Second Session, 42nd Parliament

(2021) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, November 24, 2021

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 138

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Multiculturalism in Richmond

H. Yao

Children with support needs

K. Kirkpatrick

Activism against gender-based violence

B. Anderson

Maternal health and Kitty Carr fund

R. Merrifield

Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows–Katzie Community Network

B. D’Eith

Parenting

J. Tegart

Oral Questions

Service model change for children with support needs

S. Bond

Hon. M. Dean

Service model change for children with support needs and services for Indigenous children

K. Kirkpatrick

Hon. M. Dean

Indigenous governance and work of B.C. government with Wet’suwet’en Nation

A. Olsen

Hon. M. Farnworth

Service model change for children with support needs

P. Milobar

Hon. M. Dean

Service model change for children with support needs and training for service providers

C. Oakes

Hon. M. Dean

Service model change for children with support needs and role of Community Living B.C.

D. Davies

Hon. M. Dean

Service model change for children with support needs

J. Tegart

Hon. M. Dean

S. Cadieux

U.S. tariffs on softwood lumber

M. de Jong

Hon. K. Conroy

Petitions

T. Halford

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 28 — Forest Amendment Act, 2021

J. Rustad

Hon. K. Conroy

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 22 — Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2021 (continued)

B. Banman

Hon. L. Beare

A. Olsen

T. Stone

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2021

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: J. Tegart.

Introductions by Members

Hon. R. Kahlon: I have two sets of introductions to make today. First, we have Margo

Wagner, the chair of the board of directors for the Northern Development

Trust, and also CEO Joel McKay — who are, I believe, in the chamber. They’re

up in the chamber here.

[1:35 p.m.]

We also have Tracy Redies, who is a colleague of everyone in this

House and was a member of the opposition but also, now, is the CEO of

Science World. With her is Nancy Roper, who is the VP of development for

Science World.

I’m hoping the House can please join me to welcome all to the

House today.

J. Rustad: With us today in the gallery is Sarah Nathan. She is the manager of

the provincial operations of Ducks Unlimited Canada. Ducks Unlimited is

doing great work across this province, work on our wetlands and trying to

further the cause of conservation in B.C.

I’d ask the House to please make

her welcome.

B. Bailey: I, too, would like to introduce representatives visiting us here from

Science World, which is such a gem in my riding. I think most people do know

Science World for the wonderful experiences you can have when you go there

but might not know that they also provide direct education to 340

communities in British Columbia.

I would like to introduce Tracy Redies — who, of course, is very

well-known in these chambers, having served as MLA from 2017 to 2020 — and

the vice-president, Nancy Roper. We all know the world needs more nerds.

Please join me in welcoming them here.

S. Bond: I’m delighted to introduce a number of parents who are joining us

today here in Victoria. I can say to every member of this House that they’ve

made it very clear they wish they weren’t here, but they feel it’s

absolutely essential that they are here today.

I know that members in this House will want to welcome with me Louise

Witt, Cathy Nash, Nicole Kaler and Juliane Khadra.

Hon. G. Heyman: I want to join the member for Nechako Lakes in recognizing Sarah

Nathan, the manager of B.C. provincial operations at Ducks Unlimited. We all

know, I think, the tremendous work Ducks Unlimited does to protect important

waterfowl wetlands.

I particularly want to note that with the healthy watersheds

initiative, funded through the Ministry of Environment as part of our

StrongerBC recovery program, Ducks Unlimited Canada has been an important

partner in that initiative with projects at 148 Mile Marshes as well as the

Alaksen national wildlife area and salmon monitoring project.

Again, welcome.

L. Doerkson: I, too, have two groups of people to introduce. I wanted also to

acknowledge Margo Wagner and John MacLean. John is the CAO of our Cariboo

regional district. Margo Wagner is, of course, the chair. I want to thank

them for their tireless work during the wildfire season in the

Cariboo-Chilcotin. The work that you did to protect our communities will

never be forgotten. I thank you for that work.

I also wanted to thank Joel McKay, who is the CEO of the Northern

Development Initiative Trust, who funds a number of incredible projects as

well, so thank you to that first group.

Also in the gallery today, I have Grant Breckenridge, Mike McNeil and,

of course, longtime friends Jon and Sherry Bullock. They’re visiting today

as a better option to Mexico. I want to say that Sherry and Jon Bullock are

longtime friends, and Sherry has been an unbelievable Stampede mom to both

my daughters. So thank you very much for visiting us today.

B. D’Eith: I have two sets of introductions today, if you’ll indulge me. Today we

have the NDP caucus legislative assistants in the House. I wanted to say,

before I just start introducing them, how important our legislative

assistants are to all MLAs and to the work that we do in this House. We

couldn’t do the work that we do without them, and I really want to thank

them for that.

[1:40 p.m.]

I’d like to recognize Paige Falkins, Hannah Harris Hope, Yahya Jama,

Trudy Maygard, Laura Parent, Pavan Sodhan, Kaylee Szakacs, Cindy Tomnuk and

Patrick Vachon, our newest LA. Thank you so much to our LAs and all of the

LAs that work for all of us. Fantastic.

My second set of introductions is to my constituency assistants, who

are here in the House for the first time. It’s the first time ever they’ve

been in the House. Obviously, during COVID it has been very difficult for

many of our staff to sort of understand what we do here, so it’s really

important that they do come and see us in action.

I’d like to welcome Alysa Huppler-Poliak, Sunny Schiller and,

virtually, Sophia Kreuzkamp. I just wanted to say to both Alysa and Sunny….

Well, Alysa first. I mean, I’ve got somebody who will go to bat for people,

will not give up and is tenacious.

Thank you so much, Alysa.

And Sunny. She lives up to her name every day, and we really

appreciate that for her.

For those who’ve known Sophia, she has been with me from the

beginning, and we all know who the boss is in our office. I really

appreciate everything Sophia has done.

Please give a big round of applause for my CAs.

Hon. S. Robinson: I have just a couple of quick acknowledgments that I’d like to

make.

Last week, there was an important birthday in my family. My baby

turned 30. My youngest, Leya Robinson, turned 30, which was quite a

spectacular event, mostly because I can’t believe I’m the mom of a

30-year-old, and I want to know where the 30 years went.

The second one is that this weekend I’m going to have a new role. I’m

going to become a mother-in-law. My son is getting married to a wonderful

man named Kyle Demes.

I hope that everyone here in the chamber will give the

happy couple a warm round of applause.

K. Kirkpatrick: I would just like to ask you all to welcome some more parents, service

providers and advocates for children with autism. In the House, joining us

today, we’ve got Jean Lewis, David Marley, Nancy Walton and Dione Costanzo.

Thank you very much.

Please, if we can welcome them.

P. Alexis: It’s my very first time to actually have someone come from home and

join me here today, so I’m very, very happy to see my CA, my constituency

assistant, Seamus Heffernan. I can’t thank him enough for his grace and his

guidance every single day that we’ve been together.

Welcome, Seamus. Thank you so much for being you, and without both of

you — I’m missing one — I’m nothing. So thank you so much.

Hon. B. Ma: I’m so thrilled to hear from the member for Maple Ridge–Mission that

his constituency assistant, Alysa Huppler-Poliak, is here in the House,

because she is also very important to me as well. She and her partner have

been two of my most devoted volunteers. She lives in Vancouver, works in

Maple Ridge, volunteers in North Vancouver. The whole region benefits from

her brilliant smile and her energy and her devotion to making life better

for British Columbians.

Would the House please join me, again, in welcoming Alysa to the

House.

M. Bernier: It’s an absolute honour to introduce some people to this House today

that are here to ensure that their voices are also heard around autism

funding and the importance for their families.

Please welcome to the House Lama Alsaafin, Rozann Pedersen and Deborah

Antifaev. Please welcome them to the House.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Just a week into my minister’s office, our new administrative

assistant, Erica Greenup, has already had a big impact. She is helping me in

the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions.

Will the House please welcome her, her first time in question

period.

[1:45 p.m.]

R. Merrifield: I, too, have the pleasure of introducing some parents, service

providers and advocates for autistic children today. I’ve got Shivaun Martz,

Cason Martz, Mira Martz and Hazel Martz.

Would the House please join me in

welcoming them today.

G. Kyllo: As I’ve shared with this House previously, I do have four beautiful

daughters, but I do have one godson. I’m very proud to be able to introduce

to the House my godson, Gabe Davis. He’s down visiting from the great state

of Alaska, but he is a diehard Canadian, just in case there’s any concern

there.

Would the House please welcome Gabe Davis to the House.

S. Furstenau: I’m pleased to introduce a group of friends who are up in the gallery

today: Pam and Richard Demontigny; Pat Nichols; Dev Percey; Nick

Dickinson-Wilde; Waterfall Good; Vaalea Darke; Derek Pinto; Mark Neufeld;

and a dear old friend of mine from 28 years ago — I actually met her when I

was pregnant with my first baby — Anke Van Leeuwen.

Please make them feel

welcome.

T. Halford: I’d like to introduce four of my constituents today who have made the

trek over to the Legislature to advocate for their children and their

siblings: Roxanne Black, Brad Black, Ben Black. I’d like to lastly point out

Ella Black, who today spoke out on the front steps of the Legislature and

passionately advocated for her siblings.

I ask the House to please make them

welcome.

A. Olsen: Today I have the honour of welcoming Catherine Nash here to the

viewers gallery. Catherine is the mother of the late Darwyn Danesh, whose

plight struggling for services to support him through the challenges he had

with autism and other conditions were made light through an editorial

written by his father, Dr. Roshan Danesh, Catherine’s partner.

Could the

House please make them feel welcome.

T. Stone: I just wanted to take a moment to pay tribute to a very special person

in my life. Today is my dad’s 80th birthday. He’s probably one of the ten

people that are watching the proceedings at home these days,

faithfully.

My dad was born in Yorkton, Saskatchewan, back in 1941. He met my mom

in Regina in 1966. They made their way to Vancouver in 1967. My dad was

quick to join the Vancouver fire department in 1968 and was a firefighter

until we moved to Kamloops in the early 1980s. To this day, he’s a diehard

Roughriders fan. His blood is green, he says, unless the Roughriders get

knocked out of the playoffs. Then he quickly switches allegiance to the

Lions. So he has both baseball caps.

An avid fisherman. He’s lived a great life. He always been there for

myself, my sister and my brother — obviously, my mother as well. Just a

typical dad in the sense of just being such a grounding influence that

teaches you that right from wrong and, at the end of the day, when you make

decisions and you decide to do things, just do what’s right. I really

learned that from my dad.

He’s a very good man. A great sense of humour. Lots of integrity.

Always has put his family first. I’m very, very lucky to call him my dad.

I’d ask the House to please make Ken Graham Stone, my dad, feel very special

today and wish him a happy birthday on his 80th birthday.

G. Kyllo: I’m very proud to rise and to introduce two constituents to the House

today, who’ve made it all the way down from the Shuswap to advocate for

funding for autism. That is Mark Avery and Ryan Avery.

Would the House

please make them feel very welcome.

[1:50 p.m.]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

MULTICULTURALISM IN RICHMOND

H. Yao: I rise today to welcome my colleagues to join me in celebrating

Multiculturalism Week and how multiculturalism has strengthened

Richmond.

Let us start with food. Richmond South Centre is one of the

physically smallest ridings in B.C., yet in this tiny riding, we can all

enjoy the taste of different cuisines. Here are some

examples.

For dim sum, there is Sea Fortune, Royal Seafood and Golden

Paramount Seafood Restaurant.

For Cantonese-style dining, there is Redbud Café, Master Hung BBQ

and Wing Kee.

For Taiwanese, there is Potelicious, Bubble Waffle Café and

Chatime Richmond.

