders will be engaged.

Hon. K. Conroy: The forest landscape planning that is being recommended in this

legislation is in one of the sections that we’ll probably get to, but

maybe this will answer it first, rather than answering the question, as

the member says, when we get to it. It’ll start with the

government-to-government consultation, discussions, those important

discussions which we do not have the ability to do right now. That’s not

in legislation anywhere.

It will start with those important discussions, and then it’ll go

to the stakeholders that are involved — for example, industry,

communities, ranchers, adventure tourism. Those are some examples of the

people that would have a say in it, and it would all revolve around the

forest landscape planning opportunities in the various regions across

the province where they’ll be situated.

J. Rustad: I’m not sure if this sort of thing should be saved for when we get

into

section 34 of the bill, or clause 34 of the bill. I guess we use

“clause” now instead of “sections.” I’m still old school. Sorry. It’s

been confusing going back and forth.

The reason why I ask about…. The minister talked about greater

stakeholder engagement. Can the minister maybe explain the process once

the chief forester…? Like I say, this will be talked about in

section 33

and

section 34. Once the chief forester reaches an agreement with First

Nations in terms of a landscape-level plan, what is the process? How

does the minister see stakeholder engagement potentially changing or

altering that plan?

[4:30 p.m.]

The Chair: You see, the bill has clauses, which amend sections. That’s

why they’re called clauses.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. K. Conroy: What the whole…. The forest landscape planning table is ensuring

that we have those really important government-to-government discussions

first with Indigenous nations and then engaging with the stakeholders.

There is the potential that plans could be amended if new information

comes to light, with agreement with the Indigenous nations.

J. Rustad: The reason for asking that specific question and the reason why

I’m sort of asking that up front, as opposed to waiting for the bill, is

because it…. In terms of the honour of the Crown and the engagement with

First Nations, reaching an agreement on a plan…. I fail to see how input

will be able to substantially change that plan.

I’m using the example of Cariboo, up in the Peace country. When

the agreement was done between the First Nation and the province, there

was a process that went out for engagement. It was a rather lengthy

process, and there was a lot of engagement, a lot of suggestions, a lot

of adjustments and changes. At the end of the day, there were no changes

because there was no agreement between the First Nation and government

on making those changes.

In this process of going out and having greater stakeholder

engagement…. The reason for asking about this is…. I’m just wondering,

if that engagement leads to suggestions for potential change, whether or

not government has the ability or the willingness to implement those

changes if there isn’t agreement with the First Nations or whether it

has to go back through a whole process again of redeveloping a plan and

reaching agreement with First Nations.

I guess the follow-up to that is…. Usually, once government

reaches agreement with a nation and it’s signed off…. Because it’s

signed off, it’s extremely difficult to be able to actually to go back

and change that.

That’s why I’m asking how the process is about this. When the

minister says “greater stakeholder engagement,” I fail to see how that

process will actually lead to changes — rather than, perhaps,

frustration by stakeholders as they are told what the plan is, as

opposed to being involved in developing the plan.

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: When the landscape plans are being developed, they’re being

developed government to government with Indigenous nations. Then there

is input from other stakeholders.

The specific objectives that the chief forester has to consider in

the preparation of the forest landscape plan…. There are a number of

them. I’m going to list them off for the member. The chief forester has

the final say. That’s part of the legislation. That’s in this

section as

well.

Supporting the production and supply of timber in the forest

landscape area. Supporting the protection and conservation of the

environment. Managing the values placed on the forest ecosystem by

Indigenous nations. Managing the values placed on the forest ecosystem

by local communities. Preventing, mitigating and adapting to impacts

caused by significant disturbances to forests and forest health,

including wildfire, insects, disease and drought. All of those things

are taken into consideration by the chief forester before she makes her

final decision.

J. Rustad: I’ll save some questions around that for when we get to that

section of the bill. I have a number of questions around

that.

It makes me wonder, in terms of this process…. It is a

government-to-government…. It’s two equal bodies, I suppose, in terms of

coming together to develop the landscape plans and the process we’re

going through.

