Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, May 12, 2022

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 206

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Forests

Hon. K. Conroy

A. Olsen

D. Clovechok

J. Rustad

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)

S. Bond

Hon. A. Dix

J. Tegart

S. Furstenau

THURSDAY, MAY 12, 2022

The House met at 1:03 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. L. Beare: In this House, I call Committee of Supply, estimates of the Ministry of

Forests.

In

Section A, Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of Supply, continued

estimates of the Ministry of Health.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); J. Tegart in the

chair.

The committee met at 1:05 p.m.

The Chair: I will call a ten-minute recess.

The committee recessed from 1:05 p.m. to 1:11 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

On Vote 30: ministry operations, $430,989,000.

Hon. K. Conroy: I’m not going to make an opening statement, because I think that

people want to get right to the opportunity to ask questions. But I

would like to introduce the staff with me, and I do want to let the

members that will be asking questions know that we have staff across the

hall as well. There might be times when we have to bring other staff in,

which we’ll have to give us a few minutes to do that.

With me today is Rick Manwaring, our deputy minister; Sonia

Martins, our EFO; Melissa Sanderson, who is now the ADM of timber range

and integrated economics. Matt Austin is the assistant deputy minister

of integrated resource operations. David Muter is on loan to us from

Land, Water and Resource Stewardship as the assistant deputy minister,

and he covers both sides of the ministries.

A. Olsen: It’s nice to have the opportunity to ask questions here in budget

estimates for Forests, a different ministry than we were asking

questions of — a more streamlined ministry, perhaps, focused mostly on

forestry. I appreciate this opportunity.

I’ve been asking all of the ministers, through budget estimates,

an opening question just around reconciliation. The Minister of

Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation noted that the funding for the

action plan that was recently tabled as…. A requirement of the

Declaration Act is that each minister now has, in addition to what’s

already in the mandate letters, key actions that are required of

them.

I’ve heard a lot from the other ministers about those actions. I

think I’m interesting in hearing, from the Minister of Forests, what

she’s doing to ensure that reconciliation remains a core function of the

ministry.

[1:15 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I thank the member for the question. Yes, he’s right that we have

a much more streamlined ministry — still have a lot of staff, and it’s

very busy, so it’s great. It’s great to work in collaboration with the

new ministry as well.

The member referred to the Declaration Act action plan Within our

ministry, we have a real commitment towards reconciliation. Just from

the action plan, there are three action plan items that were actually

informed by engagement with Indigenous peoples, as well as existing and

previous consultations and agreements. The work to implement the

Ministry of Forests actions has already been an initiative, and progress

will be reviewed on an annual basis and publicly reported in the

Declaration Act annual report.

It doesn’t encompass all of the things that the ministry is doing,

actually, to advance reconciliation in B.C., and it doesn’t replace,

limit or change any of our existing initiatives or related commitments.

But the three action plan items that were in the action plan: “Reform

forest legislation, regulations and policy to reflect a shared strategic

vision with First Nations that upholds the rights and objectives of the

UN declaration.”

Also: “Integrate traditional practices and cultural uses of fire

into wildfire prevention and land management practices and support the

reintroduction of strategized burning.” We’ve already started the work

on that, working with Indigenous nations. This came to us very loud and

clear last summer, when the Premier and I toured the Okanagan Indian

Band’s community and saw the devastation of the fire that had gone

through it.

But Chief Louis showed us his aunt’s place. His aunt’s place was a

little green oasis surrounded by all these burned homes and pieces of

land. She practised cultural burning every year. She’s in her 80s, and

he said she’s getting help to do it now. She used to do it by herself,

but now, he said, she calls out the nephews and other people in the

nation to help her.

It just showed such a stark example of how important that was. It

was something that the Premier and I committed to working with the

nations on — to ensure that we’re doing more and more of that. We’ll

actually be doubling those initiatives in this year and next

year.

Also, the third one was: “Work with First Nations to reform the

Heritage Conservation Act to align with the UN declaration, including

shared decision-making and the protection of First Nations cultural,

spiritual and heritage sites and objects.” It’s something that we’ve

heard loud and clear from so many nations across the province. So it’s

something where we really want to make sure that we’re continuing the

work to do that.

A. Olsen: Recently the Minister of Indigenous Relations and the Minister of

Forests announced changes to the forest and range consultation and

revenue-sharing agreements. Perhaps the minister could provide a brief

outline as to what changes were made in those consultation and

revenue-sharing agreements.

[1:20 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The Ministry of Forests generates, on average, over $1 billion in

revenue per year from activities that span the landscape. Since 2003,

the ministry has actively pursued revenue-sharing opportunities with

First Nations to provide accommodation for impacts to rights and title.

As part of our commitment to UNDRIP, we recently announced our intention

to co-develop a new forestry revenue–sharing model with First Nations as

part of the new fiscal relationship, which the member referred to, in

collaboration with the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation.

At the same time, we also introduced interim changes to the

existing forest consultation and revenue-sharing program that everybody

refers to as FCRSA. It at least doubles the amount of forestry revenue

shared with First Nations. The changes also replace outdated agreement

language that we recognize as inconsistent with our reconciliation

practices — something, I believe, the member raised last year in

estimates. I think he’ll be happy to know that we are moving forward on

this. We’ve heard from other nations as well. Some nations who never

signed on to the FCRSA plan, specifically because of that, are now

interested in moving forward.

It’s also this interim revenue enhancement. It’ll provide stable

funding for First Nations governments while we collaborate with First

Nations on the overall new permanent forestry revenue solution. Under

the existing formula, First Nations are eligible to share between 3 and

5 percent of forestry revenues for activities in their territories. The

interim formula raises revenue-sharing to between 8 and 10 percent, with

an additional 3 percent on B.C. Timber Sales volume.

This engagement that we’re going to be doing with nations is

expected to take about two years to do. Interim enhancements and

language changes will take place in the next two years — maybe longer,

depending on how the consultation goes. We want to make sure that we get

this right, but the funding will come into effect now.

M. Starchuk: I’m going to see if I can do this right. I’m seeking leave to

make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

M. Starchuk: Today in the gallery is Mrs. Hoyano’s grade 5 class from Frost Road

Elementary. Mrs. Hoyano’s group is chaperoned by Mr. Murithi, Mrs. Schecker,

Mrs. Kaushal, Mrs. Deuma, Mrs. Moreira, Mrs. Engada, Mrs. White and Mr.

Abebe. Later today the gallery will be filled with Mrs. Olson’s and Mrs.

Hart’s grade 5 classes. Would everybody, all of us, please join me in

welcoming this group to the House today.

Debate Continued

A. Olsen: Just for the benefit of Mrs. Hoyano’s class: we are in budget

estimates. Sitting, visible to you, is the Minister of Forests. Every

year the Minister of Forests and the government tables a budget, and

those of us on this side of the House — well, at least, partly this side

of the House — get an opportunity to ask the ministers questions about

how they’re spending the money and how they’re doing the work. In this

case, it’s on forestry. That’s what you’re watching today. It’s a

riveting exercise, I’m sure you’ll see, as it develops. So just for your

benefit, that’s what we’re doing in here today.

The Premier and others in government have talked about rights and

title, and have in fact even invoked the word and used the word

“sovereignty” for Indigenous peoples. In the information that goes out

in the government press release — on the content of that going from 3 to

5 percent to 8 to 10 percent — in the minister’s perspective, do those

revenue percentages reflect the government’s position that Indigenous

nations have title and sovereignty over their territories?

[1:25 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: This is an interim step as we collaborate with First Nations on

the overall new fiscal relationship. As part of that fiscal

relationship, fiscal revenue–sharing, we anticipate addressing rights

and title in the broader new fiscal relationship engagement. We have had

validation from numerous First Nations leaders that have said that we

are moving in the right direction.

A. Olsen: There’s at least shared sovereignty — at least a 50-50

relationship. Does the minister foresee a future where the provincial

government is sharing 50 percent of the revenues in forestry or

Indigenous nations are sharing with the province 50 percent of revenue

from forestry? Actually, I’ll frame it that way. Does the minister

foresee a future where Indigenous nations are sharing 50 percent of the

revenue of forestry from their territories?

[1:30 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: We aren’t assuming the outcomes of the broader collaboration and

engagement that we’re going to be undertaking in the next two years. We

will be building, as government, on the new fiscal relationship with

First Nations. Again, I’m not going to be pre-empting the outcomes of

that collaboration.

A. Olsen: I’m just going to ask the minister a question about the Drax group

and the wood pellet industry. As is known, the wood pellet industry is

growing in British Columbia — the ten million tonnes of pellets produced

per year by Drax, in particular. They recently purchased Pinnacle

Renewable Energy, essentially controlling 50 percent of the wood pellet

mills in British Columbia. Burning pellets for energy, of course, is

damaging to the environment.

Can the minister explain how it is that we continue to lose

forests in this province, turning them into possibly the lowest-value

product that you can, in order to just burn them in wood pellet plants

for energy?

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The impacts of wood pellets depend on the source and the type of

material used to produce the pellets. Pellets produced from a fibre

source that would otherwise be burned typically have an immediate GHG

benefit.

The 12 wood pellet processing facilities in B.C. have an estimated

combined full capacity of 1.8 million tonnes per year. The vast majority

of fibre used by wood pellet facilities comes from milling residuals and

harvest residuals — for instance, slash piles. Those slash piles would

be otherwise burned. There is far less GHG being produced by them being

made into pellets as opposed to burning slash piles in the

forest.

[1:40 p.m.]

We’re trying to use every bit of the trees. We’re making sure that

there is none left to be burned in a slash pile.

A. Olsen: If slash piles and residual fibre were the only fibre being used

and turned into pellets, that would be one thing. Several groups last

month asked a question, and I’m not sure that they got the answer, so

I’ll ask the question here, on the record. How many publicly owned logs

are being turned into wood pellets in British Columbia? Actually, what

I’ll say is: last year, how many logs were turned into and allocated to

the wood pellet mills?

Hon. K. Conroy: The wood pellet processing facilities in B.C. have a combined full

capacity of 2.52 million tonnes per year, and 75 percent of that fibre

comes from sawmill residues, such as sawdust, chips and shavings; 25

percent comes from harvest residue, such as tops, salvage logs that are

unsuitable for sawmills, branches, mill yard waste — things like

that.

Actually, right now, with the price of lumber, you’d be hard

pressed to find any sawmill that isn’t using quality saw logs in their

mills, and that would not be going to pellets. It’s just the cost of

lumber right now. That’s just not happening.

A. Olsen: Shifting gears here away from the pellet industry to old growth.

Just wanting to ask the minister…. There have been a lot of deferrals.

Deferrals are an interim measure, one that only protects these

ecosystems for a brief period of time. There is not long-term

protection.

[1:45 p.m.]

They’re not the end goal. Deferrals are a step in a process to

protecting these ecosystems, recognizing that there’s a multitude of

interests, including Indigenous nations — interests that need to be

taken into consideration and accommodated.

One of the challenges that we’ve seen over the last, I would say,

year with respect to old growth is just with respect to accountability

and the ability to hold government accountable to the commitments and

the numbers that are being said.

Will the minister commit to providing frequent and consistent

updates, including regularly updated maps, with respect to the deferrals

that have been announced, the deferral areas that have been announced,

the areas where tree cutting is currently happening, so that British

Columbians can ensure that the announcements are indeed protecting those

trees for at least the brief period of time that the deferral has been

announced for?