For Japanese, there is Sushi Aria, Kiriri Japanese Cuisine, Otaru

and Pokey Okey.

Vietnamese, Pho Lan Beef.

Malaysian, John 3:16.

Filipino, Kumare.

Afghan, Chopan Bakery and Diner.

Indian, Ginger Indian Cuisine.

Korean, Daan Korean Cuisine.

Middle Eastern, Uncle Sal’s Shawarma.

And many more in the small riding of Richmond South Centre. This

is the reason why I can’t seem to lose weight in Richmond.

In other parts of Richmond, located in my colleague’s riding of

Richmond-Queensborough, we have the No. 5 Road, also known as the

pathway to heaven. It is called the pathway to heaven because there are

so many faith-based institutions on one street. There is Islamic

Academy, Christian churches, the Sikh cultural society, Tibetan

monasteries, a Buddhist temple, a Jewish school, a Hindu temple and many

more.

Of course, we cannot forget the crown jewel of Richmond-Steveston,

the Steveston village, located in my colleague for Richmond-Steveston’s

riding as well. It is the best place for anyone to experience Richmond’s

history and heritage.

Of course, we can also not forget about Richmond North Centre. It

has the most diverse supermarkets where different cultural groceries,

snacks, supplies and artwork can be found. It is also Richmond’s

economic hub.

The Richmond mosaic is truly Canada’s gateway to the Pacific.

Every unique business, cultural tradition and innovation strengthens our

society.

Multiculturalism doesn’t just strengthen our economy but also

helps us appreciate inclusion, diversity and

self-determination.

CHILDREN WITH SUPPORT NEEDS

K. Kirkpatrick: The powerful words “Nothing about us without us” communicates the

principle that no decision should be made without the full participation

of the people affected by that policy.

When it comes to the well-being and the care of children,

especially children with support needs, parents should be — they must be

— directly involved. The autism community, often marginalized and

vulnerable, have been struggling, but thankfully, they’ve found comfort

in their access to the autism funding currently in place to pay for

supports, such as certified behavioural analysts, occupational

therapists, to help promote skill development for their children. In

most cases, it involves spending a long time to vet and hire the right

service team, and it can take time for their children to build trust and

familiarity.

Unfortunately, these long and well-established relationships and

resources are on the verge of being taken away and replaced by a

one-size-fits-all model that families and experts say simply will not

work. All children in this province, all children with support needs,

deserve to have the specialized care that they deserve.

We must understand the profound impacts these sweeping changes

will bring, as transitioning is one of the most difficult things for

children with autism.

Mr. Speaker: Member, the statement. Keep it non-partisan, please.

K. Kirkpatrick: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. I will just finish for you.

My thanks and appreciation for the hard work that these families,

organizations and service providers have done to bring their important

concerns to this House where all of our jobs are to represent

them.

ACTIVISM AGAINST

GENDER-BASED

VIOLENCE

B. Anderson: Tomorrow starts 16 days of action to end gender-based violence. I

want to speak to survivors and people experiencing gender-based violence

now. What I want you to know is that you are not alone. What you have

gone through has been tremendously difficult. The fact that you get up

every day and function in society is a testament to your

perseverance.

Saturday marked the annual Transgender Day of Remembrance, a day

for remembering and mourning transgender, non-binary and two-spirit

people murdered each year for being who they are. I want all people, of

course including transgender people, in my community to know I am here

for them as their representative.

[1:55 p.m.]

I want to tell a personal story about a friend. When I was a

teenager, I made a friend at work, Jay. They were super funny and witty

and great to be around. We both moved on from those jobs and lost

touch.

A few years later I bumped into them. Immediately, we launched

into a conversation, and it was clear that my friend had been through a

lot. They had faced rigorous cancer but were currently in

remission.

At the end of our conversation, my friend asked: “Are you really

not going to say anything?” And I said: “What? What would you like me to

ask?” And they said: “Well, can’t you tell I’m a man now?” And I said:

“Yeah, of course, and I think it’s great, and I’m so happy that you’re

able to be who you are and show the world that you’re a man.”

My friend had almost died of cancer, but as a transgendered

person, they were worried that I was going to judge them when they

showed me and the rest of the world their true selves, a man.

Please help keep my dear friend safe. Let’s cultivate a society of

compassion so people like my friend Jay, who also happens to be a

distant cousin, can thrive.

MATERNAL HEALTH

AND KITTY CARR

FUND

R. Merrifield: Mr. Paul Carr is a resident in my riding, and recently he told me

his personal story of how his daughter was born.

Twenty-seven years ago

he and his wife drove to the hospital, excited and prepared, but nothing

could have prepared him for that day. His daughter was born at 4:20 p.m.

on New Year’s Eve, but his wife passed away from complications just four

hours later. He described his shock and devastation and how he went home

with his baby girl to read baby books in one hand while parenting his

daughter in the other.

As traumatic as this was, his sole focus after grieving was to

care for his daughter, but now he finds himself with a renewed focus

that was birthed out of this painful experience. Paul Carr devoted his

free time to studying maternal mortality and actively pursue ways to

contribute to get Canada out of 39th place in the world. Learning that

the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, alongside the

Canadian Foundation for Women’s Health, needed help, Paul began to bring

this work to fruition, and this last week the dream became a

reality.

Along with the CFWH, Paul launched the Kitty Carr fund, named

after his late wife, to support the creation and implementation of a

confidential inquiry system in Canada. It will support research,

education and initiatives to improve access to the highest quality of

obstetric care to improve outcomes for mothers, their babies and their

families.

Dr. Popadiuk, chair of the CFWH, stated: “There is nothing

more unexpected or tragic for a family than losing a mother in

childbirth. Mr. Carr so poignantly has shared his family’s personal

tragedy and wants to see something positive come of it for Canadian

mothers.”

We are so thankful for Mr. Carr for his steadfast support to help

us begin this journey to eliminate preventable maternal death in

Canada.

We owe it to the families left behind to learn from each other and

every maternal death and prevent them from happening again in the

future. And we can do it.

MAPLE RIDGE–PITT MEADOWS–KATZIE

COMMUNITY

NETWORK

B. D’Eith: Lately we’ve really come to understand the importance of

cooperation in our communities. We are stronger together. And today I’d

like to celebrate the Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows–Katzie Community

Network.

This network was established in the 1990s and is made up of

service providers, not-for-profits, local and provincial government reps

and business and community members, and they all work together to build

a stronger society. Today there are over 80 different organizations that

participate in the network, so it’s impossible for me to name them all

today, but they’ve accomplished so much together.

Now, the meetings allow participants to learn more about each

other and what’s happening in the community. A huge shout-out to Brenna

Ayliffe, who’s recently finished her amazing term as chair. The network

also provides a structure for organizations of similar populations to

come together and work together.

Working groups of the network include the Ridge Meadows Community

Children’s Table, which is coordinated by Roberta O’Brien; the community

literacy committee, which is coordinated by Elaine Yamamoto; Golden Ears

FEAST, which is coordinated by the amazing Candace Gordon; and the local

immigration partnership team, coordinated by Carolina

Echeverri.

[2:00 p.m.]

Another group led by Kim Dumore, Stop Overdose Ridge Meadows

Community Action Team, brings together service providers, government

reps and those with lived experience to really come up with solutions

that work in a local environment. This approach has been adopted right

across the province, and we’re really proud of that.

The also active and passionate Seniors Network group, which is

headed up by Heather Treleaven, is continually working to make the

community more age-friendly and having fun along the way. For example,

they have a scooter rodeo where they have seniors that get to try out

different mobility devices, which is a lot of fun. Having this community

network in place is such a positive impact in our community.

By working together, the participants of the network are

contributing to the sustainability of Maple Ridge, Pitt Meadows and

Katzie communities.

PARENTING

J. Tegart:

I have a special secret that I’d like to share

today.

I’m going to give some little hints and require you all to

play.

The first question that I have to ask — raise your hand if

this is you:

A parent of a girl or a boy, maybe more than just a

few.

How many parents?

I myself first had a girl, shortly followed by a

son,

But God said, “Go forth and multiply,”

And, wow, those

twins were fun.

We guided them through childhood. Hockey, music and

dance became our life.

School plays, mud pies and playdates — our

life was full of spice.

Then came those challenging teenage

years,

where ‘good morning’ becomes a grunt.

The clothes, the

hair, the attitudes,

Boyfriends, girlfriends — the eternal

hunt.

Here comes a second hint I have, as this story has been

told.

Raise your hand if you’ve had the thrill of grandchildren joining

the fold.

The day that first grandchild is born,

Your perspective

of life is changed.

The hugs, the snuggles, the baby

smells,

Your future is now arranged.

A nana of nine, plus three

who have joined,

Our family continues to grow.

When we come back

to this place,

Perhaps we can all bring some pictures to

show.

Shhh, here it comes — the secret.

“The secret — what is

it?” you say.

The next title I wear when I return to this

House,

Great-grandma, I’m proud to say.

[Applause.]

I assure you, I was a child bride.

Special congratulations to my granddaughter Morgan, and Gavin, and

new grandparents Lisa and Travis, Scott and Natalie.

Oral Questions

SERVICE MODEL CHANGE

FOR CHILDREN WITH SUPPORT

NEEDS

S. Bond: Well, anybody who spent a few minutes outside today knows that it

was chilly, with rain threatening. But it didn’t stop hundreds of

parents. The Legislature lawn was filled today with families who wanted

to make sure that every single MLA in this Legislature heard their

stories. It was that important to them.

Some of those families are in the gallery today, including Rozann

Pedersen, the parent of two children on the autism spectrum who are

thriving under the current system. She points out that waitlists in

Ontario have doubled with the introduction of a hub model. Dione

Costanzo’s son has received individualized support for 15 years, and she

worries that the hub model will be “a disaster.”

Ella Black is 12 years old, and she has a question on behalf of

her autistic brother. She’s here today, and she asks: “Why are you

taking away the only treatment that helps him and many

others?”

[2:05 p.m.]

Thousands of families across this province have been asking the

same questions as Ella. Ella came here today to get an answer from this

minister, so today I’m hoping the minister will do the right

thing.

Can she explain to Ella why she has decided to dismantle a system

that is working for Ella’s brother and thousands of children like him

across the province?

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to Ella for being here today. I do understand the

concerns of families who currently have successful packages of services

for their children with autism. I do want to reassure them and all

British Columbians that services will continue to be provided to those

children. We will work in partnership with parents to make sure that the

unique needs of all of these children are met and will be

met.

Children and youth who have a diagnosis of autism will receive

services, so will children and youth with other diagnoses who are

currently left behind. Children and youth who are waiting for a

diagnosis of autism can receive services rather than waiting for that

diagnosis. Services will be delivered through an accessible, culturally

safe one-stop point of access, based on the unique needs of each of the

children and youth.

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

S. Bond: The minister knows that what she says simply doesn’t address the

concerns of the parents that are here today on behalf of families across

British Columbia. The minister knows that.

Let’s be perfectly clear. Neither those families, the opposition,

the leader of the Green Party — no one — has said that there isn’t a

need to support other families in British Columbia. But what we have

said, and parents have said with loud voices, including on the

Legislature lawn today, is that there is no need to dismantle a model

that is working. Instead, the minister could choose to build on it. It’s

not a case of either-or for families in British Columbia, and she knows

it.

It’s time for the minister to recognize the distress, the anxiety

and the fear that the announcement…. Blindsided parents across this

province.

Perhaps the member for Vernon-Monashee will recognize this story.

It’s Becky Buff from Vernon, who wants her MLA to know what she has to

say. She said: “Your announcement brought me to tears. I am terrified

that what you propose with this new system will uproot our already

fragile and delicate day-to-day life. I am begging you to reconsider.