If I heard the minister correctly…. Please correct me if I didn’t.

The minister just said that the final decision-making rests with the

chief forester and that it is on advice from the First Nation, not as a

joint decision by the First Nation. Is that correct?

Hon. K. Conroy: There is shared decision-making. The whole process is there within

the landscape management plan process. If there are disputes, there are

multiple stages of criteria to go through to resolve those disputes. In

the end, it’s up to the statutory decision–maker, which is the chief

forester.

[4:40 p.m.]

J. Rustad: Okay. I think I understand that. It’s shared decision-making. In

other words, it’s more of an advice model, with the decision being made,

than it is a joint decision, although I’m sure….

I’m asking that specifically because in a joint decision-making

model, there has to be agreement by both parties in terms of how

decisions will be made on the landscape. In an advice model or shared

decision-making model, the authority for the final decision rests with,

in this case, the chief forester. The First Nations input is brought in

as advice, as opposed to more of that joint decision-making.

I’m asking that specifically because, obviously, there are issues

around who makes those decisions on the landscape, and if something goes

wrong, who is ultimately held liable for decisions or issues on a

landscape. So that’s why I’m asking, just for clarity, to understand

that the decision-making rests with the chief forester and that there is

advice, input, from a shared nature with First Nations, but it is not a

joint decision by a First Nation on a management plan or on the

landscape plan.

Hon. K. Conroy: As is part of the declaration,

section 7 agreements are joint or

consent decisions, and that’s what this is going to be with this

legislation.

J. Rustad: I need to ask for some clarity, if I can, from the minister, then,

associated with that, because there is a varying perspective of what

joint or shared decision-making means. So that’s why I’m asking

specifically about the authority to make the decision and the role of

the First Nations in making that decision and where liability would lie

if there are issues associated with that decision.

Hon. K. Conroy: The difference between the consultation and cooperation is that a

decision-making agreement is a joint or consent-based decision-making

agreement between the province and the Indigenous governing body,

enabled by

section 7 of the Declaration Act.

Section 7 requires that

negotiation of a decision-making agreement be authorized by cabinet and

key process steps be completed before the decision-making agreement is

approved and implemented. That’s already in the act.

Amendments to FRPA, to what we’re talking about today, enable an

Indigenous governing body and the chief forester to negotiate a process

for consultation and cooperation on the preparation and establishment of

the forest landscape plan. A negotiated process may require the chief

forester to seek consent from the Indigenous governing body to establish

the forest landscape plan but does not limit the statutory authority of

the chief forester to proceed with establishment if consent is not

provided.

[4:45 p.m.]

J. Rustad: That helps to clarify some things on that.

I’ve got a few more thoughts that I want to add to that, but my

colleague from Saanich North and the Islands would like to ask a couple

of questions associated with this as well, so I’ll cede the floor to

him.

A. Olsen: Just some further questions around the commitment to free, prior

and informed consent and the commitments that we’ve made to Indigenous

nations.

As the minister has just clearly outlined, this is, essentially,

enshrining the system that currently exists, which is: this government

has the ability to override, if an Indigenous nation chooses to not want

forestry activities to go on in their territory. As the minister just

said, the statutory decision–maker can continue and proceed

anyway.

Hon. K. Conroy: The bill supports Indigenous participation in forest planning and

decision-making within the nations’ traditional territories by

enabling…. There are three avenues for shared decision-making. The first

one is the implementation of joint or consent-based decision-making

agreements with the governing body under

section 7 of the

act.

Then there is the negotiation of a consultation and cooperation

agreement between the chief forester and the Indigenous governing body

that specifies how consent-seeking will occur in relation to forest

landscape plan establishment.

The third opportunity is the introduction of a default

consultation and cooperation process that could be relied on if a

negotiated consultation and cooperation agreement with an Indigenous

governing body can’t be achieved in a timely manner. This also could be

brought in, in situations where there are overlapping claims, and one

nation has one idea, and another nation has another idea, so there has

to be consent and collaboration between the two nations.