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: We have been making regular reports on what’s happening with the

old growth, making public reports. I just recently gave one last month

where we announced 1.7 million cubic metres that have been deferred.

I’ve made a public commitment to that, and we will be doing that

regularly, sharing as much as we can.

The maps are part of confidential discussions,

government-to-government, with Indigenous nations, but the licensees, on

an individual basis, have been updated or provided the information about

specific areas. It’s quite interesting to note that many of the nations

are working in collaboration with industry. Industry has reached out

voluntarily to a number of — like, a majority of — the nations and is

working with them, which we think is a good thing.

Industry has, for the most part, taken this to heart. We just had

lunch with COFI board members, and they acknowledged that. Moving ahead,

they recognized that this is something that needs to be done. It’s

something that is happening in the province.

A. Olsen: At COP26, nations got together and committed to a

non-deforestation pledge, I think by 2030. Now, deforestation is when a

jurisdiction purposefully cuts down trees and then converts that land to

something else. In British Columbia, we seemingly, I think, state that

we don’t engage in deforestation here, because we replant with

trees.

However, we call them tree farms. We require that at least 95

percent of the land, I think, is planted with coniferous trees. We

utilize mechanical planting techniques and the use of pesticides to

remove a variety of native plant species from those areas in order to

farm trees.

I’m wondering if the minister can clarify how it is that we are

not engaging in deforestation in this province when we are clearly

practising tree farming. In fact, we even call them tree farms. The

removal of the biodiversity in the forests is an indication that we are

engaged in deforestation in this province.

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: We do not practise deforestation in British Columbia. In fact, we

operate on a sustainable forest management system. We have good, solid

legal objectives in place to maintain biodiversity. As well, we will

continue to enhance biodiversity in partnership with my colleague in the

new Ministry of Land, Water and Resource Stewardship, and I’m looking

forward to that collaboration between the two ministries.

A. Olsen: This year, last year…. I continue to find it remarkable that five

to eight minutes’ worth of consultation turns into a 30-second response.

I’ve been in here for an hour. My time is up. I’ve asked a total of six

or seven questions. I find it incredibly hard to be able to hold a

ministry accountable that is so fundamental to the current and future

situation in our province and have so much time not spent answering

questions, but rather just…. It’s baffling.

[2:00 p.m.]

I can understand the minister not wanting to engage this question

in any way and just completely deflecting it. The reality of it is that

when we are spraying forests with herbicide, with the express intent of

killing natural species in order to advantage the trees in the

farm….

All you have to do is go and walk. There’s actually a road in the

Premier’s riding that has an old-growth forest on one side and a tree

farm on the other side. There’s nothing similar between those two areas.

Nothing similar. There are literally trees that are going to be

harvested on one side of the road with nothing else in them — no

understorey, no salal, no berries, nothing. On the other side, it is….

When the minister says biodiversity, it is biodiversity.

How is it that we can justify these tree farms as calling them a

replacement for the biodiversity that is literally devastated in

clearcuts, replanting them as farms and saying that we are not engaged

in deforestation? It’s a communications exercise. It’s not an exercise

in reality.

I ask the minister again. How can we compare the two — a

biodiverse, rich ecosystem of old-growth forest, an actual forest, and

an area with one or two species that is on a harvest plan — and call

that a suitable replacement? How is that not engaged in

deforestation?

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I just want to make it clear with the member that since 2015, the

use of glyphosate in the forest sector has declined by 96 percent. I

just want to make sure that that’s on the record.

Herbicide is just one silviculture treatment used to assist in the

plantation survival and establishment and, ultimately, achieve

free-growing status. The herbicide option — it’s usually reserved for

situations where other silvicultural options have not been or may not be

completely successful, for instance, manual brushing which is utilized,

or for safety purposes.

Again, the herbicide use in B.C.’s forest industry has declined

significantly in recent years as foresters use a variety of approaches

to manage competing vegetation, including manual, mechanical and

biological treatments.

Any government-approved use of glyphosate under a pest management

plan must also submit an annual report identifying the quantity used,

the size of the area that was sprayed and the method of

application.

The member is expressing concerns about his time in estimates.

What I offered last year, and I will it offer again — any questions that

he hasn’t had time to ask, we’re more than happy to submit them. We will

get those answers to him as we did last year. We got significant

questions answered for the member. Also, if the member requires a

specific briefing on any of these issues, the staff are more than happy

to provide that for the member.

D. Clovechok: I’m pleased to be standing here today talking about all things

Columbia.

To the staff back there: thank you for all the fantastic work that

you do. It’s important work. We all really appreciate it.

We’re going to talk about all things Columbia, which I think

should have its own estimates, but nobody has taken us up on that. I

know that throughout the basin there are a lot of people asking: what is

the status of the treaty?

What’s going on right now? I know the negotiations have been

ongoing. If you could provide a bit of an update as to where the

negotiations are. How is it going with our colleagues to the south, in

the United States, and just give us that update?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I just want to introduce the new staff that have come: Les

MacLaren, the ADM on loan from EMLI, from Energy, Mines and Low Carbon

Innovation; and Kathy Eichenberger, who is our executive director for

all things. She’s our chief negotiator for the Columbia River treaty and

does an amazing job.

Negotiations on the treaty began in May of 2018. There have been

12 rounds of negotiations to date, but due to COVID, rounds 10 to 12

were held virtually. The topics discussed during the negotiations

include flood risk management, hydropower coordination, ecosystems,

adaptive management and Libby dam operations, which I know is something

that is near and dear to the member’s heart, being over from the East

Kootenays.

In June 2020, Canada tabled a framework proposal for a modernized

treaty. That was developed collaboratively by Canada, B.C. and the

Columbia Basin Indigenous nations, who are part of the negotiating team.

Canada’s proposal followed a framework on key issues presented by U.S.

negotiators in the March 2020 round.

The U.S. unplugged, I think we can say, but they re-engaged in

December 2021. After 18 months of waiting for the U.S. to engage…. I

mean, there was an election. There were some other issues. It took a

while for them to come back to the table, but now they are back to the

table and want to begin the negotiations again in a more fulsome way.

Our team is ready and ready to engage with the Americans.

D. Clovechok: Speaking of engagement, it seems to be happening a lot in this

chamber in the last couple of days. You had to be here to understand

that.

Anyways, I would like to know what that engagement looks like. I

know that the Americans have been kind of tripping over their feet a

little bit in terms of the speed and the agreements. I mean, water has

become such a critical issue to not only this province but to this

country. I know the Americans are thirsty for it.

So how are those negotiations? What do timelines look like? Have

they been receptive? Where have those…? It doesn’t seem to be moving. I

mean, we’re doing a great job. We’re doing lots of things north of the

border. But why has it taken so long for the Americans to kind of get

their stuff together?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I want to thank the member for the question. This is a really very

complex set of negotiations. The member is nodding in agreement. On the

other side of the border, they have a variety of interests. They have

conflicting interests. It’s actually more difficult for them to pull the

proposals together. We have a fairly streamlined team working on our

proposals — the province, the three nations, Canada — so it’s much more

streamlined. They’ve also had changes in their delegation members. The

Army Corps of Engineers have changed other members, as have some of the

other people that are at the table.

As I said, they are willing to have more frequent meetings and

more frequent engagement, and we are ready for that. The only thing as

far as timelines go, as I believe the member knows, is that the actual

treaty doesn’t end. In order for the treaty to end, either nation has to

give ten years’ notice. To date, no one has given ten years’ notice that

they want to end the treaty, so we will continue having those

discussions.

The only thing that does come to an end in 2024 is the method of

called-upon, where the Americans can call upon us to release more water.

It’s a flood risk management tool. That comes to an end in 2024. So

those are discussions that are ongoing as to what’s going to happen in

2024, because they do need that. Flood risk management is critically

important to our friends across the line.

D. Clovechok: I think Kathy will become Canada’s next ambassador to the United

States after she’s been through this. But thank you for that answer.

It’s important because a lot of the questions we do get are on what

happens after 2024. That’s a question that’s really, really out there,

so that’s very helpful. It’s good to know, just gleaning from your

answer, that the Americans are still very engaged, simply because the

flood control is a big issue there.

[2:20 p.m.]

I’m wondering if the minister could just, in a very succinct and

quick way, outline some of the great things that are happening. Even

though the treaty negotiations are ongoing, there are some amazing

things that are happening north of the border with the treaty and the

organizations that are associated with it. So if you could just give a

summary, for the record, of salmon restoration, heritage and those sorts

of things — just really quickly.

Hon. K. Conroy: There’s so much going on. It’s hard to do that in a succinct,

quick way. Sorry.

First Nations are leading the ecosystem management process to

improve that. Local governments are engaged in improving socioeconomic

issues in the basin when it comes to recreation, transportation,

flooding prevention — those various issues that the local governments

are very involved in.

There’s a big focus on looking at the impacts of the treaty in the

past. There’s been collaboration with First Nations and non–First

Nations to develop a heritage tour that will boost tourism in the

region. It will give people an opportunity to go around the basin, and

there will be signage and places to look at and give that history of

what actually happened in the basin. So people can go around and see

that.

Other efforts, and some individual efforts, include diking in the

Creston area and air quality in Valemount for specific areas. There are

also regional meetings with CBRAC, the Columbia Basin regional advisory

council, as well as a local government committee, a committee made up of

representation from local governments from the basin who meet regularly.

They meet regularly with myself, as minister, and also meet regularly

with Kathy in her role. So there are continual meetings

there.

The Columbia River treaty group…. We try to stay in touch with the

website that’s updated regularly. We have the town hall meetings. I

think the member is joining us on Monday night, at the town hall

meeting. Many people throughout the basin want to hear what’s happening.

They like that.

I think it’s really important to acknowledge that the committee,

Kathy and the people that are working with her in the ministry are

really good at letting the people in the basin know what’s happening at

the negotiating table, while ensuring everybody respects the fact that

the majority of things that happen at the negotiating table are done in

confidence. People have been kept up to date as much as we can. It’s

regular and definitely not like what happened in the early ’60s, when

the treaty was originally written. We’ve taken that to heart in making

sure that people know what’s happening.

D. Clovechok: To the minister: thank you for that.

I think it’s really important. If people want to get into that,

there is, obviously, on the website and such…. I know we get a lot of

questions. “Well, what do they do?” They’re doing a lot. That’s why I

asked that question.

Another, I think, key question, which won’t be hard to answer,

is…. We have had a lot of First Nations engagement on our side, in our

process, which has not really mirrored what has happened in the United

States. I think that that’s really good.

[2:25 p.m.]

If the minister could just kind of outline what that engagement

looks like and explain what that activity is with those First Nations,

maybe who is involved at the table, sitting there. I think there’s a new

member there. Kúkwpi7 Barb Cote is now there as well.

Just a really quick

summary of that. You could take an hour to do

this. I said it again, Minister. Anyway, I’ll leave that with

you.

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: In 2017, the five governments came together and signed the

negotiating framework agreement. It was Canada and B.C. that signed that

agreement with the Secwépemc, the Ktunaxa and the Syilx Okanagan,

consistent with UNDRIP, which was actually before UNDRIP was recognized

officially by either the B.C. government or Canada. So I want to again

commend the treaty folks; they were ahead of their time. Then Minister

Freeland from Canada endorsed the decision to have the Indigenous

nations come as observers in 2019. They were officially brought in as

observers.

The three levels of government have been working very

collaboratively on the treaty negotiations, on all aspects of the

treaty. The First Nations members are involved in the negotiation

positions. They’re involved in collaborating on the Canadian proposals.