Please don’t take this away from us.” I am certainly hoping that the MLA

for Vernon-Monashee is speaking to the minister to say: “My constituent

is asking you to listen.”

Will the minister do the right thing? It’s not an unreasonable

ask. Press the pause button. Consult in a way that should have taken

place long before now. On behalf of the parents that are here today and

across this province, please, we’re asking the minister to do the right

thing.

Hon. M. Dean: It is really important to listen to families. Parents are experts

in the lives of their children. And of course, parents who have children

with support needs have been very powerful advocates for

them.

In 2019, we started a consultation process. We spoke to thousands

of people — advocates, service providers, families. We were gathering

information and hearing stories of how the patchwork of programs doesn’t

serve people well.

Then the pandemic hit, and I understand that people pivoted.

Services and families were just surviving. But we also saw even further

weaknesses in the patchwork and the way of delivering some services to

some families.

For over ten years, we’ve been hearing from the Representative for

Children and Youth, as well, who also has been listening to families.

Today she issued a statement. She says: “The current CYSN system does

not work for many children with support needs and their families and

must be transformed. All children and youth with support needs deserve

access to equitable, timely, culturally attuned and community-based

care, resources and supports.” That is what we are doing.

[2:10 p.m.]

SERVICE MODEL CHANGE

FOR CHILDREN WITH SUPPORT NEEDS

AND SERVICES FOR INDIGENOUS CHILDREN

K. Kirkpatrick: The Representative for Children and Youth certainly had some

recommendation in terms of what has to happen with the CYSN framework,

but nobody recommended clawing back individualized funding. The minister

completely ignores the recommendations that were made, such as

increasing service provider capacity, addressing wait-lists for services

and assessments and supporting diverse delivery options with family

choice.

For weeks now, families and advocates have been begging and

pleading with the NDP government to stop this clawback, yet they believe

government is not listening and that their MLAs are not listening. Now

the First Nations Leadership Council calls it “a significant step

backwards, and one which we wholly reject. Like thousands of families

across B.C., we unequivocally reiterate that you must stop the rollout

of your planned hub model.”

Will the minister listen to Indigenous voices and stop the

clawback?

Hon. M. Dean: We know, actually, that in the current patchwork of programming,

Indigenous children and youth are underserved. We know that under the

current patchwork of programming, many children get left behind,

especially Indigenous children and youth. Our government is committed to

building a culturally safe, trauma-informed, accessible system — a

system of supports that will wrap around each unique child.

We have been consistently engaging with the First Nations

Leadership Council, and we will continue to meet with Indigenous leaders

and rights and title holders. This week I was at an engagement session

hosted by FNLC and have started that conversation with rights and title

holders, because we need to have that ongoing engagement and discussion

so that we can deliver services for their children and youth in the way

that they want.

Mr. Speaker: West Vancouver–Capilano, supplemental.

K. Kirkpatrick: I’m not sure that the minister has read the letter which was

recently delivered to her and shared with all members here, from the

First Nations Leadership Council. I’ll quote from it.

These are their words: “It is bewildering to us that in 2021,

given the understanding of the legacy of residential schools, you could

dream up any proposal that involves increasing the role and

responsibility of MCFD.”

Not in my words; the words of the First Nations Leadership

Council. Not only that, but “your hub model will result in deepening the

racism and discrimination our children face.”

What does the minister have to say to the First Nations Leadership

Council?

Hon. M. Dean: Hon. Speaker, we’re putting children and youth at the centre of

this work, and we are recognizing that Indigenous children and youth

have been underserved for far too long. We’ve started to engage with

Indigenous rights and title holders, and we’ll continue that

work.

There are many different pathways that Indigenous communities can

take. They might want to exercise their jurisdiction. They might want to

partner with an Indigenous agency or work with some other kind of

partnership of service delivery for their children and youth. We’re

going to continue that really important work, and we will continue

demonstrating our commitment to making sure that we tackle the

overrepresentation of Indigenous children and youth in the child welfare

system as well.

We’ve been working with communities. We’ve changed provincial

legislation. We’ve increased the funding to support out-of-care

placements so that children and youth can stay connected to family, to

community and to culture. There’s a lot more work to do, but we are

committed to doing that in this area, serving children and youth with

support needs, as well as other areas of need.

INDIGENOUS GOVERNANCE

AND WORK OF B.C. GOVERNMENT

WITH WET’SUWET’EN NATION

A. Olsen: On Monday, the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation

thought my rhetoric was “harsh and unhelpful.” He blamed the disunity in

the Wet’suwet’en territory on the Wet’suwet’en people, even though the

disunity is rooted in the actions of this Crown government over

decades.

[2:15 p.m.]

The people in this House know that they’ve amplified the chaos

created by the Indian Act, that has wholly disrupted Indigenous

governance structures that took good care of domestic and international

affairs. The minister said on Monday: “There has been — it’s no secret —

conflict between the elected and hereditary system. But we continue to

do this historic work.” Historic work. What historic work? Manipulating

boundary disputes that were created by the modern treaty process to

further divide and conquer in this colonial project?

It’s unhelpful that the minister scapegoats Indigenous people for

the divisions that this Crown government policy deliberately created in

our communities. The minister knows, like all the ministers before him,

Indigenous people divided against each other are challenged to be united

to do the real historic work: reconciling the history of

Crown-Indigenous relations.

My question is to the Minister of Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation. From his perspective, has the historic work in the

Wet’suwet’en territory been successful?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I think all of us know that

the work around reconciliation is difficult and challenging, but I can

tell him that every minister in this government, every member of this

government has been actively working to ensure that we are able to work

to resolve the challenges that we face, whether it’s with Wet’suwet’en

or other Indigenous nations around this province.

It is why we introduced and unanimously passed in this House the

United Nations declaration of Indigenous peoples legislation, which is a

foundation in terms of reconciliation. We know that there are

challenges. They are long-standing. But I think all of us in this House

are committed to resolving them.

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

A. Olsen: What we’ve actually seen is basically a throwback to the 19th

century. The minister and this government continue to advance and defend

a resource-colony mentality.

It was the Minister of Indigenous Relations in the 1990s who, when

he was the provincial negotiator, suggested that we’d want to leverage

residential school healing funds to “sweeten the deal” for Indigenous

nations to sign these rights-extinguishing treaties.

As we are talking about this right now, as I’m asking this

question, fully armed, militarized RCMP are rolling into the

Wet’suwet’en to do exactly what they have always done on behalf of the

political and corporate leaders of British Columbia: clear the land of

Indigenous people.

This government is still acting like that 19th century resource

colony. The Minister of Indigenous Relations is okay, apparently, with

us utilizing an injunction process that has elevated a corporation’s

potential economic losses over Indigenous rights. It’s deliberate. This

province has always used the RCMP to protect corporate interests. On

Monday, it was the minister who was offended by me raising these

questions.

To the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation, same

question that I asked in my first question. From his perspective, has

the historic work in the Wet’suwet’en territory that he talked about on

Monday been successful?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question, and I will reiterate the

answer that this House, this government, is committed to reconciliation.

This House, this government, is committed to ensuring the implementation

of the rights of Indigenous people through that legislation. It’s also

about bringing together unity, which the Minister of Indigenous

Relations and Reconciliation has spoken about in this House.

It’s why we have provided funding to help resolve some of the

issues, the challenges, that the Wet’suwet’en are facing between the

elected and the Hereditary. We are continuing that work and will

continue that work. I’d remind the member that this takes place in the

context of courts that have a role, of this House that has a

role.

As I said when I got up, this government is committed to that

work, and that work is going to continue.

[2:20 p.m.]

SERVICE MODEL CHANGE

FOR CHILDREN WITH SUPPORT

NEEDS

P. Milobar: Earlier we heard the minister quote a statement from the

Representative for Children and Youth. I’m not sure if she was reading

from the same statement that came out today for immediate release or

not, but let’s take another look at that.

It also says: “Sadly, the announcement has resulted in

uncertainty, fear, anxiety and stress for many families.” It also says:

“It is time to take a step back….”

Parents are rightly worried about this minister’s just-trust-me

attitude. A government document shows the government has zero plans to

increase resources for children with diverse needs. In fact, it says:

“Based on the ministry’s research, the current complement of

professionals will make up the professionals in the new system.” The

government is not even planning on adding any more

professionals.

This is what the Speech and Hearing B.C. people have to say: “We

are concerned with the NDP government’s response that suggests there are

enough skilled professionals to meet the demand for service in these new

hubs.”

How can the minister possibly tell parents in the gallery and on

the front lawn today that not only are there already enough service

providers but that the system can handle up to 10,000 more children into

it, all at once?

Hon. M. Dean: What the representative says is it’s time to “step back to address

the uncertainty and fears and ensure clear information is available to

families and advocates, while not losing sight of the need to build a

much better system of care” for children and youth with support

needs.

I have heard from a lot of families, and I understand that there

is concern and anxiety in the community. Starting from Monday next week,

there are lots of engagement sessions for families and for service

providers to be having conversations with ministry staff to hear and

understand more detail about what the new system will look

like.

It’s going to be delivered by community, for community, in

community. We’re going to be having those conversations to make sure

that we’re delivering a safety net, a system of supports that’s based on

needs, so children and youth in their community will be able to access

services — and in a timely way, so that they’re not held back, waiting

for a diagnosis.

As soon as a parent has a concern for their child — or an elder in

the community or a teacher at kindergarten — that child will be able to

access services. Their unique needs will be identified, and a team of

multidisciplinary professionals, as required, will be wrapped around to

deliver services, in partnership with those parents, in order to help

that unique child achieve their goals.

SERVICE MODEL CHANGE

FOR CHILDREN WITH SUPPORT NEEDS

AND TRAINING FOR SERVICE PROVIDERS

C. Oakes: Wendy Duke is a speech language pathologist. She says that the

government actually didn’t consult with practitioners prior to this

announcement.

She says: “Given the shortage of therapists in this province,

where the heck is this government going to come up with the probably

hundreds of clinicians needed for these programs? They’re not going to

get that resolved in three years.”

Will the Minister of Advanced Education outline what she is doing

today to increase the seats and training needed to meet the impacts of

her government’s changes?

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member for the question. I appreciate that there

are some highly professional service providers out there, across the

whole of our province. I want to thank them for all the work that

they’re doing. I’ve met with many of them as well, and I’ve been hearing

from them.

Many service providers actually already deliver services to

children and youth pre-diagnosis because they are being presented with

needs. They’re telling us that they are looking forward to building

capacity. They can see how a multidisciplinary team approach is

successful for families. They’re excited that, in their community,

they’re going to see a pathway forward of building capacity and building

services.

Again, the statement made by the Representative for Children and

Youth today….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let her answer.

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. M. Dean: She says:

“As B.C.’s Representative for Children and Youth, I have long been

calling for a fundamental shift in the CYSN system…. I am in favour of

the long-term direction as laid out by Minister Dean.

“In particular, I support the shift towards a needs-based rather

than a diagnostically driven CYSN system. This shift will enable

children to receive timely supports based on assessed developmental

needs even before they receive a diagnosis, which currently can take

many years. I also support the intention to enhance community-based

access to a diverse array of care and supports, from infancy through to

young adulthood.”

And that’s what we’re doing, hon. Speaker.

SERVICE MODEL CHANGE

FOR CHILDREN WITH SUPPORT NEEDS

AND ROLE OF COMMUNITY LIVING B.C.

D. Davies: Hopefully, I get an answer to my question this

afternoon.

Katie McCready is the parent of an older child with autism here in

Victoria. She says that her child’s conditions do not disappear at 18

years old. Parents now have no idea what is going to happen as their

children grow older without new resources in place.