That is another reason why the chief forester would be the person

to have a say in that process. That’s why we’ve laid out three

opportunities to ensure we work towards…. The bottom line is to work

with Indigenous nations and to come to joint consent.

[4:50 p.m.]

A. Olsen: This still has the Crown at the centre of the decision, though. It

doesn’t reflect a decision-making process in which the nations have….

What I think the Premier and what the minister have used is language

around rights and title holders, sovereignty. It doesn’t actually

reflect a perspective in which this Crown government is embracing the

reality of rights and title and sovereignty. This is still putting the

Crown at the absolute centre of the decision that’s being

made.

Hon. K. Conroy: This is

section 7 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

Peoples Act, which the Indigenous nations embraced. That is what we are

following here.

A. Olsen: I respectfully disagree. It’s not, because we have a situation in

this act where the chief forester, if they’re not able to achieve

consent, can proceed anyway. I’m wondering how that would apply to, say,

the Tŝilhqot’in situation. Maybe the minister can provide some

perspective on how this relates specifically to the Tŝilhqot’in decision

of 2014.

Hon. K. Conroy: With due respect, we had agreed to some general discussion, but I

think we need to get into the section-by-section. Then we can answer

those questions specifically when they come up in the

section that they

relate to.

J. Rustad: I agree. We’re going to need to move into the section-by-section thing.

There are details…. This will jump around, but I do want to ask one more

question — or perhaps more than one — on general terms. Sorry, I’ve got to make

sure. It depends on the answers, of course, right?

In particular, what I’m wondering about is…. The minister has listed the

objectives that the chief forester will be looking at in terms of identifying a

forest landscape plan. I’ve got to try to remember the new lingo and try to get

used to using it on a regular basis.

What I’m wondering is: for those objectives, will the minister be

implementing performance measures? Many of the things that we have done in the

past, whether it is ungulate winter range or old-growth management areas or all

of these kinds of things, were set out for a target. But there were never any

measures to look at the effectiveness of those various plans historically. I’m

just wondering if there are thoughts around putting performance measures in

around the objectives that will go into these plans.

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The act specifically says that the chief forester has to report

out on outcomes, and those outcomes are established in the forest

landscape plan. These have to be done periodically, and it’s set through

policy.

J. Rustad: I want to turn it over to my colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin for

a couple of general questions, but I do want to come back to the issue

of performance measures. I’ll do that after my colleague jumps

in.

L. Doerkson: My first question is around the age of old growth. Are there only

two determinations, and what are those ages at?

Hon. K. Conroy: With all due respect, that has nothing to do with the

act.

L. Doerkson: Well, then let me ask a question. Under this act, are there

younger stands of trees now being considered old growth?

Hon. K. Conroy: Again, that has nothing to do with the act.

L. Doerkson: Are we still allowed to ask a couple of general questions? Is that

still appropriate?

The Chair: Sure. As long as they are appropriate to the act, for

sure.

L. Doerkson: I guess we’ll come back to that. Can you just tell me overall how

this bill will provide greater certainty to the sector so that forest

companies that do continue to invest in British Columbia, and not other

jurisdictions down south, will see value here?

Hon. K. Conroy: When we get to the

section on forest landscape planning, it’ll

show the certainty and how we’re moving forward with the act.

L. Doerkson: What analysis has been done to determine what costs or savings

this bill will result in for organizations and companies as they embark

on complying with the new provisions provided in this bill?

Hon. K. Conroy: We feel that this will be cost-neutral, because companies are already

involved in forest stewardship planning. This is just more…. The legislation

will bring in more involvement and collaboration, government-to-government,

with Indigenous nations.

[5:00 p.m.]

J. Rustad: I want to thank the minister for engaging on the questions. I know

that some of them aren’t quite shaped for what we need — for what we’re

talking about here — but they are relevant, as we get into the

bill.