They’re very much involved.

Each First Nation has two representatives at the table as part of

their delegation, and while they’re declared observers, they fully

participate and are recognized equally as all other members at the

table. They’ve done presentations to the table. They’ve done one on

salmon management and trying to restore salmon to the Upper Columbia

River.

The difference, I would say, between the Canadian negotiation, our

side, and the Americans is that we have the three nations, and they have

13 tribes. The Americans are now recognizing the input from the tribes

considerably more than was originally intended. They give them

specialist adviser status, and they have also been making presentations

to the treaty table. The work of the treaty folks on our side definitely

led the way, and we’re seeing it on both sides now.

D. Clovechok: To the minister: thank you for that. I think it’s really

important. It’s also interesting that you mentioned that Canada is

actually taking a leadership role in this and that the Americans are

following suit, which they well should have in the beginning. But it’s

not for me to judge.

I’m getting the cattle prod here to my left. I’ve got so many more

questions. In any event, two more.

One of the things that we’re hearing on the street is that…. We

are blessed with the Columbia Basin Trust. It’s such a gift to the basin

and to the people who live there. It’s the envy of all other British

Columbians, frankly. One of the concerns is: will the treaty have an

effect on the support for the trust in the long term? Is that something

that has been thought about?

The second question that I’ll ask — I’ll kind of just put this

together; that way I’m not going to get hurt by my critic here — is on

what the long-term plan is for Columbia Power Corp. It’s simply,

basically, a holding company at this point — three different boards and

all that goes with it. I guess the question that occurs to me is: do you

think that the province should look at selling the interests,

potentially, of the rest of Columbia Power Corp. to the trust? Then the

province could use that money for other hydro projects, and so on and so

forth. Those are the two questions.

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Again, I offer to the member that if there are any briefings he’d

like, he knows that we’re there for him, or if there are any other

questions he’d like answered, we will have those answered.

The questions he asked around the impacts of the treaty on CBT or

CPC — no impacts at all, for the long range. If there is potential for

impacts coming out of the negotiations that could potentially affect CBT

or CPC or the citizens of the region, for that matter, that would be

discussed with the board of CBT or CPC, as well as the citizens of the

basin. Those impacts would be brought to the forefront for citizens that

could….

A very direct answer: the answer is no. The province has no plans

to sell CPC’s 50 percent ownership in these assets — the Arrow Lakes

generating station, the Brilliant dam, the Brilliant expansion or the

Waneta expansion — to CBT or to any other purchaser, if they are

interested. We are not selling.

The revenue from these assets is used to deliver government’s

overall priorities, and has done for a while. Currently the CPC’s

mandate from the province is to ensure the long-term reliability and

profitability of the assets and that the power generation and

transmission assets in the basin continue. It has no new mandate for

developing any new generating assets at this time.

D. Clovechok: Thank you very much to the minister. One of the things I learned

early in my career was that everything is for sale — but not this

time.

In any event, I just want to say thank you to the minister — and

to the Chair for his indulgence of the word “you” and his name. I just

want to say thank you to the minister for this. I wish we did have some

more time. I just also want to say thank you for the inclusion of your

staff as well in this process and for allowing me to keep up to date

with this. That’s greatly appreciated. It’s for the basin. We’re doing

this together. I just want to thank you for the time — and now my

critic, who’s saying: “Sit down, Doug.”

The Chair: I guess we don’t have any more time. No, just

kidding.

Recognizing the member for Nechako Lakes.

J. Rustad: I want to start by thanking the member from the Green Party, as

well as my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke, for coming in and

starting off the questions.

As we go through this, I thought I’d just give you a little bit of

an outline. I’m not sure exactly how it will bounce around. It’ll depend

a little bit on answers. We’ll start off with a few budget questions and

some on the ministry operations stuff. We’re going to go into talking

about old growth and the deferrals, going to touch a little bit on

woodlots, as well as community forests. We’re going to go into some B.C.

timber sales associated with that, as well as some of the longer impacts

on forestry and forestry operations.

[2:40 p.m.]

Like I say, I’m not quite sure how all of that will play out. In

there will be some questions around permitting and the process around

permitting.

Then we will conclude with going into some discussions about

wildfire and wildlife. That will likely be at the next time we’re called

for estimates, which is who knows when, in terms of House Leaders and

what they decide ultimately to do. It’ll probably be another couple of

hours, an hour and a half or so, when we get called back. I’ll try to

save those last two topics for that time. There may be a few other

topics that come up during that time, because we’ll have a few MLA

questions that come in during that time as well.

I apologize for not being able to get that to you, as I normally

have done, to your staff to structure and organize like I have in

previous time. I was working on doing the outline, and next thing I

know, we’re getting called for estimates, so I wasn’t able to quite give

you that type of a heads-up.

Our forest sector is facing a very interesting dilemma. With

$1,000-plus for 1,000 board feet prices, the forest sector has hardly

ever seen it better, except, of course, for the spike up that happened

last year. Yet, at the same time, there isn’t a willingness to reinvest

significantly in British Columbia, except for what is needed. It is a

real challenge for our forest sector, I think, going forward, and it

leaves our forest sector vulnerable to any potential

downturns.

British Columbia is well noted by all analysts as being the

highest cost producer, by a long shot, in North America. It’s also noted

by analysts that it has an incredible amount of instability, both on

timber supply as well as what’s happening on the land base with First

Nations and the massive shift in policy changes that this government is

bringing to the forest sector.

That’s created a very negative environment for companies, as we’re

seeing most companies investing outside of British Columbia. There are a

few exceptions, of course, to that, other than just the maintenance

costs. For companies that have supply contracts, they have to find ways

to be able to meet those contracts, and they’re looking in any

jurisdiction other than British Columbia to be able to do

that.

Like I say, it’s a real tragedy when you think about our forest

sector, and there just seems to be a lack of an advocate for forestry,

quite frankly, within the current government and for our forest sector

and our forest communities.

I want to start just with a first question, if I may. In the

budget, the projections for stumpage revenue are going to cut in half

over the next three years. Could the minister provide an explanation as

to what will be contributing to stumpage revenues cutting in half over

the next three years?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: We’ve got a couple more staff that have joined us since we first

started. Eamon O’Donoghue is the associate deputy minister. David Muter

was here; I know I introduced him already. Albert Nussbaum is one of the

new ones. Office of the chief forester is also here. And I have already

introduced Melissa. Okay, we’re good.

Just to start, the member opened with some statements that I just

want to respond to. Both of us were just at the COFI convention two

weeks ago. We just had lunch again with COFI today. What I’m hearing

from the industry is that they’ve had the most incredible successful two

years that they’ve had in years. It’s been very, very, very successful

for the industry. They’re very profitable.

I’ve always heard from them that they are working with us, in

collaboration with us, in the changes that are happening in the

ministry. They recognize that reconciliation is a direction we need to

move in. Many are wholeheartedly embracing it, working collaboratively

with Indigenous nations, working across the province. I’m hearing that

from…. I heard it again today at the luncheon. I’ve heard it at

COFI.

They are recognizing that they’ve had an extremely successful

couple years, and they recognize the changes that need to be made for

the benefit of everybody in the province. For the benefit of people that

work in the primary industry, which is critically important to this

province, as well as the secondary manufacturing industry, which is also

critically important.

Then also making sure we’re working with communities and the

all-important work with First Nations. I don’t quite hear the doom and

gloom that the member opposite was portraying, but I just wanted to put

that on the record. I’ve had some very successful and very open, good

discussions. Do we agree to disagree on some issues? Yes, we do. But we

all agree that we need to move forward for a positive, successful,

sustainable forest industry in this province, and we are all committed

to that.

In direct response to the member’s question, the budget and fiscal

plan projected stumpage revenues will be down $670 million in the next

fiscal year. So 75 percent of this decrease is due to the expected

decline in lumber prices — 75 percent. We have experienced historically

high lumber prices for the past year, especially during COVID recovery.

I think just about everybody in the province was doing renovations or

fixing things because they couldn’t go anywhere. So in the last couple

of years, people were doing things around their home.

B.C. has a market-based stumpage system, and this means the

revenue we collect is based on lumber prices. While we expected a

decline in harvest volumes for a variety of reasons, and this includes

the impacts of mountain pine beetle…. I heard about that loud and clear

when I was recently in the member from Cariboo south’s constituency last

weekend, that the beetle infestation has made significant impact into

the forest, and also wildfires. So, only a fraction of this is due to

the old growth deferrals — a fraction. Much more of it is due to beetle

infestation and wildfires.

[2:50 p.m.]

J. Rustad: Well, I think the minister sees the world, perhaps, through

rose-coloured glasses, compared to the realities we’re facing. Old

growth, just for example, is 12½ percent just by area of the

timber-harvesting land base. Just by area, that’s a 12½ percent

reduction — just by that. The problem is that the impact of that is also

much higher because it is the mid-term timber supply through most of the

province.

That is what the industry was counting on for much of what they’re

going to be cutting over the next 15 to 20 years, until they can

transition more towards secondary growth. You’re taking a lot of that

volume — it’s 12 percent over time, but it’s all up front — in the

impact, particularly to the interior

section of the province. So to hear

that it’s a small fraction is, I think, quite frankly, a little bit of

wishful thinking and perhaps a little misleading, in terms of the impact

of old growth.

I will say this to the minister, in terms of her response.

Industry is already well out in advance of government in its

relationships with the First Nations and the work it’s doing. That work

started under our government, it’s continually advancing, and it’s great

to see. There’s a lot of reconciliation that is already happening. As a

matter of fact, many of these agreements that are in place are happening

despite — not with — what government is doing, and industry has told me

that directly around these sorts of things.

Yes, industry is making tremendous amounts of money, because

lumber prices spiked up to $1,800-something last year, and they’re still

hovering around $1,000 at this point, for 1,000 board feet. Of course

they’re making money. Now, are they investing in British Columbia? No.

Why are they not investing in British Columbia? That’s the question that

the minister needs to be thinking about in terms of what the future of

our forest sector is.

As we see the stumpage revenues drop off — and the minister said

that 70 percent of that is due to the expected drop in lumber prices —

can the minister provide the projections of lumber prices, over the next

four years, that they’re using for these calculations?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: What I can give the member is the number for 2022. Stumpage

forecast assumes U.S. $575 for 1,000 board feet price for lumber.

The market has been volatile, as the member has acknowledged, but we do

anticipate healthy markets. We’ll evaluate as part of our service

plan.

J. Rustad: That’s fairly disappointing. The answer that the minister gave on

the first was that the stumpage was based on the projection of lumber

prices, and then she’s not able to provide the projection of lumber

prices. So that’s disappointing to hear. But if that’s what the answer

is, then that’s what the answer is.

The reason for asking that, of course, is that I look at these

projections and, yes, projected stumpage from 2021 was $37. Projected

stumpage, I think, from 2022 is projected to be $25 a cubic metre,

which, of course, is a 35 percent, 40 percent drop or whatever that

number is in revenue side. That does equate to the drop here in forest

revenues from $1.8 billion to $1.12 billion. So I get all of

that.

Right now two-thirds of the industry in the Interior is operating

at three days or four days a week because they can’t get railcars. They

can’t move wood. That problem is going to persist. It has been happening

for many months now.

[3:00 p.m.]

The amount of volume that is likely to go across for forest

revenues in British Columbia is going to be significantly lower than, I

think, what is being projected if that persists. I was talking with the

industry on the coast, and they’ve got the same problem. They can’t get

product moved. They can’t get railcars. It is a huge problem.