The big question mark is: what will happen to youth th diverse

needs who age out of the Ministry of Children and Families and move into

the care of Community Living B.C. under the Minister of Social

Development?

With the Minister of Children and Families’ ill-thought-out plan,

we’ve heard nothing from the Minister of Social Development.

Can the Minister of Social Development tell concerned parents,

like Katie, what changes he has made to accommodate the new pressures

that will be put on CLBC?

Hon. M. Dean: We’re putting children and youth at the centre of this system that

we’re building. We know that there is a patchwork of programming that is

leaving too many children behind. So what we’re doing is we’re making

sure that children and youth with support needs…. As soon as an issue is

identified, they’ll be able to receive services.

Now, the question of a diagnosis is…. It can be a good tool. It

can be a useful tool. But children shouldn’t have services locked away

from them whilst they’re waiting for a diagnosis. That is too much of a

critical time in a child’s life, hon. Speaker.

Children will still be able to access a diagnosis….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, let the minister answer, please.

It’s okay. No argument with the Chair.

Minister will continue.

Hon. M. Dean: The development of this system that’s going to better serve

children and youth across British Columbia does not have an impact

further down the line on services as it does….

Children and youth will continue to be supported as they are in

the current system. Children and youth will continue to be supported by

support workers from our ministry to make sure that a transition into

another system is successful.

SERVICE MODEL CHANGE

FOR CHILDREN WITH SUPPORT

NEEDS

J. Tegart: Well, Mr. Speaker, I’m hoping that I can get an answer.

Families have been begging and pleading with NDP MLAs to end their

callous clawback, but the NDP are not listening or even responding to

their emails.

Tanya Kemp is a constituent of the Finance Minister. She says:

“What is it going to take for you to listen to the real people whose

lives are affected? I no longer trust that parents will be heard by the

NDP government. It’s like speaking to robots.”

Will the minister finally listen to tens of thousands of parents,

including those here protesting today, and end her clawback?

Hon. M. Dean: It is really important to be listening to families. All the way in

the journey of supporting and serving children and youth, we will always

continue to listen with, work with, partner with families.

We started our consultation with families in 2019. Then the

pandemic hit, and we saw in 2020, even more woefully, the inadequacy of

the way that programming was delivered. We are continuing our engagement

with families. There are engagement sessions that families are able to

take

part in, starting on Monday next week. As we roll out the early

implementation areas, we’ll also be doing evaluations and hearing from

families as well.

[2:30 p.m.]

I just want to restate our commitment. Children and youth who need

services will receive services. They will receive them based on their

needs and in a timely way. That includes children who currently receive

services, and it will include children who are left behind, currently,

as well. It will include children who might be waiting for a diagnosis,

but it means that they will get services earlier.

S. Cadieux: Nicole Kaler is here from Surrey. She’s worried — really worried —

about the minister’s decision to claw back funding for individualized

autism programs, and she has an added worry.

As a Black woman, she’s worried that the hub will exacerbate the

bias and discrimination that many feel when interacting with the

provincial government. Having the ability to put her child’s interests

first, she has created a system that works for the family in a

culturally sensitive way.

Can the minister explain to Nicole how the hub system can possibly

know her child’s needs better than she does?

Hon. M. Dean: It is absolutely vital that we put children and youth at the

centre of our service provision, and we will make sure that the unique

needs of all children and youth are recognized in the system. That

includes all personal and unique lived experiences and identity as

well.

The member’s asked, earlier on, about Indigenous children and

youth, so we will absolutely make sure, as I’ve said, that we are going

to create an Indigenous pathway for services to be delivered in

Indigenous communities in ways that Indigenous communities want those

services to be delivered.

Again, the Representative for Children and Youth said today: “If

we as a society are going to meet the call of

article 23 of the UN

convention on the rights of the child, which speaks to the rights of all

children and youth with special needs to access care and support and

live a life of dignity, belonging and connection, then the current

system needs to be transformed.” We’re following the recommendations of

the representative.

U.S. TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

M. de Jong: More bad news today for forest-dependent families,

forest-dependent communities in B.C. The U.S. Department of Commerce has

released its final determination on the duties being imposed on B.C.

lumber exports, softwood lumber exports, to the U.S. Starting next week,

the combined countervail anti-dumping duty will double — double — to 18

percent.

What’s that going to do? Access to the U.S. market is going to

become that much more difficult. Large producers here in B.C. are,

undoubtedly, going to shift production from B.C. mills to American-based

operations, and more B.C. workers are going to be put out of

work.

The government was warned back in May. They were warned in May

that this was going to happen, and they’ve done nothing to prevent it.

In fact, you can say they’ve made it worse by introducing their own set

of policies that they know and admit will cost thousands of jobs in the

B.C. forest sector.

Will the minister confirm today, now, that the American tariffs

are doubling, will she explain why her government has done nothing to

secure a negotiated settlement to this long-standing trade dispute, and

will she tell the House how many more forestry jobs are going to be lost

in addition to the thousands of jobs that will be lost because of her

own misguided policies?

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

We are committed to defending our forest industry against unfair

and illegal tariffs. Our government continues to engage with our

counterparts in Ottawa and Washington to fight for a fair deal for

workers, industry and communities.

In fact, my colleague, the Minister of Jobs, has met with Canadian

and American officials responsible for international trade to discuss

this very issue. Alongside our federal partners, we will fight these

unjustified duties through the dispute settlement process available to

us.

[2:35 p.m.]

Separately, we recognize the boom-and-bust cycle of the past has

hurt communities. That’s why our new vision for forestry focuses on

long-term, innovative jobs like made-in-B.C. wood products, so

communities can thrive for generations to come.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. K. Conroy: We’re supporting workers. We’re supporting communities to overcome

the challenges of the sector.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members will come to order. Order. Order.

The minister will continue.

Hon. K. Conroy: Resolving the softwood lumber dispute is a top priority for our

government. The members might think this is funny, but they did nothing.

They did nothing under their watch.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. K. Conroy: The U.S. Department of Commerce has dragged out this dispute and

imposed unfair and unfounded duties on Canadian softwood exports. Our

forest policies are trade compliant, and we will continue to defend the

tens of thousands of British Columbians who rely on the forest sector

for their livelihood.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Abbotsford West. The member for Abbotsford West will

come to order now.

The minister will continue.

Hon. K. Conroy: In partnership with the federal government, we will fight these

unjustified duties through the dispute settlement process that is

available to us. In addition, our government will continue to pursue

growth in markets for B.C. wood products, both at home and abroad, by

promoting innovation and expanding trade relationships with global

markets.

As part of our new vision for forestry, we are already working

with the sector, including workers, communities, First Nations and

industry, to ensure that it remains competitive now and into the future,

unlike those members.

[End of question period.]

T. Halford: I seek leave to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed, Member.

Petitions

T. Halford: I present a petition signed by over 19,000 concerned parents and

advocates, some of whom are in the gallery today, calling for the Minister

of Children and Family Development to end the clawback of individualized

funding for autism and protect other important services. I present this

petition on behalf of its organizer, Jen Biddlecombe.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 28, Forest Amendment

Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room,

Section A, I call continued committee for Bill

22, the FOIPPA amendment act.

[2:40 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 28 — FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 2021

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 28;

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 2:41 p.m.

The Chair: All right, Members. I think we’re ready to get going on the

committee stage of Bill 28, Forest Amendment Act, 2021.

Would the minister like to start with an opening

statement?

J. Rustad: I’m wondering if we have quorum.

The Chair: We do. Thank you, Member.

On clause 1.

J. Rustad: I thought that you were going to the minister so that she could

introduce her staff for the bill, but that’s okay. Perhaps I’ll start,

then, with a more general question on Bill 28. Bill 28 is a rather

lengthy bill that obviously goes across a wide range of topics. I’m just

wondering if the minister could provide a brief explanation of the

intention behind this bill.

Hon. K. Conroy: Right now, with me I have Jordan Goss, the ADM for the Minister of

Finance, and Tonya Young, the manager of the income tax taxation branch

from the Ministry of Finance. The first few sections of this bill are

all around the Ministry of Finance issues, so we were hoping that the

member would be starting with those bills and keeping to the bill as we

process through it.

The purpose of the Forest Amendment Act. It’s being proposed to

ensure that government has the tools to support a diverse and

competitive forest sector and reconciliation with Indigenous nations and

to set out clear and fair compensation rules, where timber harvesting

rights are impacted.

The key changes include amendments and establishing a new

legislative tool called “special purpose area” that will enable the

government to take timber volume from a designated area of Crown land

for an access purpose, non-timber production purpose or other defined

special purposes, such as redistributing the timber harvesting rights to

First Nations communities in B.C. timber sales to support the market

pricing system.

[2:45 p.m.]

Amendments make changes to the process, where the allowable annual

cut of forest licensees are reduced in a timber supply area.

The amendments allow licensees’ volumes to be grouped to ensure

that those who control more volume carry a greater proportion of the

reduction. Changes set out clear and fair rules for compensation where a

licensee’s harvesting rights have been impacted. Compensation will be

based on the net income that the minister determines would be earned on

the sale of harvested timber from when the licensee’s rights are

impacted for the remaining term of the licence.

Amendments will require area-based tenure holders to maintain and

share inventory information with the chief forester to ensure that the

province has complete, current and accurate information to support

planning and decision-making. This will result in better forest

management decisions on provincial lands to support forest

sustainability.

Why are we introducing this new forest act right now? These

amendments are intended to be the first step in modernizing the forestry

framework. It’s a continuation of our intentions paper that we announced

this spring. The amendments allow for the government to support

meaningful reconciliation with Indigenous nations where there are

currently increased pressures on the province’s available timber supply

due, in part, to the beetle epidemic and wildfires.

Clear and fair compensation rules are intended to protect British

Columbians, as taxpayers, from windfall settlements while providing

certainty to forest tenure holders.

J. Rustad: I did not get an opportunity, in advance, to ask the minister

about…. This is why I asked a general question at the beginning, which

has been the practice as we have gone through a number of pieces of

legislation, between the minister and I. I’m wondering if the minister

would be willing to allow some latitude for some general questions at

the start of this, with regards to the overall bill, or whether she

wants to insist on going

section by section.

Hon. K. Conroy: I’d like to go

section by section, because the Ministry of Finance

staff do not have to be here for the entire bill.

I’d also like to introduce my associate deputy minister, Melissa

Sanderson, who is joining us as well.

J. Rustad: It is unfortunate, as the bill does go across many things,

including the financial side of the bill, but there’s also implications

— financial implications — throughout the entire bill in terms of the

structure and the events done. Hence, why I thought it might be

acceptable to be able to have some more general questions.

Maybe I will ask this question and see if the minister is willing

to entertain this question. Part of this is because of the jamming of

time that we have in terms of our ability to actually be able to go

through this bill, due to closure.

What I’m wondering is…. With regards to the components that are in

this bill, whether it’s the financial components, whether it is the

redistribution and the components of compensation for that

redistribution or whether it is the special purpose areas, has there

been a financial analysis as well as a supply analysis on the impact of

this bill to the forest sector and to the people involved in the forest

sector?

Hon. K. Conroy: Just for clarity, which

section is the member referring

to?

J. Rustad: As I said in my statement, the question actually relates to the

entire bill as opposed to individual sections, because there are

components associated both in the first

section of the bill, which talks

about fees-in-lieu, as well as going on to the other components,

including the redistribution of fibre due to reductions, the

compensation formula associated with that, as well as going into the

special purpose areas and potential impacts of that. That is why I’m

asking this from a general nature, across the entire bill, while there’s

an opportunity for all staff to be able to be present to give the

minister advice.