I actually wanted to ask one more question just around the

performance measures. I understand that the chief forester has some

reporting out to do around that process. With those performance measures

that you mentioned, is that something that will be done by agreement

with the First Nations? Is there input or ways to be able to perhaps

shape those performance measures that may be different from one

landscape unit to another?

Obviously, what is going on, on Vancouver Island is different from

the Kootenays, different from the Interior and different from the North,

so there may be different objectives that need to be met on there in

terms of how these landscape plans are met and the sort of performance

measures that could be looked at. The reason for asking is that at some

point, I’m sure the Auditor General or the Forest Practices Board or

somebody will be looking at these, and they’ll be looking at how to

measure whether what is being implemented is successful.

I’m just trying to understand how this reporting process will be

done so that it can be there and transparent for people to be able to

see.

Hon. K. Conroy: That’s the list that I’ve already read off, of the objectives that the

chief forester has to follow in determining the forest landscape planning. One

of the values, for instance, is community values. Of course, there are

different community values based on where they are. Yes, areas are different

across the province, so there will be different objectives.

J. Rustad: Will those values potentially include, for example, range, the

quality of range, things like invasive weeds — these types of things?

This is all part of managing on a landscape and setting objectives on a

landscape as well as, of course, wildlife and wildlife values. It might

even be things like access in or through to other areas for recreation,

etc.

I’m just wondering how extensive we’re looking at in terms of the

values that will be on the landscape as part of these plans or whether

these will be high-level plans and those o

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20211115pm-House-Blues
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20211115pm-House-Blues
Language	en
Format	htm
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	f6e1565e138bb68fdd12be8ce5b638bd83415924

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

British Columbia Hansard — Monday, November 15, 2021, p.m., Issue 128 (42nd Parliament, 2nd Session)

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

ISSN 1499-2175

CONTENTS

L. Doerkson

I. Paton

L. Doerkson

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2021

BILL 30 — ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

BILL 20 — ACCESS TO SERVICES

(COVID-19) ACT

BILL 28 — FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

part 11.1 of the Forest Act will provide authority for

MILLWRIGHTS

AND MILLWRIGHTS LOCAL 2736

MULTICULTURALISM

AND ANTI-RACISM MOVEMENT

EVACUATED PETS FROM LYTTON FIRE

AND WORK OF SPCA

DIABETES AWARENESS

OCEANSIDE HOSPICE SOCIETY

APPRENTICESHIPS IN SKILLED TRADES

SERVICE MODEL CHANGE

FOR CHILDREN WITH SUPPORT NEEDS

AND FUNDING FOR

AUTISM SERVICES

DEFERRAL OF OLD-GROWTH LOGGING

AND CONSULTATION WITH FIRST NATIONS

FOREST INDUSTRY

FOREST POLICY CHANGES AND

SOCIOECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF

IMPACTS

L. Doerkson: You know, under the B.C. jobs plan, the forest sector saw the addition of 10,000 jobs…

L. Doerkson: …all of which have been lost under the NDP, and the minister seems to be

FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT

SERVICES COMMITTEE

BILL 24 — ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT,

section 1, trying to get a good

I. Paton: Based on the massive use of agricultural plastics throughout the world….

I. Paton: I’d like to, further, just give a definition of some of the many, many

I. Paton: If you’ll indulge me, since I have an opportunity to ask a few questions

section 1 here, in clause 1, we’re

section 4 now.

BILL 24 — ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

BILL 23 — FORESTS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT,

section 34 of the bill, or clause 34 of the bill. I guess we use

section 33

section 34. Once the chief forester reaches an agreement with First

section 7 agreements are joint or

section 7 of the Declaration Act.

Section 7 requires that

section 7 of the

section 7 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

L. Doerkson: My first question is around the age of old growth. Are there only

L. Doerkson: Well, then let me ask a question. Under this act, are there

L. Doerkson: Are we still allowed to ask a couple of general questions? Is that

L. Doerkson: I guess we’ll come back to that. Can you just tell me overall how

L. Doerkson: What analysis has been done to determine what costs or savings

Document details