The two questions I’ve got associated with that, for the minister:

is the minister sticking to her number, in terms of the projection for

revenue for this current year coming from the stumpage, given the fact

that the majority of the industry is not working at full capacity? It’s

significantly below capacity on that.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The second question, which the minister can take a shot at, is: I

know the rail problem that we have is a federal issue, but what is this

province doing to advocate for resolution of the rail problem so that we

can actually get our products to market?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The ministry has already factored in a reduction in total planned

harvests. For next year, it’s 40 million cubic metres. We remain in

contact with industry to monitor the harvest performance.

As to the issues with transportation, I believe that the member

was still in the room when the CEO of CN spoke to COFI a couple weeks

ago. Maybe not. We had a very good conversation. She’s very clear on the

supply chain issues in this province. It’s not just in the forest

industry. It’s in agriculture. It’s in mining. It’s across the province.

They have been affected by the supply chain issues.

She is working on it critically. In fact, she has gone across the

province and met with industry. She had met with a number of the

industry leaders in the room and been to their places — to their actual

mills — and talked to them there. She’s travelled around and saw the

impact and recognizes that it’s something that has to be dealt with

very, very quickly, as soon as possible. She committed to me that that

was something they were working on. She knows how it affects our entire

province, including the forest industry, and made a commitment to make

sure it changes.

J. Rustad: I’ll take from the minister’s answers that she’s not confident in

the numbers in the projection and that things could change, because that

was the question I asked. That’s okay. That’s fine in terms of it. I

also take from the minister’s answer that she has not yet engaged with

the federal government at all on the issue of CN Rail, which is very

unfortunate to hear. I agree that the new CEO of CN Rail is very

optimistic. She’s going to need to change some things. She’s going to

work on that. I think that that’s great.

The bottom line is that there needs to be some pressure put on

from the federal government, because right now not only are the mills

not getting the cars that they have asked for, that CN has said they’re

going to deliver, but then CN and other rail lines have said, “We have

some additional cars coming in, and you can bid on them,” driving up

costs for the companies. Quite frankly, I think the federal government

needs to be engaged in this practice, given the limited amount of

opportunity we have to be able to move product by rail.

I’m very disappointed to hear that this government has not engaged

at the political level with the federal government on this issue, which

is impactful and so critical to our forest sector. We’ve got projections

for forest revenue, which obviously could potentially change

significantly. We’ve got a challenge, going forward, in terms of the

drop-off in revenue and, quite frankly, I think, an unrealistic

expectation in terms of what the impact is going be from forest policy

on the ability to harvest.

[3:10 p.m.]

I want to move from this, because this is very much related to the

budgetary problems. That is that many of the companies that are

operating today — to the limited capacity that they can operate, given

their inability to be able to move product — are working on old permits,

permits that were in place over the last year or two. Those companies

are saying that those permits are going to start to run out, in terms of

their ability to harvest, later this fall, into the third quarter and

even into the fourth quarter of this year.

It’s taking a year or longer to get new permits. They’re very

worried that they are not going to have volume to be able to carry on

operating. The full impact of the decision around old growth deferrals,

as well as other policies, will start coming out in the third and fourth

quarter, where we’ll start to see potentially significant mill closures

and other impacts to the forest sector.

Can the minister once again explain just what that hit is going to

be to the budget, to the revenue forecast? How much allowance is being

put in to the revenue forecast for the potential reduction of volume due

to old growth and challenges of getting permits?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The ministry estimates that 50 percent of the recommended deferral

areas will be implemented. It is assumed that 4.5 million cubic metres

of AAC reduction will be fully recognized through a reduction in

harvest. First Nations consultation on old-growth deferrals are still

ongoing, and the eventual impact on AAC and the actual harvest volumes

will not be known until completion of the old-growth strategic

review.

There should be no implications to cutting permits. Industry is

re-engineering cutting permits to address old-growth deferrals. The

ministry is supporting the amendments to the cutting permits. As of

April of this year, 82 percent of permits are processed in 40 days or

less.

J. Rustad: Well, certainly, that isn’t the number I’m hearing from industry.

They’re expressing significant concern with regards to the ability to be

able to get permits in place, to be able to operate throughout the rest

of this year and, like I say, into the end of the year.

[3:20 p.m.]

Maybe I’ll just switch gears a little bit with this, because this

all ties in together. So far we’ve been talking about revenue and the

hits to revenue, to the budget. But I want to talk about jobs and the

projected job losses in the sector. Could the minister provide an update

in terms of her projections of the job losses in the forest sector due

to old growth and other factors?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The ministry has conducted rigorous analysis on the socioeconomic

impact of old-growth defer­rals and continues to actively evaluate

the situation as First Nations consultations on old-growth deferrals

continue. The province has announced coordinated and comprehensive

supports for workers, communities and First Nations through the

development of new programs and by continuing and enhancing existing

programs to mitigate any potential impact to workers and

communities.

As decisions on deferrals that flow from consultations with First

Nations are made, the ministry is undertaking additional socioeconomic

analysis. I can assure the member that transition and support funds will

be made available for all regions of the province and for any community

experiencing the impacts from old-growth deferrals.

We will continue to monitor the impacts as more deferrals are

implemented, recognizing that there are many other dynamics impacting

the fibre supply in this province. In addition, some B.C. Timber Sales

auctions will resume in areas where First Nations indicate that

old-growth management is adequate and does not need any additional

protection as per the technical advisory panel suggestions.

We are actually seeing really positive responses to mitigating the

impacts — very positive responses from both industry as well as First

Nations, working together. So we are seeing that, and we are keeping a

very close eye on that.

With that, I just need to ask for a quick ten-minute recess, if

that’s possible, please.

The Chair: We will be in recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:28 p.m. to 3:39 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: All right. We are here with the Ministry of Forests, and I

understand that the member for Nechako Lakes has another

question.

J. Rustad: Thank you, hon. Chair — many other questions. I do appreciate the

opportunity.

The minister didn’t quite answer the question I asked, but perhaps

I can get at it simply by asking her. Can she table the socioeconomic

impact and the detailed analysis that she’s talking about?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I want to introduce Lorie Hrycuik, who’s our executive lead on

forestry renewal. She’s also here with us today.

The implementation of the old-growth strategic review is an

ongoing process. As a reminder, the temporary deferrals are just that —

a temporary measure pending implementation of the full

report.

[3:45 p.m.]

As we understand, the direct socioeconomic impacts…. I will

provide those in the regular updates that I have committed to give. I

committed to the member for Saanich North and the Islands, and I commit

again to the critic that we will be providing those regular

updates.

J. Rustad: It’s interesting. The minister’s opening comments talked about the

great shape the forest sector is in and making money and all this kind

of stuff, and what we’ve heard so far is that we can’t move wood; that

the minister is not engaged with the federal government about helping to

solve that problem and move the wood; that we’re going to see job

losses, but the minister is not willing to talk about what those job

losses are across the sector in terms of the job loss; that the revenue

numbers aren’t necessarily solid, and they’ll be reviewed.

There are many reasons right now why the revenue numbers have

been…. I’m wondering why the minister is painting such a picture — that

the forest sector is so healthy — given that we are so

uncompetitive.

Let me ask this question to the minister. In her mandate letter,

it talks about working with industry and labour groups, dedicating a

specific portion of the annual allowable cut towards higher-value

producers who can demonstrate their ability to create new jobs for

workers in B.C., very much like the jobs and timber accord from the

1990s. We know what a disaster that process was.

Around that, how many jobs will be lost from taking the wood away

from somebody else, and how will the minister determine whether or not

those new jobs will be created? The reason for asking that is that in

the old-growth deferrals, it is the value-added sector, quite frankly,

that is saying they’re going to be the ones that are hit the

hardest.

I wonder. What ways is the minister looking at that will actually

be able to take that timber away from other mills and impact the jobs

and communities that will be lost by that? What will we see in actual

job creation from that dedicated, specific portion of wood?

[3:50 p.m. - 3:55 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The member is suggesting that it’s one industry or the other, by

his statements, and it’s not. I have never said that. In fact, I’ve been

very clear that the primary industry is very much needed in this

province. We need a strong primary industry, in fact, to have a strong

value-added sector in this province. I’ve made that very clear. It’s not

one or the other, and I believe we can do that.

My mandate letter says to strengthen the commitment to the

secondary manufacturing industry, and that’s also in our intentions

paper, which we released last spring. At COFI…. I know the member was

there when I spoke about the important shift from volume to value and to

know that to be successful in B.C., that shift will have to depend on

partnerships. It’ll have to depend on the collaboration, sharing of

volume, working together.

That’s why I challenged all parties, everyone, to work together,

to collaborate together, to ensure that they’re working together for

long-term, stable jobs, for long-term, sustainable forests in this

province.

Because we do want forests here for generations to come. I know

industry has already gone forth, and they’re already working on it.

They’re already establishing how can we work better with the secondary

manufacturing industry, and the secondary manufacturing industry are

already reaching out. Those collaborations are happening. This is not

about job loss. This is about industry working together for a

sustainable forest industry for generations to come, making sure that we

have sustainable jobs for generations to come.

J. Rustad: Well, I can actually agree with the minister — in terms of the

desire to want to see this. But what I think the minister seems to be

missing here is if a mill doesn’t have a log to cut, it’s going to have

to lose a job. That’s the issue here. We’re taking a specific portion of

volume. It’s very specific here: dedicate a specific portion of volume

of the annual allowable cut towards some other operation.

I understand that our declining AACs means there isn’t a lot of

opportunity for new volume to come in, so that means we’re taking volume

from somebody else in order to be able to achieve what the minister is

trying to do. If the minister is suggesting that we’re going to give

volume from A to B, and then B is going to give it back to A in order to

get some product that it wants, I suppose that could happen. Those sort

of swaps go on. That was part of what had happened in stuff that

happened previously. That’s not exactly what I understand in terms of

this, but if that’s the way the minister sees it, okay. That’s an

interesting component.

The reality is that we’ve got a declining AAC. Industry players

are going to get hit by this. The shift that the minister is talking

about here, which was through bills that we debated last fall which were

rammed through the House and not fully debated…. It’s unfortunate that

we seem to have this in the mandate letter, associated with this, and

without a clear indication of what the impact is going to be on the

sector.

Where I’m most concerned…. To have a healthy forest sector, you

need small players. You need medium-sized players. You need the large

players. You need that range of what’s going on. You also need the

value-added sector that works closely with all three components of

that.

What I’m seeing is the industry squeeze and, through government

policies, shrinking the fibre supply, and making things more

challenging. Quite frankly, the small and medium players are getting

squeezed out. They’re the ones that are going to be the casualties,

through the policy and the policy side, which means you’re only going to

be left with big players. You’re not going to have those intermediaries

that are needed. It’s those intermediaries, quite frankly, that are the

most effective at working with the value-added sector to be able to get

things done.

[4:00 p.m.]

It is unfortunate, but that seems to be the minister’s perspective

on this. But it’s like I say: it is what it’s going to be. Time will

tell how things play out, but the real challenge I also want to put to

the minister is the spinoff impacts of policy approaches and the

reduction of AAC.

The minister, in her previous response, wanted to highlight that

these old-growth deferrals are temporary, that they’re two-year

temporary deferrals. I wonder if the minister is considering somebody

losing their job for two years as temporary or a mill having to shut

down for two years as temporary — because they don’t have

volume.