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The government doesn’t expect that there will be direct economic

impacts of the amendments to Indigenous nations or stakeholders. The

intention is that redistribution of forestry tenure and diversification

of the forest industry will lead to a more robust and resilient economy

for the province of B.C. When a special purpose area is being

considered, the direct economic impacts would be considered by cabinet

and Treasury Board.

Clauses 1 and 2 approved.

On clause 3.

J. Rustad: We are in the initial component here of this bill in terms of the

fee-in-lieu components. I ask this question sort of in this section,

although it applies throughout the next number of sections associated

with this.

I’m wondering if the minister can provide some examples of fee in

lieu. I understand what fee in lieu is, obviously, but the question is

for those following along at home, so they have an opportunity to

understand what we’re talking about, as well as, potentially, some

examples that the minister may have come across where there is suspected

that fee in lieu has not been paid by companies or

individuals.

Hon. K. Conroy: The Forest Act provides for fees to be paid to the government for

timber exported under an exemption from the requirement to manufacture

timber in British Columbia, and that’s what a fee in lieu is. No fee in

lieu is due for timber or logs that are not exported. We don’t have

specific examples at this time.

J. Rustad: Maybe I could ask this question, as well, which once again applies

to many of these sections associated with this. I could say this is not

so much attached directly to the

definitions component.

There’s obviously a purpose for bringing in this section, and we

will go through in some detail around the components of going in and

doing this review or this audit. There must be some concern that the

minister has with regard to fee in lieu and, potentially, the

non-payment of fee in lieu, for the minister to want to go through, in

pretty significant detail, the ability to go in to audit and to collect

and/or estimate and/or collect fees, penalties, interest,

etc.

[2:55 p.m.]

I’m wondering. Surely, there must be some component or some

information that the minister has that suggests that this has not been

undertaken, that fees in lieu have not been paid, and therefore there’s

a need for this kind of oversight to be introduced into this

legislation.

Hon. K. Conroy: The Ministry of Finance is currently responsible for administering

Part 11.1, which is the inspection, audits and assessments of the Forest

Act. That legislation was actually brought in, in 2006.

Part 11.1 of the

Forest Act relates to audits and assessments in respect of stumpage,

which is the amount that the holder of a timber licence must pay to the

government for timber that is cut under the licence and scale. So the

amendments to the Forest Act are required to allow the Minister of

Finance to audit and make assessments in respect of the fee in

lieu.

The ability to audit is an important compliance and enforcement

tool. It helps to promote voluntary compliance and to recover amounts

that are not voluntarily reported or are reported incorrectly, which

creates a fairer playing field for everyone.

J. Rustad: I appreciate the minister’s response. I think the ability for

auditing and the need is an important one. But obviously this is…. You

know, since 2006, a lot of years have gone by. Surely there must be some

examples of where there have been potential problems or identified

potential problems to trigger this type of a shift or this type of a

change in the act. So once again I ask whether or not there have been

some examples or some suspicions that there has not been an appropriate

fee in lieu being paid under the circumstances after

harvesting.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: We do this with stumpage. We do this with other royalties. This is

to ensure a level playing field for everyone.

J. Rustad: My understanding is that the ability to be able to do that sort of

assessment is before…. There seems to be a shift here, and the shift is

why I’m asking for these questions. I’m just wondering what has led to

this or whether or not there was some deficiency. If there was some

deficiency in the previous legislation, if the minister could, perhaps,

provide that example as to why.

Hon. K. Conroy: As I said, there is no ability to audit within the current

legislation. So we’re bringing in the ability for the Minister of

Finance to audit the fee-in-lieu system to make a fair playing field for

everyone.

J. Rustad: I’m wondering if the minister could, perhaps, provide some

examples of why it hasn’t been fair?

Hon. K. Conroy: Because there’s no ability to audit the fee in lieu. For other

things like stumpage, taxes, royalties, the Ministry of Finance has the

ability to audit all of those.

J. Rustad: Fee in lieu is driven, of course, from wood that’s exported, that

is not processed. It’s a levy that’s put in place.

I want to see if the minister could confirm that the fee in lieu

is charged based on volume that goes across the scale, that is then

adjusted accordingly, due to the formulas, and charged so that, really,

that fee in lieu is being driven by information that comes across the

weight scale.

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes.

J. Rustad: This is from my own knowledge. I’m not quite 100 percent clear,

but wood that is harvested is subject to stumpage. Then there’s a fee in

lieu put in place on that wood that would then be exported. Can the

minister confirm that?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Joining me, as we are adding staff, is Peter Jacobsen, the

executive director of compensation and business analysis, and Tim Bogle,

the director of compensation and business analysis.

The answer, which I just wanted to confirm for the member, is

yes.

J. Rustad: I’m glad to see we have five professionals helping the minister to

respond to that question. I do appreciate the answer, because I wasn’t

100 percent sure myself. I assumed that was the answer because all wood

that is harvested is, of course, subject to stumpage at varying levels,

depending on how it’s set and scaled and all the rest of those

components.

The minister, I think, has confirmed earlier that the Minister of

Finance has the ability to audit wood that is harvested, trees that are

harvested for stumpage. There’s a process of being able to review to

make sure that the wood that is harvested has stumpage that is collected

and that the process that can be audited and is audited. We know,

therefore, the amount of wood that’s being harvested that goes across

the scale, that stumpage is collected on…. We know what that amount

is.

I wonder if the minister could confirm, as well, that for

companies that are simply harvesting, whether they’re export or

otherwise, there is a record or a reporting as to that wood that is

sold, whether that wood is sold to other mills — because, obviously, it

would be a flow-through in terms of stumpage, and who would end up

paying the stumpage — or whether that that wood is sold to somebody

other than a domestic producer.

Hon. K. Conroy: To clarify, which

section is the member referring to?

J. Rustad: When I originally started asking the questions around this, this

obviously applies to this whole

section of 3 through — whatever end it

is — I think it is clause 16. But the point of asking this question

here, as opposed to at any one specific question, is because this

applies to this section. The purpose for asking the question is I’m

trying to determine the need for being able to do the audits on fee in

lieu when my understanding is, and the question once again to the

minister is….

The volume comes in, goes across the scale, and stumpage is

collected. My understanding is that companies have to report when they

sell that timber or that other companies have to report when the timber

is purchased. So we know, roughly, the volume that is harvested, the

volume that is sold to companies within British Columbia, which leaves a

net volume that would be potentially exported or that the company may

report as being exported.

So the reason I’m asking for that is if we know all of that

information, then we would know from that what the fee in lieu would be,

because, obviously, there’s an amount of wood that would be there. I’m

just curious if we have that level of information available to the

Finance Ministry and through to the Minister of Forests.

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Just so that the member has this clear, the audit is a function to

ensure that we do know what is happening with the fee in lieu with the

export timber. If it appears to be wrong, then this amendment gives the

Ministry of Finance the power to access that information. If there is a

bill owing, Finance can reach out and get that bill.

This is all similar power used with respect to stumpage. That was

brought in, in 2006 and has never been brought in for a fee in lieu.

That’s what this is about.

J. Rustad: The reason for asking the question around this is that if you have

the ability to audit the fibre that is harvested, if you have the

ability to audit the fibre that transfers to another mill, that leaves

what is left, which is what is exported.

Given that’s the case, between the wood that is harvested and the

wood that is sold off to mills in British Columbia to use it — and the

wood that is left to go out is that piece remaining — have there been

any discrepancies between the fee in lieu on the wood that is being

exported versus the other information that has been collected that can

identify how much wood a fee in lieu should have been collected

on?

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: What the member is implying is that every single load of wood in

this province is audited. It’s not. It’s an audit. I am pretty sure the

member knows what an audit is. They’re audits.

What we don’t have right now is the ability for the Ministry of

Finance to audit fee in lieu, like going out — the timber being

exported. They don’t have the ability to recoup funds if they find out

it’s missing. So now they can do an audit to find out if it is in fact

missing.

J. Rustad: I’m not arguing with the minister with regard to the necessary

need or the outcome that I think the minister is talking about, but I am

questioning the need to do it. If all the wood that comes across the

scale is measured….

It may be audited or may not be audited, depending on whether

there’s a need for audit, but it’s all coming across the scale. It’s

accounted for on the scale. Scale receipts are submitted to the

ministry. All of that information goes through. So all that’s accounted

for in terms of the wood that comes out of the forest. Companies may be

audited. They may find discrepancies in that. But all that’s accounted

for.

The wood that is then sold by a company — I’m assuming a logging

company as opposed to a processing company, but it may be a processing

company — is accounted for as well, which means the wood that is

exported would be accounted for by simply what didn’t fall in the other

categories.

What I’m wondering is if there have been any discrepancies that

have come up within the ministry data between the wood that’s accounted

for and stumpage that has been utilized versus the wood that has gone

out. If there have been, that’s good. I’m curious.

It’s not good; there shouldn’t be discrepancies. But if there have

been discrepancies, that’s good to know, because obviously that means

there needs to be a focus within the ministry. If there haven’t been

discrepancies, it’s the reason for asking the question. I’m wondering

why this would potentially be redundant in terms of the ability to go

out and do the analysis.

Hon. K. Conroy: The objective of this whole change is to permit the Ministry of

Finance to have the same capabilities to audit the fee in lieu of

manufacturing as are currently administered to the audits, like for

stumpage fees.

We need to have a modern tax system that works for everyone. It

includes the abilities to conduct audits and assessments. Being able to

collect that appropriate revenue is important to the Ministry of

Finance, obviously, and they need to collect that from the public

resources, which, of course, builds confidence in our system to

determine checks and balances.

[3:20 p.m.]

I think it’s important that, in addition, it’s been proven that

the mere existence of an audit program can promote voluntary compliance,

which we don’t have right now. This is a way of ensuring that we have

the ability to audit for the existing fee-in-lieu system.

J. Rustad: I don’t dispute the rationale that the minister is providing here.

I’m just disputing as to whether or not there is a need, because there

are other ways to get at the data, which is what I have been trying to

describe through this process.

Because all of the rest of it is accounted for as part of the

reporting in to the ministry, to the best of my knowledge, that means

what isn’t accounted for would be what would be potentially applied as a

fee in lieu, which is why I’m asking the question of whether or not

there have been any discrepancies in that information between what has

been accounted for and what hasn’t been accounted for and the fee in

lieu that’s applied for what hasn’t been accounted for.

Hence, surely the ministry has been doing some sort of analysis

that would have looked at that data and said: “It matches or it doesn’t

match, and we need to be able to take a closer look.”

Hon. K. Conroy: Because we were doing amendments to the Forest Act, it was

discussed with the Ministry of Finance that this was the time to ensure

that we had proper auditing procedures and the ability to issue

assessments, which we don’t have right now. The Ministry of Finance does

not have that ability right now — not only the ability to audit and

issue assessments but the ability to collect.

We know mistakes are made, and we want to make sure that those

mistakes aren’t made — that it’s a fair playing field for everyone.

You’re audited with stumpage. You’re audited with other royalties in

other ministries. This is one that wasn’t audited, so this was an

opportunity to bring in this amendment to the act to ensure that this

happens.

[3:25 p.m.]

J. Rustad: Maybe I’ll try this in a little bit simpler form. Has there been

any discrepancies between the stumpage that has been brought in, the

amount of wood that has been utilized locally and the amount of wood

that has been exported, based on the scale information that has come in,

or has the ministry not done this analysis?

Hon. K. Conroy: This is really not as simplistic a matter as the member is trying

to make it out to be. We need the audit to ensure whether there are

examples of this or not. We are pretty sure there are.

The Minister of Finance is very concerned about this — enough to

want it as an amendment to the Forest Act to ensure that we can do the

audit. Then we will know the numbers. We will know what’s happening. But

we need to do that audit. The Ministry of Finance needs to have the

ability to do that audit so they can determine what the differences are,

if there’s difference — exactly the same as when the member’s party

introduced the legislation in 2006 for stumpage.