That doesn’t sound very temporary to me. Old-growth deferrals may

sound temporary, and it makes a nice sound bite, but the reality is that

it has an impact on families, on communities and on operations directly,

as they try to struggle to survive through this period of transition

that the minister is inflicting on this province.

There are side effects to the minister’s impacts as well. I just

want to talk for a second about the pulp sector. In the pulp sector

right now, many of the operations, many of the pulp mills, are

operating…. I’m hearing that they’re under severe shortages of fibre, as

now we’ve got mills that are only operating at three days a week and

four days a week across the province because of the inability to be able

to move product and the challenges in terms of fibre.

Some of these pulp mills, quite frankly, have ten days or less of

fibre available to them. They’re struggling. They’re worried now that

they may need to be shutting down on a permanent basis. As a matter of

fact, through the analysis that has been done, it’s estimated that the

drop in this is going to have an impact, and we’ll probably lose at

least two pulp mills across the province, perhaps three, as well as ten

sawmills or more.

With this real shortage that we are facing right now, of chips and

supply to the pulp mills, in the process that is going on in this

province, I want to ask if the minister is aware of the urgency of this

problem. If she is, what steps are the minister taking to help to make

fibre available to these pulp mill operations?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: We understand the challenges that the pulp sector is facing, and

we’re very engaged with the pulp sector. Our staff meet with them

regularly. I also meet regularly with the pulp coalition.

[4:10 p.m.]

We’ve been working to access residual fibre. We’ve introduced a

concurrent residual harvest system. We’ve brought in the fibre recovery

zone. We’re working to eliminate slash pile burning. And we fund the

Forest Enhancement Society of B.C. for both the FireSmart and Forests

for Tomorrow programs. Those are about accessing more fibre. Those are a

great benefit to the industry.

I was able, this fall, to see that just outside of my own

constituency, but it affects Mercer, Celgar, the pulp mill in my

community that I worked at. They actually got a grant from the Forest

Enhancement Society to work with the Harrop-Procter community forest to

take the majority of the residual pile out of the community forest. It

ended up with such a tiny little footprint of what would have been a

massive slash pile that would have been burned in the past. It was a

tiny, tiny little footprint. It was incredible to see — really

beneficial to Mercer and also beneficial to the community

forest.

A number of people were there that spoke about the benefits of it,

and that’s happening around the province. We also get weekly updates on

the fibre supply for pulp mills in the province to make sure that we are

well aware of what’s going on there.

I think something that really demonstrates the confidence in our

province and in our industry is — we just had the announcement today —

that Kruger has purchased Domtar in Kamloops. Domtar was selling their

pulp mill in Kamloops, and Kruger, a company from Montreal, is very

excited to have purchased the Domtar mill, excited to be working in the

community of Kamloops — good news for the community of Kamloops. They’re

going to retain the employees working there, retain the jobs. I want to

say welcome to Kruger, to the province of B.C., and we look forward to

working with them.

J. Rustad: I sent a note to Kruger today congratulating them and offering to

work with them as well, because I know they’ve got big fibre supply

issues as well, as part of this.

I am curious. The minister just talked about the Forest

Enhancement Society of B.C. I’ve asked about the Forest Enhancement

Society of B.C. almost every year — I don’t think I did last year — and

I have yet to see a line item of money that has been transferred to the

Forest Enhancement Society of B.C. since this government formed in 2017.

My understanding from the Forest Enhancement Society of B.C. is that

they were out of money as of a couple or three years ago now. They have

been able to carry on because there were some three-year commitments in

terms of some of the projects, but there has been no money that I’ve

seen.

Perhaps the minister could point to any additional money that has

been allocated to the Forest Enhancement Society of B.C. through this

budget or any previous budget.

Hon. K. Conroy: I wanted to introduce two new staff that have joined us. Peter

Jacobsen is the executive director of compensation and business analysis

branch. Al Powelson is the executive director of B.C. Timber Sales. I

think we’ll get the whole group of them in here eventually, next

door.

The Forest Enhancement Society: a great organization, as I said.

They’ve been a really strong partner in the delivery of projects that

contribute to the province’s key commitments of managing for climate

change, sustainability and reconciliation, leading to continued benefits

for B.C.’s forests, Indigenous peoples and communities.

In this fiscal year, ’22-23, $25 million of new funding will be

provided to FESBC to help reduce wildfire risk, amongst other projects

that they’re doing. As of March 31, 2021, FESBC has approved 269

projects throughout B.C. That has been the equivalent of approximately

2,200 full-time jobs that are created by FESBC-funded projects. A great

organization. I work with them and continue to work with them, and I

look forward to that.

J. Rustad: I am pleased that the minister recognizes the work that the

previous government did in creating FESBC and giving them $165 million,

which has led to all of that great work that she is praising. So I’m

glad you’re praising our previous government for the work that we did

with that.

[4:15 p.m.]

The previous minister to her portfolio talked about not putting

any money towards FESBC, because they were going to wonder if they were

going to replace it with a different model. So I’m very pleased to see

that this minister sees the value in what we created and is putting some

additional money towards that organization this year, because it does do

great work. I agree with the minister on that, in terms of the work

that’s being done on the land.

That’s good, because it does play a piece, of course, in terms of

what potential fibre can flow to the pulp mills, whether it’s from

thinning or whether it is through the work from fireproofing some

communities, as well as, of course, to the slash side. Although fibre

recovery, if I remember correctly, is only on the coast. It’s not in the

Interior, in terms of the components — unless I missed that — in terms

of fibre recovery zones in the Interior.

Quite frankly, the biggest concern that I’ve heard from companies

is that when they bring in that fibre out of the slash, it potentially

reduces the amount of sawlog that they have available. So I’m wondering

if the minister has looked at how they’re going to be able to create the

opportunity for that fibre to be captured without it being utilized

against the sawlog component from companies that do the cut and whether

the minister is actually going to consider going to a fibre AAC as

opposed to a sawlog AAC.

I always use acronyms, because we’re so used to doing that —

annual allowable cut, for those that are following at home and may not

know what AAC means.

[4:20 p.m. - 4:25 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: In the pulp sector, we don’t differentiate between the Interior

and the coast. Just to be clear, so that the member understands, the

fibre recovery zones are specific to the coast. They were part of the

much-needed coastal revitalization that was brought in, in

Our Modernizing Forestry intentions paper speaks to

better utilization, but that doesn’t imply that sawlogs would be used

for anything other than sawlog manufacturing. I think I’ve said a number

of times that it’s about getting the right log to the right mill. As I

mentioned before, very few, if any, sawlogs…. With the price of lumber

right now, sawlogs just aren’t being used for anything but

sawlogs.

J. Rustad: I think the minister must have misunderstood my comment. My

comment was about the wood waste and it being counted towards the annual

allowable cut, not sawlogs, and changing the annual allowable cut

calculation from a sawlog to a fibre cut. Regardless of that, we don’t

have time to go into details on that. If the minister missed that point,

that’s fine.

I do want to continue on talking a little bit about old growth —

in particular, B.C. Timber Sales and what the impact has been to B.C.

Timber Sales on what they’ve delivered. Can the minister provide

information as to what the undercut on B.C. Timber Sales was in the last

year and what the projected undercut for B.C. Timber Sales will be this

year?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: We’re presuming that the critic is looking for sales volume, not

undercut. In ’21-22, the target was 10.9 million cubic metres. The

projection, as of March 31, was 5.9 million cubic metres. This year, the

target is 6.3 million cubic metres, but this is what we would consider a

worst-case scenario. We’re working with First Nations, and through

re-engineering of Timber Sales cutblocks, to address the old growth, we

actually expect that number to grow.

[4:35 p.m.]

J. Rustad: I thank the minister for those numbers. Those are the numbers I

was looking for, so thank you for that. It leads me to an uncomfortable

question, which is, of course….

B.C. Timber Sales is what we base stumpage on, which is what we

base our whole argument on for softwood lumber. As a percentage of the

cut, it’s supposed to be roughly 20 percent of the cut, and at 6.3

million, it’s significantly under what 20 percent of the cut would be.

At 5.9 million last year, that would also likely be significantly under

the cut, which leaves the question in terms of the vulnerability we have

as a province on softwood lumber, in terms of the arguments being made

by industry south of the border — whether or not B.C. Timber Sales is

achieving the goal needed for setting stumpage.

I’m concerned about time, so perhaps the ministry could provide an

answer to that question around that in writing, so I can move on to the

next question. I’m seeing the deputy nod. I’ll let the minister confirm

as part of her next answer.

All of what I’ve been asking is around a healthy forest sector and

the ability for a forest sector to be able to support the jobs in

communities across British Columbia. In one of the first bullets for the

minister in her letter, it’s: “Continue to work to update and modernize

forest policy and legislation to ensure a competitive, sustainable”

forest sector.

Can the minister please explain what steps the ministry has taken

to make our industry competitive over the last number of years, and what

steps she’ll be taking this year to help make our industry

competitive?

[4:40 p.m. - 4:45 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: On the previous question, I want to just say that the market

pricing system is sound, and we will provide the member a written answer

to his question.

There were many things that we talked about. We were trying to

decide what to share — of all the things that we’ve done on ensuring the

competitiveness in the industry. We’ve got a few examples here, but

definitely, there are quite a few.

The coast revitalization. That was a very deliberate step to

revitalize the industry on the coast. As I said, a significant downturn,

so they needed this. One of the goals was to ensure domestic industry

had access to fibre. That was a big issue for the industry on the

coast.

The Manufactured Forest Products Regulation was designed to

improve domestic manufacturing and, again, create more jobs in B.C. It

has done that. We launched the modern forest policy intentions paper.

That specifically identified competitiveness as an objective.

As the member knows, we just recently announced revenue-sharing

with Indigenous nations. That was the number one identified ask of both

industry and First Nations. I’ve met with several industry CEOs and VPs,

and they all responded that their number one issue was with

revenue-sharing, when asked about competitiveness. As well, First

Nations talked about that too.

There are numerous more examples, but these are some of the key

ones that come to mind quickly.

J. Rustad: Out of the coastal initiative, we took care of the fibre recovery

zones designed to make sure that we have fibre that goes to pulp mills,

and we saw Catalyst close. The competitiveness issue around

manufacturing locally — I’d be interested to see some stats as to

whether that has actually created jobs.

I agree that industry has asked to have the revenue for First

Nations. But what they asked for is that stumpage be transferred to

First Nations instead of having to pay two landlords, which has not been

done. As we know, as you’re transferring more volume to First Nations,

and the components, all that is, is an additional cost, because now they

have to pay stumpage, and to the First Nations, for the right to access

the fibre. I’m all for having the volume in the First Nations’ hands. I

think that’s great. But there needs to be a way to be able to reduce

that cost so that industry is not paying two landlords around

that.

I’m going to move on from that question. I’m a little surprised by

the minister’s answer with it, but…. We’ve been talking about all this

stuff. All these questions that have been put forward to date through

the estimates process here are being really driven by the decision by

government to defer old growth, as well as some of the other impacts

that are happening on the land base.

One of the biggest challenges, quite frankly, with old growth and

the old-growth calculations is being able to get accurate information on

what is old growth, how much of it is out there. Quite frankly, the

report that was given to the minister by the panel uses VRI as part of

it, in terms of the estimate, particularly on the old-growth side. That

particular component using VRI for old growth has been discredited and

is widely thought of as being completely inaccurate in terms of the

ability to predict old growth and the numbers of old growth.

Like I say, it’s unfortunate, but that is the basis for a report

that came forward. And even in the report, when the numbers changed, the

author said it is good enough science. I would argue…. That was the

comment that was made through that process.

The question I have to the minister. There is obviously a

tremendous amount of angst that’s out there in community around old

growth. There are all kinds of claims — you know, saving the last

old-growth tree, and there’s 1 percent old growth. There are all these

kinds of claims that are out there.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

There needs to be, just as I believe the report has said,

verifiable, consistent and accredited information on just how much old

growth is out there, how much is protected and what that component looks

like. That’s a role that needs to be played by the government and by

this minister.

[4:50 p.m.]

I have yet to hear the minister be able to provide that accurate

information out into the public to counter the campaigns that are going

on of false information by environmental groups and radicals around

there.

The question to the minister is: is the minister prepared, and

will the minister be providing accurate, verifiable, provable data on

old growth — the amount of old growth in the forests and the amount of

old growth that’s already protected in the forests — so that we can have

one set of data and we’d be able to have a good and open discussion

about old growth in British Columbia?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: We, too, are very focused on establishing a credible definition of

old growth that is understood by practitioners, by foresters, by First

Nations and by industry. We do have a set of numbers so that we are

ensured that all of our partnerships and our decision-making are made on

a common understanding Those numbers — we have them.

There are approximately 11.1 million hectares of old growth in

B.C., which covers approximately 12 percent of the entire province and

20 percent of B.C.’s forested land base. Of this, 3.5 million hectares

of old growth, or one-third, is already protected.

Old-growth harvesting in unprotected areas has decreased by 40

percent over the past five years. In 2020, 33,262 hectares of old growth

were harvested. This represents 0.3 percent of the total old growth in

B.C.

We have been sharing those numbers, and we will continue to share

those numbers.

J. Rustad: It’s interesting that 3.5 million hectares are already protected.

I thought the number was closer to 70 percent of old growth was

protected. I might be wrong on that number, but it’s something that I’ll

take up with the minister at another time.

I want to get into a couple of questions associated with woodlots

and community forests, but just before I do, I’ve got one other question

I want to ask, associated with the minister’s mandate letter. In

particular, it says: “Plant more trees for a healthy industry and

province and continue to make significant investments in forest

health.”

The forest sector, in terms of planting trees, only has so much

capacity. Whether it’s through the seedlots, whether it’s through the

greenhouses for trees, there are only so many trees that are available

each year for planting. Quite frankly, we’re close to that maximum now,

if not at that maximum, of around 300 million trees that can be

planted.

[5:00 p.m.]

If there is going to be a significant increase or any increase in

the capacity to plant more trees, there would have to be investment into

new greenhouses and a commitment in terms of the funding from government

to be able to see that additional investment. That’s something in the

mandate letter, in terms of planting more trees.

I’d love to hear the minister’s plan to be able to expand the

silviculture industry, the growing of trees and the planting of trees,

in particular from the perspective of the three million hectares that

have been burnt out since 2017, at least. Not all of that was forested.

Some of that has been logged, and some of that has been replanted

through permits that are in place. But there is a lot of that has not

been reforested and needs to have work done in terms of removing of the

trees that have been damaged, getting areas replanted.

When you think about the stocking standards of 1,200 to 1,400

stems per hectare, we’re talking about billions of trees that need to be

planted, potentially, in areas that have been burnt. When you’re talking

about 300 million trees that are currently planted — that’s what our

capacity is — to achieve that target, we would need to do a significant

increase in our reforestation and our silviculture industry to be able

to even start putting a dent in the areas that need be to rehabilitated

and planted that have been damaged by fire.

Perhaps the minister could outline how she plans to meet her

mandate letter of planting more trees.

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: All ministry-funded stands in the province will be directed to

fire-impacted areas in the province, anything that’s done.

It is important to note that professional foresters are

determining whether stands that have been burnt actually require

planting or will naturally regenerate, which is something that we need

to be well aware of. We will only plant where it won’t naturally

regenerate. That, again, is based on a professional analysis.

[5:10 p.m.]

Just because an area has been burnt doesn’t mean it’s going to

automatically be replanted because it could naturally regenerate, which

is really important. Again, those stands that have been impacted will be

directed by ministry to be replanted.

I think it’s important to note — the member is quite right — that

we’ve averaged over 300 million trees a year for the last three years.

We are working with industry on that, and our First Nations partners as

well. Two-thirds of the amount being planted is being done by our

partners, and then the rest is done by the ministry. Again, we’re

looking at that target by looking at whether it needs to be replanted or

not, or whether it could be naturally regenerated.

Also, we are pleased to partner with the federal government in

their planting of two billion trees. We’re going to leverage about $18

million of federal funding to help us with planting our 300 million.

With the 2 Billion Trees program that the feds are doing, our province

is contributing to that number significantly, probably more than any

other province in the country.

J. Rustad: That all sounds great, but it didn’t answer the question about how

we’re actually going to increase the capacity of being able to plant

more trees in the province, because we only have so much growing

capacity in our greenhouses. Once again, I have to move on, but I would

love it if the ministry could commit to providing, in writing, what the

regen delay is and the impact on the quality of the stands and the

volume of the stands of the areas that are left for natural

regeneration.

Fires that tend to rip through, particularly, the areas of pine

end up coming back very densely populated in pine. It stunts the growth.

You end up with much longer rotations and much poorer-quality trees from

what happens with natural regeneration, as opposed to the class A trees

that are planted from a site that is being rehabilitated. If the

minister could commit to providing some information on what the

anticipated regen delay is and the longer-term impact on the

productivity of those sites contributing toward the allowable annual

cut, that would be much appreciated.

I will move on now because we’ve got a limited time. I want to ask

a couple of questions on woodlots and community forests, associated with

old growth. My understanding from the minister was that with the

woodlots that were impacted by the designated old-growth areas, most of

that designation was removed from woodlots. There was some that was not.

I’m just wondering if the minister could confirm how many woodlots will

be impacted by old-growth deferrals and confirm if there is a path

forward for those woodlots to be able to manage through that.

As the minister knows, woodlot programs were designed to have a

range of volume in different age classes, including older growth and

younger growth, so that you had a rotation of wood that goes through

this. Of course, any wood that’s on the older end of the scale that’s

removed means that there is lost opportunity to harvest. In the woodlot

program, the woodlot owner would have to actually go into younger

stands, that may not be desirable to be cut at this time, to be able to

find the volume for cutting.

If the minister could just confirm how many woodlots are being

impacted by the old-growth deferrals and what the options are for those

woodlot owners to be able to manage through that issue.

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: We exempted all woodlots for the large old growth, and woodlots

are still required to defer the ancient and remnant old

growth.

J. Rustad: I think the question was, and I do appreciate that answer, how

many woodlots were impacted? But I want to move on, because we’ve got a

couple of other questions that have to be answered that I’d like to get

to.

In particular, there is a commitment — last fall, I believe it was

— to look at the tabular rates associated with community forests and

woodlots and potentially changing the rate for stumpage associated with

community forests and woodlots. I’m wondering if the minister could

provide an update as to when community forest and woodlot owners will

get an understanding of where the minister is going with the stumpage

rates.

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: This is an extremely complex process. It involves a wide range of

small tenure holders in B.C. We are undertaking a consultation process

working with community forests and the Woodlot Association, and we are

committed to continuing discussions with First Nations as

well.

This will take some time, so we will continue to communicate and

engage with the small tenure holders as well as the associations, and we

won’t be making any decisions until this process is

completed.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to

sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:22 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. J. Osborne moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. Monday.

The House adjourned at 5:23 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

HEALTH

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); J. Sims in the

chair.

The committee met at 1:03 p.m.

On Vote 32: ministry operations, $25,308,645,000

(continued) .

S. Bond: Good afternoon. I’m going to start this afternoon on a topic that

is far too relevant and present in every­one’s lives. That is the

word “cancer.” Let’s start there this afternoon.

[1:05 p.m.]

Two years ago the government promised a ten-year cancer plan. Last

year in estimates, the minister stated that it would be coming soon. A

year has gone by. Another budget has been tabled, and certainly, it

doesn’t appear to include funding for a ten-year cancer plan.

Could the minister give us an update as to why the plan is

delayed? What does “soon” mean? Will it be tabled this year? What

funding stream will be allocated to it?

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you very much, hon. Chair. Good to see you there.

Just a few things about the why, and then we’ll get into issues

around the cancer plan, which we are indeed moving towards, and about

funding for cancer, which has, of course, significantly increased in the

period that the government has been in office, including this year as we

work on preparing and laying out the plan.

Just to put the context together, our overall population is going

to increase by about 15 percent between 2021 and 2032. The seniors

population, however, is going to increase by 39 percent in this period.

As all members will know, age is the most important risk factor for

developing cancer. Overall, the incidence of cancer is expected to grow

just in this period by 26 percent, and this is a significant fact that

we’re dealing with.

Not all of it, of course, is what we’d describe as bad news.

Survivorship of cancer and cancer mortality rates continue to be lower,

and this is a significant and positive thing. While that increases the

number of people dealing with cancer, it is a significant and positive

thing for families everywhere in B.C.

In terms of where we expect to see the largest increases over this

period, I think we are going to see significant increases across the

range of cancers but particularly with those cancers that are

age-related.

In terms of where we are with the budget, I’d expect to see the

full layout of the ten-year plan, but we are obviously hard at work on

it now. We’re seeing consistent and regular funding increases for the

cancer budget. The average annual percent increase, for example, since I

became Minister of Health, is 7.1 percent. That compares favourably to

the previous five-year period, where the average increase was

approximately 4 percent, so not quite double that but close to

it.

We are obviously increasing resources to meet the ongoing,

increasing need. Part of it is a health human resources question, but

also with the growing population of people living with cancer, it’s the

need to distribute services more widely at new centres across the

province. So both of those things are occurring, and Budgets 2020, 2021

and 2022 provided specific funding to increase cancer care providers

across B.C.

I’ll also note, as an indication of where we’re going: the

announcement and the beginning of the start of the lung cancer screening

program, which will happen this month; the Indigenous cancer plan, which

we announced and have announced in the past. There’s the addition of

Indigenous navigators, one for each cancer centre.

Of course, working on the elimination…. It’s a significant

investment in eliminating the wait-lists for heredi­tary cancer

screening. And obviously, new cancer centres — one in Surrey, which we

discussed yesterday; one in Burnaby, which we discussed yesterday — and

new cancer centres, which are at the concept plan stage, in Kamloops and

in Nanaimo.

[1:10 p.m.]

These are the significant facts, going forward. I would expect we

are, as is the case with other plans, in the process of making

improvements — and you’ve seen those improvements — and making

significant investments. Relative to the previous five years, ’17 to

’22, it’s approximately a 75 percent higher rate of growth, compared to

7.1, compared to just under 4, and significant improvements.

The full cancer plan, which is obviously in work and in

consultation, will be put before the public and I think will inspire a

great deal of support and expectation, of course. It will include the

capital that I’ve described and that we’ve described previously, which

is already happening. In a number of places, that process is underway,

in advance of any announcement of the ten-year plan.

Obviously, very significant efforts to hire are required when you

see a growing population of people living with cancer in our province,

and the expectation that that will grow, as I say, in a short period of

time, by 26 percent, and even more in the ten years after that. New

programs that both help screen and get earlier detection of cancer,

which is critical…. I think the lung cancer screening program will be

one of the most innovative in Canada, will lead the way in Canada.

Hopefully, other jurisdictions will do that.