There is an audit process for stumpage. There is no audit process

for this. So we are going to be bringing this in to ensure we now have

an audit process for this. That’s what it is.

J. Rustad: The minister is refusing to answer the question, which is fine.

I’ll just make the assumption that there has not been analysis done

between those two, and the ministry doesn’t know, and there’s just the

desire to put this in place. That’s fine, if that’s what the minister

would like to do.

It’s a simple question to ask: whether analysis had been done on

the data, on the core information that was there and available, that the

ministry has collected. But that’s okay.

Hon. K. Conroy: Of course an analysis was done, and the analysis showed we needed

to do an audit. That is why this legislation was being amended, so that

we can now do audits.

J. Rustad: It’s a shame that we got to the point of having to be frustrated

to try to get just that simple answer.

[3:30 p.m.]

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

What I’m wondering now is: can the minister make that audit

information or that review information available so that it can be plain

and simple? I’d be able to understand, as opposition, and others would

be able to understand that there seems to have been some discrepancies,

and therefore, this is coming in place.

I mean, I understand the desire and the want to be able to audit

this, but if there was information available, I’d certainly like to see

it. It would help me understand what has gone on in the process of

developing this piece of legislation.

Hon. K. Conroy: I’m just going to try to explain this one more time, because I

think the member might have misheard.

A system analysis was done, a process analysis was done, to

identify a gap in the legislation. The gap showed that the Ministry of

Finance had no ability to confirm or not.

[3:35 p.m.]

Once an exemption had been made so that someone could export,

there was no way to confirm that the fee in lieu paid was the right fee

in lieu. That was what the analysis showed, and that’s why this

legislation is here. I just wanted to make sure the member understood

that.

J. Rustad: I understand the analysis that was done on the legislation. That’s

not the analysis that I think the minister talked about just a few

minutes ago. We can perhaps go back to Hansard and look at it,

if you’d like.

The analysis that I was asking about is on the data of the logs

that are coming in, that are harvested, that go across the scale and any

discrepancies, versus what has been exported and whether or not that

analysis has been done. The minister seemed to have indicated that

analysis was done, and I was asking if that analysis could be available

to the Legislature, which was the question I had previously

asked.

Hon. K. Conroy: That is not what I indicated.

J. Rustad: Well, then maybe I can ask the question again. I can repeat it for

the minister, if she’d like.

Is that data available, any kind of analysis available, between

the wood that is exported, versus the wood that comes through the scale,

to indicate if there are any discrepancies in terms of a fee in lieu

that may or should have been charged or collected?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I’m trying to get this so that it’s…. What’s really important to

acknowledge is that all other systems in our ministry have those checks

and balances, have audits available, and this is the only part of the

ministry that doesn’t. And when you’re doing self-reporting, mistakes

can be made. So you have to ensure that if mistakes are made, we have an

audit that can drill down and find out if those mistakes were

made.

The member is trying to simplify it by saying: “When you do this

and this, you get this.” It’s like — I don’t know — one plus one equals

two. Well, we don’t have the ability to determine if those are the

actual numbers. We need to have an audit to show that, yes, this is what

is happening. We need to have an audit to make sure that those are the

right numbers that are coming back, because mistakes get made, and we

want to make sure that there is an audit in place to determine if there

were mistakes made. It’s exactly what happens with the stumpage

system.

J. Rustad: The minister could have just said: “No, the information hasn’t

been done. It’s not available.” That would have been fine. But we’ve

been dancing around this same question now for some time, so I’m just

going to have to take that as the minister says: “No, there has not been

analysis that has been done between the stumpage information that has

been collected and the fee-in-lieu information that has been collected

to see if there are any gaps.” That’s okay if the minister hasn’t done

that. It still doesn’t change bringing forward this amendment to the

legislation, and that’s fine.

I was trying to find out if there had been data that had been

available to point to the fact that there may have been a problem. Now,

that doesn’t change the minister’s desire to want to do this, the

Minister of Finance’s desire to want to do it. I’m just trying to

understand if there was empirical data that said: “Hey, we’ve got a

problem, and this is the solution.”

I’m assuming the minister has had enough consulting with her staff

on that and, like I say, has refused to answer that question. But maybe

if I could ask this question, then, since we can’t seem to get to the

data side. Is all wood that is potentially exported or all fee in lieu

that is potentially charged…? We’ll deal with wood residue in a minute.

But if all timber has the potential to be exported, does that go through

an excess test before it is allowed to be exported?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The overwhelming majority of all timber exports are put through a

surplus test.

J. Rustad: I’m happy to hear that, because my understanding is that that is

required. Maybe I need to just tighten that question up a little bit in

terms of: is all the wood that is exported from Crown land that’s

subject to stumpage — does that all go through an excess

test?

Hon. K. Conroy: There are small amounts of timber that have exemptions. Those

could be exemptions for distance to the domestic markets or the cost of

extraction. Any of those exemptions have to be approved by

OIC.

J. Rustad: I wasn’t aware of that, so that’s good information from the

minister. Thank you for that.

We have the excess test, which obviously puts a certain amount of

volume that is out there that is coming off that is available — for

potential to be blocked or purchased by local mills, by local production

facilities.

Once again, we’ve got scale information from stumpage that it

comes from. We’ve got information that’s available from the excess test.

Has there been any analysis on that to see if there are any differences

between what has come across the scale versus what have been put up on

the excess test?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I just want to clarify with the member, because the member seems

to be insinuating that this is not required and that for some reason,

this is just…. I don’t know if he thinks it’s frivolous or whatever or

not required.

But this is actually sound financial management. This is ensuring

audits are in place. This is ensuring that if there are mistakes made,

the Ministry of Finance has the ability to audit. That’s what this

amendment is about. It’s sound financial management.

J. Rustad: No, that’s not what I’m trying to insinuate. I understand the need

for audits. I understand the need for a process that goes

forward.

What I am trying to understand, though, is — after this length of

time, 15 years after the bill was put in place — whether or not there

have been any identifiable problems in the system, whether there are

discrepancies, whether the analysis has even been done to understand if

there are inconsistencies, which then would have put a red flag up to

say: “Hey, we got a problem.”

I understand the need to audit. I understand the need to want to

make sure that information is there and accurate. I support that

government needs to make sure that it’s collecting its

revenue.

But I wanted to understand whether or not the ministry has gone

through and actually done the work to do the analysis leading into this

or whether this has just been brought in because it happened to be

missing or there was a perceived problem.

Hon. K. Conroy: I believe I’ve answered this, but I will say it again. This was

brought in because we do not have the ability to audit as we do with

stumpage. Stumpage audits have shown that there have been mistakes, so

it is assumed that in a perfect world, people do make mistakes. The

audit process is being brought in so that checks and balances can be put

in place to ensure that if a mistake was made it could be

rectified.

J. Rustad: I’ll take the answer to that question as also a no. There hasn’t

been analysis done on either levels, as I have mentioned. Like I say,

that’s up to the ministry and the minister in terms of how she wants to

manage her ministry. That’s fine. Every minister is different in their

approach as to whether or not they ask for that kind of information or

if they just proceed with legislation.

It’s unfortunate, because it would be nice to know if there had

been problems. In particular, it would be nice to know whether that type

of information had been collected and analyzed. If there had been

problems, it should have been flagged. It should have been looked at

years ago, quite frankly, if there had been problems that had been

identified.

Moving on with that, since there isn’t an answer to either of

those questions on the analysis, I’ve looked at the definition under

section 127.1 of the Forest Act associated to wood residue. I’m

wondering if the minister can provide that here for the purpose of this

discussion. This is still under

section 3, under (c), where it talks

about wood residue.

Hon. K. Conroy: It’s a very long list, so I have some examples: wood chips, slabs,

edgings, shavings, sawdust and hog fuel.

[3:55 p.m.]

J. Rustad: I believe that was the list that was actually in the Forest Act,

so that’s good. Thanks to the minister for doing that, particularly so

that people understand what we’re talking about in terms of my next

questions associated with this.

This is something that I’m sure of, so I’m going to ask this

question. It may seem obvious, but I need to know in terms of this. If

we’re talking about an audit — we’re talking about auditing the fee in

lieu — is there a fee in lieu charged on wood residue if it is

exported?

Hon. K. Conroy: No.

J. Rustad: That being the case, I’m just curious why there’s a reference to

wood residue as part of this process that sets up the potential for

audits.

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: This is a way of having checks and balances in place. I’ll use a

pulp mill as an example. A sawmill is sending their hog fuel to a pulp

mill. The pulp mill already has a big huge pile of hog fuel, can’t take

any more at the time. The sawmill will ask for an exemption. For

instance, I know it happens in Castlegar. They send their chips across

the line to Kettle Falls, and they get an exemption to do

that.

This is a way of ensuring that that’s audited and what is being

requested as an exemption is being exempted.

J. Rustad: Hon. Chair, I have another follow-up question on that, but could I

ask for a brief recess?

The Chair: The House will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:03 p.m. to 4:10 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

J. Rustad: The minister gave the rationale, but I’d just like to say I’m just

curious in terms of what there is to audit in terms of the revenue to

the province for wood residue?

Hon. K. Conroy: This is a process of checks and balances. That’s what this is

about.

J. Rustad: Checks and balances I do understand. My understanding from our

conversation before is that this section, this part of this bill, is

being put in to make sure that things are being treated fairly so that

their revenue that’s expected to the Crown will be collected.

However, I’m just trying to understand. If there is no revenue

collected from wood residue — assuming that revenue would have been

collected during stumpage — I’m just curious as to why that component

would be part of an auditing process.

Hon. K. Conroy: It’s a process of checks and balances to ensure that when an

exemption is requested that it’s appropriately carried out.

J. Rustad: Okay. So I’m assuming, then, that auditing on the wood residue

that would be exported…. We’re talking about the chips and hog

components that would come from processing a log — or chipping a log, I

suppose.

Like I say, if this is the Minister of Finance that’s going in and

doing the auditing, why would the Minister of Finance be going in and

auditing the utilization or the export of wood residue when there is no

revenue component? There is nothing in here associated with the Ministry

of Finance.

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Again, it’s about ensuring that checks and balances are in place.

It ensures that the ministry isn’t limited when they go into an audit —

that they’re looking at all the information as to what has been exempted

and what has been exported.

J. Rustad: In the next part, (d) — so we’re talking

section 3(b), or (2)(d) —

it says, “a fee in lieu and the payment of a fee in lieu if the fee in

lieu relates to” and then under (ii): “timber referred to in

section

127.1 (

a) or wood residue referred to in

section 127.1 (

b) that is

removed from British Columbia on or after the date….”

Could the minister please explain why it’s referring to a fee in

lieu being collected on wood residue?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: This is done because we want to have a comprehensive and holistic

approach to reviewing the process to ensure we know that the actions are

undertaken in a timely manner. For instance, when you have a permit to

export, there’s a time frame attached to it. This is ensuring that those

are carried out in an appropriate way.

J. Rustad: The minister’s answer doesn’t make any sense, and I apologize for

saying it that way. Under this part (d), it says that “a fee in lieu and

the payment of a fee in lieu if the fee in lieu relates to…(ii) timber

referred to under

section 127.1 (

a) or wood residue referred to in

section 127.1 (

b) that is removed from British Columbia on or after the

date on which the paragraph comes into force.”

It clearly says a fee in lieu associated with wood residue. The

minister has said that there is no fee in lieu charged on wood residue.

So I’ll ask again. If this is an error in here, I don’t have a problem

with making an amendment, but it doesn’t make any sense that this is

referring to a fee in lieu on wood residue — something that is actually

going to be audited and that is not actually charged or

collected.

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Because the existing legislation authorizes the potential, this

provision covers the full scope.

J. Rustad: If I could just ask the minister to clarify. The potential for

charging a fee in lieu on wood residue — is that what the minister has

just said?

Hon. K. Conroy: Yes.

J. Rustad: Interesting. Okay. Perhaps, then, I really do need to ask this

question: do the minister and the ministry intend to start charging a

fee in lieu for wood residue? Exactly how would that work, given that

wood residue comes from processing a log provincially, and not

processing a log provincially is what a fee in lieu is charged for — a

fee in lieu of processing provincially? What we’re talking is the

residue that comes from processing a log. How is it that a fee in lieu

could potentially be charged on residue that has already been processed

locally?

Hon. K. Conroy: That’s a question the member might want to ask the people who,

when he was in government, originally wrote this legislation. We are not

contemplating a fee in lieu on wood residue.

J. Rustad: This piece of legislation amends and removes other things,

repealing

section 2, and adds and replaces this. Why would the minister

replace something that was flawed with something that is flawed? I don’t

understand why.

[4:30 p.m.]

This isn’t an issue of a wording change to an existing piece. This

is an actual piece of legislation that goes against a

section that has

been repealed. That doesn’t make any sense. If it doesn’t apply, it

doesn’t make any sense to have this in this piece of legislation. If I

can ask the minister why, and if there isn’t a good rationale as to why

that should be in there, then shouldn’t we remove it from this piece of

legislation that is before this House?

Hon. K. Conroy: The intent of this amendment is to add audit powers. That’s it.

It’s to add audit powers.

J. Rustad: We are going in a circle here, but I will ask the question again.

I understand the need for audit.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

I understand why the intention is in here, but there is nothing to

audit if there is no revenue collected. Therefore, that’s why I’m so

confused on wood residue. If there is no revenue that comes from it,

because a fee-in-lieu is charged on a log that is not processed in

British Columbia….

We’re talking about a log that has been processed. We’re talking

about the residue that comes from that log that is being processed, and

no fee is attached to it. So it makes no sense for me at all to see that

referenced in this piece of legislation, to be able to provide an audit

function on something that isn’t generating revenue.

Hon. K. Conroy: This amendment is a process audit as much as it is a financial

audit.

J. Rustad: That confuses me a little bit, as there is a reason for the

Minister of Finance representative to be here. It’s because this

particular audit is about revenue, as the minister had stated earlier,

with regard to this particular section, these sections of this

bill.

Is the minister saying this audit is more than a financial audit,

that it is also auditing components that are non-financial? That being

the case, what is the benefit or what is the analysis that the minister

is looking for to be able to improve how our forests are managed or

revenue to the province? I don’t understand, when we’re talking about

residue.

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The amendment was drafted to align with the current framework,

which does provide the authority for a fee-in-lieu.

J. Rustad: What we’ve determined so far, in the first three sections of this

bill, is that we have a piece of legislation which seemed to have been

rushed into the House. It’s being jammed through without proper debate.

It hasn’t had analysis done on data that’s available, and there are

clear errors in the bill, providing for auditing something that isn’t

generating revenue and doesn’t require to be audited and provides no

actual information or data to the ministry.

I have no more questions on

section 3. I’ll move to

section

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

J. Rustad: The minister is shaking her head. She should know her file. The

answer to the questions I’ve been asking up to date have not been

answered. There isn’t information available, so clearly what I’ve stated

is true. If it’s not true, then the minister could provide the answers

to the questions that I have been asking.

section 4. We’re in a situation here where I’m just curious

whether the minister could provide any examples of what has been

outlined here in this section.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: This amendment allows for an auditor to enter at any reasonable

time onto the land or premises to conduct an inspection or audit, as has

been referred to in the following sections, for a purpose of ensuring

compliance with the provisions of the act. So (

a) and (

b) are existing,

(

c) and (

d) are the new ones, and (

d) is, for instance, a place of

business where the records might reside. This gives the auditor the

ability to go into a business,

whereas right now we don’t have that

ability.

J. Rustad: I’m pretty sure the minister, in an earlier answer, provided the

rationale that the ministry does have the ability to go in and look at

records associated with stumpage and the payment of stumpage or, for

that matter, the harvest of Crown timber, and the fee in lieu was the

reason for this audit.

So I’m just curious. There seems to be overlapping, I guess….

Unless this is replacing the previous ability to go in and do audits, it

seems to be that it’s overlapping in terms of going in and looking at

things in two different areas, I suppose, of the act now. It may be that

I’m just not as familiar with the act as I need to be and that this

actually replaces the auditor’s ability to go in and to look at (

a) and

(

b) anyway.

Hon. K. Conroy: The previous powers to enter were repealed, and we’re adding a

more comprehensive amendment.

J. Rustad: That’s what I thought, but I’m glad I’ve got that

confirmed.

Perhaps the minister could provide information with regards to the

removal for British Columbia of timber referred to in

section 127.1(a),

wood residue referred to in

section 127.1, and there’s a (

b) afterwards.

I’m assuming that’s in reference to

section 127.1, as opposed to a typo

on this particular bill.

The reason for asking that is that I’d be interested to know

whether that’s a typo or not. But the reason for asking that particular

thing is I would like to understand what value or what benefit, what

we’re trying to track by doing an audit on wood residue that is

exported.

Hon. K. Conroy: The amendment was drafted to align with the current

framework.

J. Rustad: That didn’t answer either question as to whether the (

b) in

parentheses is a typing error or whether that is actually referencing

the bill, the Forest Act bill. That’s the first question. The second

question is: what benefit is being driven from doing an audit on the

wood residue that is exported?

Hon. K. Conroy: This is not a typo. The amendment was drafted to align with the

current framework, and it is around the fee in lieu.

J. Rustad: If the minister could perhaps answer the second part of that

question….

Hon. K. Conroy: It’s a process audit around the timely…. When wood residue has

been given a permit to export, if it’s done in a timely matter, it’s a

process audit.

J. Rustad: I keep focusing on this because I’m trying to understand the need

to audit this.

So you’ve got a permit to export it. If it’s exported, great. If

it’s not exported, great. I don’t understand what the requirement here

is. Is the intention of this piece to see if more wood residue is

exported than what is permitted? I’m trying to understand the reason for

the audit on wood residue.

[4:45 p.m. - 4:50 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Just to clarify, this amendment just gives the auditor the ability

to enter the place of business where the records are kept, which is

different from past legislation.

J. Rustad: It gives the auditor the ability to go into a place to audit for

(a), (b), (

c) and (d). I’m asking a question about the value or the need

or the information collected on (c), which is the wood residue. I’m

curious about it because where this goes is if there is…. I guess what

I’m trying to understand is: are there penalties? Are there interest

charges? Are there any other penalties, I guess you could say again,

associated with wood residue being exported when there’s no revenue due

to the Crown?

I’m trying to understand once again. You’re entering into a place

of residence so that they can audit for those four values. One of those

values is wood residue. I’m curious about why that would even be here,

as I’ve been talking about before, because it doesn’t seem to relate,

unless there is some form of penalizing a company that may or may not

export more or less wood residue.

Hon. K. Conroy: This could identify an issue of process. Parts of audits can be

about providing information about compliance. There is value in

that.

J. Rustad: Later in this particular part of the bill, it talks about interest

being charged or penalties, etc., for late payments and these types of

things. How do those apply to wood residue being exported?

Hon. K. Conroy: I want to point out that we’re not on that section. But if there

are no funds owing, there would be no penalty, so there would be no

funds owing.

J. Rustad: This seems like a make-work project. The minister has not provided

any sort of rationale or reason as to why this sort of information would

need to be audited, collected or processed. I know the minister is

shaking her head and thinking this is kind of a crazy question, but I’m

trying to understand why that piece, why wood residue, is in the bill —

and why the process we’re going through in terms of this. I understand

the other components, but it just doesn’t seem to make any

sense.

[4:55 p.m.]

Unless the minister has more information that would clear that up,

I’ll move on to another question. That is, obviously, through here,

through putting this in…. The minister has talked about there being some

discrepancies in whether it’s on stumpage or other things. There’s a

concern in here. Does the minister have an estimate as to how much may

not be collected associated with fees in lieu?

Hon. K. Conroy: As I said previously, we will not know numbers such as the member

is requesting until we have the ability to conduct audits.

J. Rustad: Is the minister saying there has not been any kind of analysis

through the Ministry of Finance as to the potential for lost

revenue?

I know when the Minister of Finance goes through and looks at all

other components of the budget, there are provisions that are put in

there. There’s analysis that is done to look at revenue collected or,

for example, personal taxation or corporate taxation. All of those sorts

of things have that kind of analysis that is added into it in terms of

what they think is not being collected. I’m wondering if that kind of

analysis has been done here for fees in lieu.

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: The Ministry of Finance roughly estimates up to 5 percent, but

they need an audit to confirm that.

I want to reiterate that the purpose of the amendments we’re

bringing in is to bring in audit and compliance powers that are similar

to audit and compliance powers that the Ministry of Finance currently

has to ensure compliance with all of their revenue programs. These

amendments are brought in to help to ensure a level playing field for

all companies in the province, and it would be through a fair regulatory

system.

It isn’t always about money. It’s also about a fair regulatory

system so that we and the Ministry of Finance know what we’re working

with and industry knows what they’re working with.

For the record, I don’t think anybody that is developing the bill

is doing it as a make-work project. I think the people in the Ministry

of Finance, and I know full well the people in the Ministry of Forests,

have plenty of work to do. This is not a make-work project. This is to

make a fair regulatory process for industry across the

province.

J. Rustad: Just to be clear, I wasn’t referring to this — on doing the audit

— as a make-work project. I was referring to the portion that is

relating to wood residue as a make-work project, because there doesn’t

seem to be any components to that. The minister shakes her head, but she

still has yet to provide any reason or rationale as to why that needs to

be audited. If she wants to provide that, that’s good. We’ll get a

chance to talk about that some more when we get to

section

That was my last question on

section 4.

Clauses 4 to 9 inclusive approved.

On clause 10.

J. Rustad: Clause 10, of course, gives the individual who’s doing the audit a

fair range of information. In particular, I want to start near the

bottom of 10 — well, not the bottom, I suppose, but a little ways down

on 10 — because I want to come back to this wood residue. Once again,

it’s mentioned here. It’s asking for the commissioner to be able to do

an assessment and an estimate of a person who removed from British

Columbia the timber or wood residue.

Once again, if there isn’t a financial component associated with

this or penalties associated with it, I’m wondering why, once again, the

commissioner would be required to try to estimate the wood residue that

would be exported.

Hon. K. Conroy: It’s a comprehensive amendment. It aligns with the current

framework.

J. Rustad: Thank you for that non-answer, to the minister. Under (1), it

talks about “may estimate the amount of the fee in lieu.” Could the

minister explain what the process would be for creating that

estimate?

Hon. K. Conroy: Could you just clarify that question, please?

Deputy Speaker: Could the member.

Hon. K. Conroy: Sorry, through the Chair.

[5:05 p.m.]

J. Rustad: Under clause 10, 142.52(1), “If it appears to the commissioner,

from an inspection or audit of any records or from other information

available, that an amount of a fee in lieu is required to be paid in

respect of a permit granted under an exemption, the commissioner may

estimate” the amount of fee in lieu required.

I’m just wondering on what basis, and what goes into a

commissioner making that estimate?

Hon. K. Conroy: It’s based on the information found in the audit and the

information gathered from the exemption holder.

J. Rustad: It says here: “If it appears to the commissioner, from an

inspection or audit of any records or from other information available.”

Could the minister provide what “other information available” may

mean?