As members of the House will know, lung cancer screening has not,

generally speaking, been as much of a priority as the screening for

other cancers. But that’s changing here, and it will make a significant

difference. As all members also know, the rate of mortality from lung

cancer is extremely high and the highest, relative to other

cancers.

That’s where we are. I expect that you’ll see the layout of the

full plan in the year that we’re debating, the budget estimates we’re

debating, and obviously, that will be reflected in future budgets. But

all three of the last three budgets have seen significant lifts for

cancer care, as you would expect, given the challenges and the number of

people needing cancer care and also ensuring that we meet and are in a

position to meet the demand that’s going to come over the next ten

years.

S. Bond: Well, I appreciate the update, but this is sounding eerily

familiar. We have been asking the minister and the government for a

health human resources strategy to address the concerns that we see in

our health care system when it comes to staffing shortages. We were told

it would be soon. We were told it would be last fall; now it’s going to

be this fall. Now we’re told that a ten-year cancer plan, which was

going to come soon, is still not ready.

I understand and appreciate what’s being done in the here and now,

but the numbers that the minister provided in terms of the dramatic

increase that’s going to occur…. We’re going to have a ten-year cancer

plan announced by the time…. It will have been 12 years since it was

promised.

I would like the minister, if possible, to be more specific. When

are we going to see the ten-year cancer plan? And yes, there have been

additional funds added to the budget. But my question was specific to:

will there be a fully funded cancer strategy, cancer plan, that looks at

not only what we’re dealing with now but ten years into the

future?

The other key component of that strategy will have to be a health

human resources strategy. Again, as part of the planning that’s being

done, will there be…? A critical component of that will be: where are we

going to get the health human resources to actually deal with the

plan?

As we know, there’s burnout and staff shortages as we speak. So

could the minister just try to be a tiny bit more specific about when

we’re going to see a tabled ten-year cancer plan? Will it have a

dedicated budget allocation? Because it isn’t about what’s being done

now. This is to project and plan for ten years. And will there be a

specific health human resources component?

Hon. A. Dix: Well, what you’re seeing, as in other areas — seeing the

priorities and taking the steps now to ensure that we deliver on the

plan. That means a new cancer centre in Surrey, a new cancer centre in

Burnaby, new cancer centres in Nanaimo and Kamloops, and in advance of

the plan, the formal plan being tabled, those are there. This includes

very substantial work on health human resources, and the lifts we’re

seeing are lifts to the base.

[1:15 p.m.]

When you lift the base by 4 percent a year in a health care

climate where inflation is 5, then you’re, at best, treading water, and

that’s what we were doing. When you lift the base on a very large budget

by 7 percent plus, as we have, on average, the last five years, and with

specific, targeted things that are consistent with what we’re trying to

do in the plan, that makes a big difference.

We’re doing significantly better in that sense, in terms of the

funding sense, but the challenges continue to grow. I’d expect you’ll

see the cancer plan, the tabled full cancer plan, after all the work and

consultation is done, in the next year. But in the meantime, we’re

taking actions on the areas necessary now, and those will be reflected

in the plan, as you would expect, as will new initiatives the government

will be taking.

S. Bond: Well, it looks like we may get the ten-year cancer plan several

years after it’s been promised. Managing the system for today is, of

course, the minister’s job. It’s the government’s job. But it also

requires the foresight to be thinking about what the needs are of

British Columbians in two years, four years, six years, eight years and

ten years. So the plan….

We will be holding the government to account for the fact that a

plan is not simply the rollup of everything that’s been done. That is

exactly the same kind of answer the minister gave with the health human

resources plan: “We’re doing things now.” Well, of course we need to do

things now, because we have a system that is overwhelmed.

What we need to see from this government is that visionary

thinking and bold planning about what on earth we are going to do in

four years, six years, eight years. We will certainly continue to wait

and look for the kinds of details that are required when it comes to

planning.

Let me ask the minister this. Will the ten-year plan — and I will

get to the Kamloops cancer centre, for sure — also include an analysis

of capacity at the existing cancer centres? For example, the cancer

centre in Prince George. I would imagine that as we begin to see

increased numbers all across the province…. We are grateful beyond

belief for the cancer centre we have in Prince George, but I am very

concerned about capacity in terms of serving the people of northern

British Columbia.

Does the ten-year cancer planning strategy look at updates and

upgrades, enhanced capacity at existing cancer centres? Will it look at

things like renovations and upgrades to equipment? We not only have to

add new….

The comparable when it comes to staffing is looking at recruitment

and retention. On the capital side, we need to build more, but we better

well make sure what we have remains relevant, current and effective.

Will the ten-year plan include an analysis of capacity needs at existing

cancer centres, looking at renovations and equipment

upgrades?

Hon. A. Dix: Well, I think I’d just say to the member that decisions we make

now are important four or five years from now. The fact that we did half

the amount of funding increases in the five years before I got here has

an impact on cancer care now, just as the doubling of that will have an

impact on it four years from now. These are increases to the base of

cancer care in the province.

The increase in the last five years, $311 million. In the previous

five years to that, $149 million. That’s a lot more, and that allows you

to do more things, but it also is designed to meet demand. Where we were

losing ground before, now, relative to the growth and demand, we’re

gaining ground, but I guess not as much as we want to do. We’ve been

trying to make up the ground that had previously been lost.

Absolutely, when you’re assessing your capacity, you have to look

at existing centres. We’ve added, for example, diagnostic capacity in

the last few years in both Victoria and in Kelowna, which has meant that

people are able to stay home and get key diagnostic procedures in their

home communities or closer to their home communities than they

previously did.

Those are important steps — and of course, an assessment of that.

And upgrading on the technology side is constantly required. In addition

to that, there is an area of health care which sees…. I would say,

overall, the most significant inflation is that of cancer drugs, which

increased in cost vastly above the rate of inflation. It’s one of the

reasons why you need to raise the cancer budget by at least 6 percent to

make any progress at all, because of the inflation.

[1:20 p.m.]

That is one of the areas where we were clearly not meeting demand.

We were using the increase and the inflation in cancer drugs, which is….

Absolutely, when you need those drugs, we need to be on the cutting edge

of where we are. We lost ground as a result of that because of the

extent of that inflation.

Yes, certainly, in the last five years, we’ve done significantly

better in terms of funding than the previous five years. That’s not

everything. It’s because we see the challenge ahead of us that the

Premier announced, as part of a commitment to British Columbians, that

there would be a ten-year cancer plan at the time of the last general

election.

S. Bond: One of the questions that I…. I’m going to roll two into each

other here. One of the things that we would want to see in a cancer

strategy is how many communities will actually see increased services.

Perhaps the minister can give some thought to that.

My specific question, however, is related to a

section of the

minister’s current situation references in his plan. I’m wondering if

the minister can tell me what the status is of a request for a decision

to…. Has the minister made a request for a decision to cabinet seeking

direction and authority to proceed with a provincial cancer strategy,

which was developed in partnership by the B.C. Cancer Agency and the

Ministry of Health?

Hon. A. Dix: Obviously, the member knows this. She’s an experienced member of

executive council. She knows that a lot of work has gone into this and

is going into this as we prepare for it, and lots is being prepared. The

member also knows, as an experienced former member of cabinet, that I’m

not at liberty to be discussing cabinet deliberations.

But to say that we’re doing the work on this area is a minor

understatement: our whole team; the team at the B.C. Cancer Agency, led

by Dr. Kim Nguyen Chi; the team at the PHSA, led by David Byres, who’s

obviously doing substantial work. Documents are being prepared. Plans

are being prepared. All of this work is being done and extensively

consulted on. And that consultation, by definition, has to include

extensive consultation in different areas with specialists in cancer and

will, of course, include consultation with groups as well.

S. Bond: Yes, I am an experienced member, and I’ve also noted that, in

fact, cabinet ministers don’t usually hesitate to say: “Oh, I’m going to

take that to cabinet. I’m going to advocate for it at cabinet.” Pretty

straightforward question: where in the process is a request for the

funding that will bring to life a ten-year cancer strategy?

I will continue to repeat this every time the minister implies

that this is about the people who operate in the cancer services in B.C.

Of course it’s not. We have deep respect for oncologists and everyone

who works in the system. This is about a promise made related to a

ten-year cancer plan, which we are now understanding, from the answers

today, is going to be a total of two years late.

So one of the things…. My job is to hold the government to

account. It made a commitment. We’re hearing now — we heard last year in

estimates, thanks to my colleague — that it was a year coming, and now

we’re looking at another year. Of course there needs to be meaningful

consultation, but there also needs to be a plan that people will have

confidence in, not just today and tomorrow but four and five years from

now.

[1:25 p.m.]

Let’s look at another aspect of some of the challenges in cancer

in our province. We’re going to talk about radiation therapy wait times.

According to data from CIHI, wait time for radiation therapy has been

getting worse since 2017, declining from 93 percent receiving radiation

treatment within four weeks in 2017 to 88 percent in 2021. In fact, if

you look at the data, this puts B.C. at the bottom when it come to wait

times for radiation therapy — not my numbers.

What immediate actions is the minister taking to rectify the

concern that radiation wait times are continuing to lengthen in our

province? I don’t need to point out to the minister the impact of that

on patients in British Columbia.

Hon. A. Dix: The member is correct. We were, I think, last in 2016. We’re still

tenth now, so you could argue that we haven’t made the kinds of

improvements we’ve made in other areas from the situation I inherited

and the government inherited. That’s absolutely fair — to hold us to

account for that.

I would say this. The Leader of the Opposition asks: what are we

doing? Well, we’re increasing the number of cancer surgeries. If you

look at quarter 1, 2019-20, when we were seeing similar results, to

quarter 4, ’21-22, we went from 3,000 to 3,500 people receiving

treatment within the benchmark 28 days. For real people, that makes a

very significant difference.

What’s different in B.C. than other jurisdictions in this area is

that we have a relative aging population, which makes it more

challenging. That doesn’t mean that we’re not determined to meet that

test, as well, as we have done in orthopaedic care and other care. On

radiation, in Kelowna, in Prince George and in Victoria, we’ve met the

wait-time target in quarter 4, which is important.

What we’re seeing is a very significant increase in the number of

people getting treatment and care. You bet we want to make progress

relative to other jurisdictions, but I think the same answer applies. In

the areas where we’ve gone from eighth to first or ninth to first, it

still doesn’t mean, for people waiting on a wait-list, that being better

than New Brunswick and Quebec and Ontario is the ideal thing. We intend

and we continue to intend to make progress, and those are the specific

ways we’re doing it.

What does that involve? Improving recruitment and retention, of

course; extending hours of operation, which is important; expanding and

advancing precise radiation therapy; and implementing a number of new

measures in the cancer system. Our goal is to meet that 28-day test.

That’s set nationally. It was set for us. We have in several important

centres in the province, and we’ve increased the number of people, most

importantly, from 2019 to now, who are meeting the benchmarks. I think

that’s an important consideration.

Those are the very extensive actions that are being taken in order

to meet those clinical benchmarks. Yes, our record relative to other

jurisdictions was not good in 2016. It’s still not good today, and we’re

taking specific actions to improve that.

S. Bond: What matters most is the impact on patients, so I’m wondering if

the ministry actually has data or has tracked the outcomes for patients

who receive delayed radiation therapy. One can imagine that it’s

probably extremely stressful, to say the least, but is there ongoing

monitoring of the outcomes for those people who are waiting longer than

four weeks?