Hon. K. Conroy: An example of other information that could be acquired is

information from the Ministry of Forests, for example. Sometimes the

Ministry of Finance gets tips. They get other information through a tip

from another company, and they would be able to utilize that.

J. Rustad: I understand what that may be, but I’m a little confused as to

what information may come from the Ministry of Forests with regards to

information that the auditor or the commissioner may be looking

at.

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Some examples are the load slips for transportation of materials,

like logs, hog fuel; the compliance and enforcement reports; the

investigation material information that is acquired through those

compliance and enforcement reports. Because we want to ensure that the

forests are being properly managed, we have that information that the

Ministry of Finance would have access to.

J. Rustad: I understand the load slips coming in and the wood that’s going

across the scale. I understand the compliance, the audits that are done

on wood that does go across the scale to make sure that — what do we

call them? — the stratas are done properly and assessed.

[5:15 p.m.]

I understand all of those sorts of components that go in. But all

of that information is known and recorded, which goes back to the

earlier question that I had. If all of that information is recorded and

it lines up with what’s being exported, what I’m trying to understand is

how a commissioner would come to a conclusion that more wood — or less

wood, potentially — has been exported without a fee in lieu charged when

all of that information has already come across the scales and already

gone through that auditing process. What additional information may lead

a commissioner to believe that additional wood has been

exported?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: This is something that we have canvassed before, but this is a

process of checks and balances. We have to ensure that we have a system

in place that works, that the information that we’re getting is

accurate, because mistakes can be made.

We know with stumpage systems that sometimes mistakes are made,

and we only know that because there’s an audit in place for the stumpage

system. That’s why we need to have a system in place for the

fee-in-lieu. We have to make sure that we have audits in place so that

we can ensure that if there are mistakes happening, we can catch those

mistakes.

I think British Columbians expect this. They want to see value for

their asset. I mean, the asset belongs to the people of British

Columbia, and they want to see that they are getting fair value for

their asset. I believe industries in British Columbia expect a fair

regulatory process. This ensures that that’s in place.

J. Rustad: I’ll thank the minister for that passionate speech. It wasn’t the

question I asked, I guess.

But what other information may be looked at? As the minister had

said from the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource

Operations, that would be part of information that would inform a

commissioner to come to a conclusion that there was a variation or a

problem with the amount of wood that’s being recorded under a

fee-in-lieu.

Like I say, I understand stumpage, and I understand the

recordkeeping across the scales. I understand all of the auditing and

those components that help to verify the stratas that all of the wood

comes into. I’m just wondering if there is any other information that is

available that would be available to an auditor, and, if so, what that

other information might be.

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: I provided the member information with what the ministry would

provide, including things like weigh slips and information like that. I

did say we do need the audits to get more information, which is one of

the reasons we’re doing the audits. It’s process as well as

financial.

The other information, as listed in the amendment, gives us to use

information in individual audits other information that may be acquired.

Because all audits…. They’re individual, but they’re also unique.

They’re all different. It’s not one-size-fits-all when it comes to an

audit.

J. Rustad: Maybe I need to put it in a different perspective. When the

information is available, the trees move across the scale. Trees come

in, and they move across the scale. If it goes by the scale, if it

doesn’t go on the scale, obviously there is an error that is being made,

intentional or otherwise, and that needs to be picked up by an

audit.

The challenge here is that there is a commissioner that is going

to need to create an estimate. In order to create an estimate, there has

to be some way to be able to assess what information should have been

there. For example, if every second load doesn’t go across the scales,

there’s got to be some way to be able to create an estimate as to what

that is.

My concern with this is if the commissioner doing the audit needs

to start looking at things like cruise data or inventory information

from an area that has been harvested, that creates all kinds of

challenges, because that information can be very inaccurate. A 20

percent plus or minus is not uncommon in that kind of data.

So that’s why I’m asking about what kind of information may go in

to the commissioner with respect to trying to do an estimate if the

commissioner thinks that there is an error, or that there is wood that

is unaccounted for. That’s why I’m asking these questions. I want to

understand what goes in and what the commissioner could potentially look

at and have some assurances that the data that they’ll look at will be

accurate, and that it won’t create some distortions that perhaps don’t

exist.

[5:30 p.m.]

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Hon. K. Conroy: We’ve given some examples of what would be used in an audit. I

don’t know if the member has ever been audited before, but when you’re

audited, there is not a set example of the things that are itemized in

an audit process. The auditor is not going to be able to say what

they’re going to ask until they actually get in and see the information

that they’re looking at that the company has. We’re not trying to

withhold information here. That’s the way audits are done.

I’m not quite sure what the member is asking for. I mean, we’ve

given you the information that we know that an auditor would use, like

the load slips — things like that. But it’s totally dependent on the

auditor, and they will develop their information that’s required once

they get in and see the information, once they get in and start doing

the audit. That’s the way audits are done in any sector, not just in

this one.

J. Rustad: I have been audited. I’ve gone through audits more than once, both

in the company that I had as well as personal. So I do understand the

information that an auditor looks for and the types of questions that an

auditor does ask.

But like I say, the purpose for asking the questions around this

is particularly because of my concern about the accuracy of data and

whether or not data like that would be considered to be used as part of

an audit. I understand entirely if it’s the information that the

minister described, because that information is obvious and would need

to be looked at to make sure that there is the comparison on

that.

But when you’re in a situation where there may be a discrepancy

between what is estimated to come out of the woods and what has gone

across the scales and what may have been exported, that’s the question

that I’m looking at — how far back an auditor would look in terms of

trying to get an estimate of information and whether or not the source

data is accurate or reliably accurate enough to be able to have an audit

come through and be reasonable.

[5:35 p.m.]

That’s why I’m asking that question about things like inventory,

things like crews information, that may be flagged and be looked at as a

consideration. If the minister is suggesting that that won’t be used,

then that’s good. But if it is something that could potentially be used,

then that raises a concern for me.

So that’s why I’m asking that question. I don’t know if the

minister can confirm that sort of answer or not, but I’ll give her an

opportunity if she’d like to.

Hon. K. Conroy: Audits are not a one-sided process for the ministry. There are

ongoing discussions with the industry. It’s an iterative process. There

is an opportunity to raise concerns. If the company is concerned about

any of the information that is gathered, they can have those

discussions; they can talk about it. And if they’re still not happy with

the process, there is an appeal process, which is coming up in a clause

further on. But there is that whole appeal process as well. It’s in the

amendment.

J. Rustad: Hon. Chair, I have to apologize. I’m getting a little tired, but I

would like to ask the minister if she could just explain…. When it talks

about “an amount of a fee in lieu…required to be paid in respect of a

permit granted under an exemption,” could you just explain “exemption”

again? Sorry, this is once again under 10, just the first, 142.52(1),

where it just talks about “a permit granted under an

exemption.”

I guess I’m just getting tired. I apologize for this. It’s a

simple question. But just if the minister could explain what the

exemption is?

The Chair: The House will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:39 p.m. to 5:49 p.m.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

Hon. K. Conroy: Just for those people riveted to this that are watching, the

question was: what is an “exemption” in this amendment?

[5:50 p.m.]

The provincial export is a two-step process. You need to set

exemption from requirement for domestic manufacturer, so you have to

make sure that the item can’t be utilized somewhere domestically. An

exemption can be either an OIC or a ministerial order. Once you have the

exemption, you need a permit. You pay the fee in lieu on the volume on

the permit.

J. Rustad: Sorry for having to ask that question. I thought that’s what it

was, but I was worried about the next question that I need to ask. I

wanted to make sure that I was clear on that.

Now on (2), we’re back down to wood residue and doing this audit

associated with wood residue. When we get to

section 13, I guess, or 12

— somewhere in there, when it starts talking about penalties and

interest and those sorts of things — I’m just wondering. If wood residue

is exported under a permit and is found to be more or less than what was

in the permit — more, I suppose, than the permit — is that potentially

subject to a penalty or some sort of a charge?

Hon. K. Conroy: Under these amendments, under these powers, there are no

penalties, because there are no fees in lieu on residue. But there could

be non-compliance with the Forest Act.

[5:55 p.m.]

J. Rustad: I think I understand what the minister said, then, because a

permit is required to export wood residue. If more wood residue is

exported than what was in the permit, there could be, potentially, a

penalty or charge associated with the export. Even though that excess

wood residue could be taken to the dump and gotten rid of or whatever

else the case may be, there would be an accounting, in some way, for a

product that collects no revenue for the province, that is considered a

waste product, although obviously it’s utilized by the forest

sector.

But there could be a potential penalty. That, as I assume now,

from our conversation before, was the reason for doing an audit on wood

residue.

Perhaps the minister could just confirm that.

Hon. K. Conroy: We do have the ability to share the information that we would

acquire under an audit if information like that came up. That would be

passed on to enforcement and compliance under the Forest Act.

J. Rustad: It would have been nice if the minister had said that right from

the beginning. It would have saved us a bunch of time talking about wood

residue in terms of the process of going through an auditing on

it.

I’ll move on and talk about…. A little bit farther down, it says:

“the person who removed from British Columbia the timber or wood

residue.” I just want to confirm. I’m sure that the minister isn’t

talking about the truck driver that goes across the border with a

truckload of chips or whatever the case may be.

In referring to “person” under this, just to have confirmation, is

that the permit holder, which would likely be a corporation or some

other entity? Potentially, it could be an individual in terms of woodlot

or otherwise. But most likely, that reference to “person” is not meant

to be an individual but to an entity that would hold the permit or have

the rights for harvesting.

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: In this amendment…. So (4) is if a person has a permit, and (5) is

in the case where a person doesn’t have a permit. So it’s either the

person driving the truck and has timber on that truck and removed it

from B.C. and did not have a permit, or the person that owned the wood

and exported it without a permit. So either of them would be liable,

because you can’t export unless you have a permit to export.

J. Rustad: But as the minister knows…. The reason for asking this question is

if company XYZ hires somebody to take wood across the border, is the

minister saying that the person that takes wood across the border

without a permit or in excess of the permit is the one who is liable, or

is it the company that has the rights to the timber that is responsible?

That’s why I’m asking — when it defines it as “person,” whether it would

include an entity.

[6:05 p.m.]

Hon. K. Conroy: It depends on the circumstances. It might not necessarily be the

truck driver. It’s generally the owner. The owner could be the truck

driver. So we’re just covering all bases.

J. Rustad: Thanks. I didn’t realize this question was so complex. So Canfor,

if they happen to take stuff across the border…. If a truck driver takes

stuff over the border and it was Canfor that was the original logger of

that wood, I’m assuming it’s not Don Kayne or shareholder XYZ but the

corporation that’s responsible in terms of it.

Hon. K. Conroy: If the corporation has the permit, they’re covered under

section

4, so they would pay the fine.

J. Rustad: That’s why I just wanted to make sure that when it talked about a

person, we weren’t talking about the person. It may be the person, but

it may go back to whoever hired the person.

The next thing that it talks about, still under clause 10…. We get

to (7), where it says: “(

a) a fee in lieu estimated under subsection

(1) is deemed to have been due on the date on which the permit was granted,

and (

b) a fee in lieu…under subsection (2) is deemed to have been due on

January 1 of the year in which the timber or wood residue referred to in

that subsection was removed from British Columbia.”

I won’t bother going into the repetitiveness of the wood residue.

What I’m curious about, in particular…. A permit could be good for five

years. The wood might not have been exported. Well, maybe…. Sorry. I’m

thinking about a cutting permit that could be good for five years. I

don’t know about an export permit. I’m seeing your staff behind you

shake their heads, nod their heads, so I’m getting guidance from them in

terms of it.

But I guess I should ask what length of time a permit is valid for

and w