[1:30 p.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: As the member knows, it’s 88 percent within 28 days. The decisions

about care, as in any other aspect of health care, are made by

oncologists and other specialists. So those decisions about who gets

care first, as always, are made by doctors. That said, we are meeting

the 90 percent test now in a number of important regions in the

province, and our goal is to raise it up.

I mean, 88 to 90 is about one in 50 patients. But given the

numbers of people who receive care in B.C., because of the age of our

population as relative to other jurisdictions, we’ve got to actually

meet the test of population and then go beyond that to improve those

numbers.

The member talked about going to cabinet and advocating. You bet I

do. You can imagine that as Minister of Health, I haven’t been quiet in

advocating for cancer care, and that’s why we’ve done so dramatically

better, maybe. I would presume that Minister Lake was the same, but we

have done significantly better in getting support and money and

resources for cancer care than had happened in the previous five

years.

Now, is that sufficient? Well, not yet, in terms of that specific

measurement. But where we want to be…. We want to be higher relative to

other jurisdictions in Canada. Starting in tenth and still being in

tenth is not what I would see as desirable, but it has involved a

significant increase in the number of people getting radiation but also

in demand.

S. Bond: Well, in reference to the cabinet conversation, my question was

around a specific ask relating to funding a cancer strategy which had

been prepared by the B.C. Cancer Agency and the Ministry of Health. So

I’ll wait to see what evolves with that request.

I don’t want to move past this topic without, of course, just

mentioning the concern about oncologist burnout. We know that we see

significant burnout in oncology physicians and radiation oncologists in

our province. Certainly, last year the minister talked about training

more oncologists, so I’ll be interested to know what the net new number

of oncologists is.

Perhaps the minister can clarify this, but certainly, it’s our

understanding that one in five oncology physicians in British Columbia

feel and are burned out. That is apparently the highest rate in Canada,

so we obviously have some more work to do there.

I wanted to just raise the fact that in the fiscal plan — I’m

going to move on to Kamloops here for a moment — it noted, on page 35,

that new cancer centres are in “preliminary planning, business planning

and procurement.”

Can the minister detail which ones are in preliminary planning,

and what does that entail exactly? Which one, if any, might be in

business planning, and which is in procurement?

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: With respect to oncologists, I’ll just take the Leader of the

Opposition through these numbers, a

summary of all centres, medical and

radiation oncologists year over year. In 2017-18, that number was 88.92.

In ’18-19, it was 92.71. In ’19-20, it was 96.53. In ’20-21, it was

97.42. In ’21-22, it was 105.26, So that’s a net increase of 17 on a

base of 88, which is roughly 20 percent. That’s significant, I’d say, in

overall staffing. I have that.

Maybe what I might do is just add — I’ve got a bunch of things to

send to the member here — the information around how many people are

working in those areas by centre, which would obviously include

Vancouver, Victoria, Surrey, Abbotsford, Kelowna and Prince

George.

With respect to the planning, we have two cancer centres at the

business plan stage or the business plan–​approved stage. That’s

Surrey and Burnaby. Two are preparing through the concept plan

stage.

As a former Minister of Health, the member will be familiar with

it, but there are other people listening to us who might not be. At the

concept plan stage, once the concept plans are approved, they’re in the

ten-year capital plan, and we’re proceeding forward. We’re proceeding at

pace with concept plan proposals for Kamloops and Nanaimo, in addition

to the ones that are now well underway and, in some cases, soon to be

moving to procurement, such as Surrey and Burnaby.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister. It is just so critical that the

government continue to be transparent. It’s one thing to talk about

planning and business and all of those things. But what British

Columbians want to know, no matter where they live in the province, is

when the shovel’s going to be in the ground and when we’re going to see

those projects move forward.

With that, I’m going to move onto the next topic. As the minister

knows, something that I am very passionate about, as I know he has done

work in as well, is the topic of ALS. It is an absolutely devastating,

destructive disease. I have always believed that we need to give credit

where credit is due, and we have seen recently that the government has

invested additional funding through the ALS Society of B.C. for the

second phase of Project Hope. We are grateful for that and very

appreciative of that.

I guess what I want to know, because what…. The minister knows

what a devastating disease this is, and we have met with advocates. We

have lost incredible people in British Columbia in a rapid period of

time. It’s devastating and hard to even contemplate how difficult that

is for families. What I specifically want to know is, with the

contribution through the ALS Society, what does it mean for the future

of clinical trials in British Columbia?

We know that what is essential is that clinical trials take place

here. Far too many families are unable, from a fiscal perspective — and

not only that, from just the capacity to get on a plane and fly to

Montreal or to Seattle or somewhere, anywhere else — to have what should

happen in our province. I would like to specifically know what it means

for the future of clinical trials in our province.

Hon. A. Dix: This is an area for which I think many members of the Legislature

have a real passion. This sounds like I’m excluding some members. But

when you mention some…. The member for North Vancouver–Seymour is a

champion for people with ALS.

[1:40 p.m.]

The two previous Liberal Health critics, the one from West Kelowna

and the one from the other part of Kelowna there, Kelowna–Lake Country….

I don’t think, in Lake Country, they like to be called part of

Kelowna.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Dix: Kelowna-Mission. I always get the West Kelowna thing. I’m working

on the new title.

Kelowna-Mission and the member for Kelowna–Lake Country and, of

course, the Leader of the Opposition and myself. We’ve done a lot of

work with the team at ALSBC. I think they’ve shown visionary leadership.

We’re going to see the results of that leadership soon, I believe, in

the hiring of a senior ALS clinician scientist at UBC, which is part of

the original Project Hope.

When originally ALSBC came, they said they needed $1 million from

the government to support what was a $5 million campaign. People

advocated for it, including members on the government side and members

on the opposition side. We provided that in the spring of

In the debate, I think, on the estimates, if I recall correctly….

I think it was the summer of 2020. The member for Kelowna–Lake Country

asked me, and I answered that I thought…. If it meant the difference

between getting to the $5 million total, we would be prepared to look at

that. He raised the issue, and I looked at it. They were $2 million

short. We decided that, especially given the circumstances of people

with ALS….

I know the Leader of the Opposition can tell personal stories — so

can I — about the life expectancy of people. Waiting another year or two

to raise the $5 million was not desirable. So in the spring of 2021, we

added $2 million.

Subsequent to that, having raised the $5 million, they’re in the

process, with the University of British Columbia…. As you know, it’s

hiring the clinician scientists. The last time I talked to Wendy Toyer,

which was at their AGM in Richmond, they were well advanced in that. We

won’t give away or discuss any more of the details. It’s, obviously, a

human resources process, a hiring process. They were doing an excellent

job of that, with UBC and with noted clinicians in the area.

I was very honoured to be received at that meeting. On behalf of

the people of B.C. and all members of the Legislature, I was honoured to

receive, on all of our behalf, an award recognizing the contributions to

Project Hope.

I decided, at year-end this year, with the approval of Treasury

Board, to proceed with a further $2 million. Having achieved the $5

million in record time, they decided on a $20 million target. It’s very

moving to hear the stories of people who have raised money and how

they’ve raised money, from children baking cookies to extreme sports

adventures to, obviously, the Walk for ALS. It’s remarkable.

We did that. What that’s going to mean is the academic base for us

to connect with the worldwide ALS community and the community of

scientists working on it. What we want to be is connected to that

community. That allows us to be able to contemplate…. The arrival allows

us to be able to contemplate clinical trials. That is, of course,

extremely important. In addition to that, it makes us, for want of a

better term, a player in that. To have a major clinical scientist

leading our efforts here, on the research side, is really

important.

It’s a great achievement for ALSBC. Members of the Legislature on

both sides can take, I think, a share of the credit for that. Members of

the House will know this. All of that pales against the contribution

that family members of people with ALS deserve and the fact…. As members

will know, there’s a very short life expectancy for people living with

ALS.

In addition to that, we’ve taken some other steps with respect to

drug therapies. I just want to note what they are.

[1:45 p.m.]

In August 2020, we began coverage of…. The commercial name of the

drug is Radicava, for patients living with ALS. In a clinical trial,

edaravone, or Radicava, helped slow the worsening of this disease in a

select ALS patient subpopulation.

Other therapies are emerging. That’s why it’s so important that

we’re part of this question and why, I think, the Leader of the

Opposition and I agree with it, including a drug which is known as

AMX0035, which is currently being reviewed by Health Canada and by the

Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health or CADTH…. We will

want to be part of that. We are going to be part of that because of the

work of people in this House, but we’re mostly going to be part of it

because of the extraordinary work of the ALS Society, of those living

with ALS who are powerful advocates and their families.

S. Bond: It is a devastating fatal disease, and we have watched incredible

people, like Sara McDonald, like Greg Gowe, like others, whose stories

we know intimately, literally beg governments across this country to do

something more. While I am grateful for the additional funding, in order

to look at how we end ALS, we have to deal with the issue of clinical

trials in British Columbia.

And secondly, we have to look at the drug approval process. When

families hear that there is the hope of a drug that potentially

increases the length and quality of a person’s life, they want to see

that move quickly. In fact, there has been a call, and I would like the

minister to articulate what he has said, both to the federal government

or here in British Columbia. The call is for a six-month maximum drug

approval process for ALS drugs.

Most recently, we heard about an ALS drug that’s in the lineup,

and it’s been sitting for 11 months, waiting for approval. That is not

good enough. Life — it’s a matter of…. Time is of the essence when you

have ALS.

I would like to know, specifically, what the minister, the

ministry, anyone, is doing to say: “The drug approval process must be

shorter.”

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you to the member for her question. I just want to say,

specifically, because part of the drug approval process but also earlier

access to drugs is being able to participate, as the member suggested,

in clinical trials. So a number of steps are being taken to improve the

quality, reach and timeliness of clinical trials in B.C., and this will

have significant benefits for ALS as well, but also for other rare

diseases that have huge consequences for people. As you know, the

average life expectancy for 80 percent of people living with ALS is two

to five years after diagnosis — two to five years.

We saw the very significant increase in funding to the Michael

Smith Health Research B.C., which houses Clinical Trials B.C., and that

is significant work there. And what we’re asking them to do, and drive,

is a provincial vision for clinical trials.

When you talk about early access to potential therapies, it’s not

just a question of drug approvals and Health Canada approvals, and so

on, but it’s access, potentially earlier access, through clinical

trials. I think the member and I agree on that, but I just wanted to

bring that to her attention, and part of the very substantial lift in

the budget of the Michael Smith Research Foundation for that is related

to those clinical trials.

Secondly, with respect to drug approvals, as you know, there was a

discussion here in the House in previous estimates around Radicava.

There are only, currently, two drugs available in Canada to approve

drugs to treat ALS. Radicava, which is a limited-coverage drug for

patients, meets the eligibility criteria. The other drug — the brand

name is Rilutek — is not an eligible benefit but is considered on an

exceptional case-by-case basis, where appropriate.

[1:50 p.m.]

These drugs tend to deal with only certain categories of people

living with ALS. In terms of getting to that process, therefore, it’s

access to clinical trials. As our outstanding PharmaCare branch does

here, when drugs are approved, it’s working through the process, both

nationally and then provincially, to ensure people get access to those

drugs.

I think for ALS, as opposed, perhaps, to other diseases…. The

issue of clinical trials is, I think, more important for ALS than it is

for most diseases because of the very short life expectancy of those

living with ALS.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for his efforts to date on this

absolutely devastating disease. Access is important, but moving drugs

through the process more quickly is critical, and making sure that we

have the oppor